Talk:Khirbet Qeiyafa

Exact location?

Can someone please pinpoint this place on a map? Thanks, Happy138 (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Got it: 31.696423,34.957423

Probably not Azekah

Speaking with Israeli Archeologists - it became obvious that although last year they did think it might have been Azekah - it is now obvious that it is not. See here in the Hebrew Wiki. Best, Happy138 (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I really do not see the reason for this section because it does not matter but if it is to remain. I think you should supply a cite Reargun (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the language Hebrew?

Just as a matter of information for those who seem to care about this question: it's very, very difficult to distinguish between Hebrew and Phoenician for texts from the 10th century, as the languages are very similar, there are very few texts available, and there's the problem of dialects. So although scholars will inevitably have opinions, there's going to be a long way to go before there's consensus. In other words, we shouldn't make a big deal of this aspect in our article.PiCo (talk)

Yitzhak Sapir's comments on Galil's proposal:

The following comments are from Professor Sapir, an authority in this area - note incidentally that he feels the language is not actually Hebrew, although it's not clear what he really means - after all, what is Hebrew in this context?:

Dr. Galil's reading is very interesting. It seems to me that he apparently reads it as follows:

אל תעש ועבד אל שפט עבד ואלמנ. שפט יתם וגר. רב עלל. רב דל ו אלמנ. שקמ יבד מלכ I can't figure out the last line completely.

Now, in place of his first line which appears to invoke a god (El) which he translates as "the Lord", one can read (this is suggested in the primary publication by Dr. Misgav): אל תעשק. This would be:

אל תעשק עבד. אל ת / שפט עבד ואלמנ.

Don't oppress the slave. Don't J / udge a slave and widow ...

This reads much better than reading a divine invocation unrelated to the rest of the social commands. However, the Taw of יתם 'orphan' is now part of תשפט 'judge', (where it fits much better since it's on the same line). Since the Mem of יתם 'orphan' is reconstructed, we're left only with the yod of יתם intact, right next to the Taw. Now, Ada Yardeni reads here two Taws so I guess we can read one Taw for תשפט and another for יתם which flows in from the line below. But I think a better suggest might be:

אל ית/שפט עבד ואלמנ שפט / גר.

A slave and widow should not be judged the judgement of a stranger. Further down, it seems that the word ביד "at the hand of" was misspelled as יבד in Galil's reading.

While I can't figure out the last line completely, it seems the translation ends one word before the end of the line. We have גר תם but only גר 'stranger' appears to end the translation.

In any case, the first four lines would then read:

אל תעשק עבד. אל ית שפט עבד ואלמן שפט גר. רב עלל. רב דל. ו אלמן שקם יבד מלך.

The most out of place word in the translation is שקם 'rehabilitate' which seems to use a modern Hebrew reading for the word. The word is used in the Song of Deborah, but its meaning there is completely unclear. To me it seems more likely the meaning there is different from modern Hebrew.

The word אלמן may point to a Canaanite language. I personally don't think עשה is a good enough indicator of Hebrew. But אלמן has a lamed which points to non Aramaic (Ugaritic/Hebrew) .

Against this is the word יתשפט "shall [not] be judged (pl)" in my reading. (The plural means that a long vowel at the end of the word is not present in the orthography) . The use of Hitphael as passive is generally identified with Aramaic languages (and in particular, the passive of שפט in Hebrew is Niphal, not Hithpael). Also, in Biblical Hebrew, the Hiphtael forms were innovated to become Hithpael. But this process did not occur on roots having Shin (and some other letters). In this language, the innovation is more complete than in Hebrew.

Taken together the language of the inscription is probably a NWS language that is not Hebrew but very close to it.

In favor of Galil's reading, I find the consistent message of social justice. Such a message goes well with the place where it was found -- next to the gate of the city. Slaves, widows and orphans were apparently located at the gate of the city, where also judgement would be rendered. In this sense we read Deut 14:21, Deut 14:28-29, Deut 23:16. Dr. Faust writes about this in his book Israelite Society in the Period of the Monarchy, p. 116-117, suggesting that the "City Gate" is not just the rather small area of the gate but a quarter of the city next to the gate where the poor resided. It was apparently a poor man's "bill of rights" stele. Even if the poor couldn't read it, the elders of the city could and it served as a sort of social contract between the two classes.

> אל ית/שפט עבד ואלמנ שפט / גר.

Another possibility that may address some of the issues of the rather odd form of יתשפט is that the reading was אל ישפט which was then corrected to אל תשפט. Given such a reading, there is no real barrier to identify the language as Hebrew. However, I personally feel that we don't really know much about the languages of that period to be able to classify what is Hebrew and what is not Hebrew.

Yitzhak Sapir —Preceding unsigned comment added by PiCo (talk • contribs) 11:51, 2 February 2010

Note about sock puppetry

BerelZ (talk · contribs) is Reargun (talk · contribs), I've left tags and a note suggesting that if Reargun wants to use an alternate account he must tag it as such. Dougweller (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Proto-Canaanite or Hebrew script

I don't know what's been going on here, but the [1] used for a claim with an edit summary "unequivocally stating that the written in Hebrew alphabet (and Hebrew language" doesn't seem to say that at all, and a related page on the same site [2] says "the letters are very archaic in form, in the style known as Proto-Canaanite script." plus two more mentions that it is Proto-Canaanite on that page. There are other sources that say the same thing, including an article by Garfinkel, which I've added. Dougweller (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I see my sources have been removed, and a source used to call it 'Hebrew writing' [3]. This is confusiong between the language and the script. I can find no sources suggesting it is in 'Hebrew' script. As an example, something can be written in English or in French but it will be written in the same script - our alphabet. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if it was me who removed your source, but I think that sources (reliable ones, and their interpretation by those qualified to do so) lies at the heart of the problems I see with this article. In short, we need to gather ourselves some genuinely reliable sources.

Here are the sources currently being used:

• Reuters, "Archaeologists report finding oldest Hebrew text", Ari Rabinovitch, October 30, 2008
• "Khirbet Qeiyafa Identified as Biblical 'Neta'im'", Science Daily; Retrieved 26 March 2011.
• Shtull, Asaf (21 July 1993). "The Keys to the Kingdom", Haaretz; Retrieved 2011-07-14.
• "Khirbet Qeiyafa: Sha’arayim", by Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor, The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, Volume 8, Article 22 ISSN 1203-1542
• "Khirbet Qeiyafa: Absolute Chronology"Finkelstein, Israel; Eli Piasetzky (June 2010), Tel Aviv, Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 37 (1).
• http://newmedia-eng.haifa.ac.il/?p=2043 (a media release from the University of Haifa)
• http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-01/uoh-mah010710.php, University of Haifa press release, 7 Jan. 2010 (a link to the same press release)
• http://qeiyafa.huji.ac.il/ostracon2.asp
• Dr Christopher Rollaston, "Reflections on the Qeiyafa Ostracon"
• Ethan Bronner (2008-10-29). "Find of Ancient City Could Alter Notions of Biblical David", New York Times. Retrieved 2008-11-05.
• Associated, The (30 October 2008). "Have Israeli archaeologists found world's oldest Hebrew inscription?", Associated Press. Haaretz. Retrieved 2011-07-14.
• "ASOR 2007 Conference abstracts" (dead link)
• Trackback URI (March 4, 2010). "Khirbet Qeiyafa identified as biblical "Neta’im", University of Haifa. Retrieved 2011-07-14.
• Draper, Robert (December 2010). "David and Solomon"
• National Geographic. Retrieved 2011-07-14.
• Horvat Qeiyafa: The Fortification of the Border of the Kingdom of Judah by Yossi Garfinkel – Hebrew University of Jerusalem ; Sa’ar Ganor.
• Israel Antiquities Authority (dead link)

These sources are of varying degrees of usefulness. Several are journalism, reporting on press releases, papers etc - they are not reliable sources, as journalists seldom understand the intricacies of archaeological issues. Many of them are rather old now - this is important, because interpretations change as consensus develops (or fails to) over time. And some are from primary sources which are reliable in themselves but represent the views of individual scholars in what is a very contentious area.

So we need to refine our sources. And we need also to drastically shorten the article so as to focus on facts and areas of agreement. There are in fact precious few of these. PiCo (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

All the scripts go back to the Proto-Sinaitic script and from there the Phoenician script; and most serious academics have labeled this impossible to actually correctly decipher (i.e. all "translations" are mere guesses and tenuous "reconstructions") considered this inscription to be some proto-Canaanite script and language or Proto-Phoenician script, etc. Interestingly both the Arabic and modern Hebrew script both descend from the Aramaic script. Putting aside the Samaritan script that some scholars state may be a branch that historically broke off from the Phoenician script (or the debated "paleo-Hebrew" script); however the oldest Samaritan text (i.e. in the Samaritan script) available to academics is very late; in the 16th century CE.Historylover4 (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

source

Gilabrand, why do you think http://www.foundationstone.org is a reliable source? It is run by a few settler rabbis and the most qualified of them seems to have a masters degree. Zero^talk 11:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Why would the reliability of sources on archaeological finds be compromised by where the author lives or their religious vocation? Just the opposite could be said in this case where the archaeological find pertains to the ancient area of Judea, where settlers live today and the issues raised are also relative to biblical nuances. I haven't found the source in the article itself, so I'm not sure what it references. But your comment doesn't do that either. Being a settler and rabbi, in and of itself, is no more compromising for reliability than being a Peace Now activist. A personal opinion on or preference of either seems irrelevant. I've also looked around and found no sources that challenge the reliability of the website regarding the information it publishes. MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Reliability is not a default position. What makes this a reliable site? The only person there that seems to have anything approaching a knowledge of archaeology is Asher Altshul, who "completed a degree in Archaeology and General Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Asher finished the two year Ministry of Tourism course and is a licensed Tour guide. He is currently completing a Masters Degree in Classical Archaeology at the Hebrew University."[4]. No peer reviewed publications, etc. So no, it's not a reliable source for this article. Dougweller (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The primary concern was that place of residence and rabbinical vocation of organization members do not compromise its reliability. And though they may not have peer reviewed publications (not necessarily a requirement), they seem to have a little bit of the etc. Altshul is listed as a first expert in a film on The Daniel Project which is featured on Documentary TV,[5], and their site says it is getting more extensive distribution,[6], but I haven't found verification for it elsewhere yet. He is also an opening reference in a BBC article on Archeology in Jerusalem,[7], though not in the context of this subject. I'm not sure that makes him more reliable but it seems to extend his credentials a little. The organization itself was invited by the excavation director, Prof. Yosef Garfinkel, and The Hebrew University, to develop the project,[8], which adds to their reliability. Their site resources are quite extensive on this project but they're difficult to navigate because the menu is somewhat slide-erratic. Their wide affiliations and resources might, however, fulfill the requirement for reliability. I don't know. They seem to have a lot more behind them than appears on the surface. At any rate, considering their own sources being a part of the excavation project itself, it seems the information that was referenced to them, is much the same as what's in the Hebrew University excavation site,[9], which might make it possible to cite that as the reference for it. MichaelNetzer (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what are we supposed to find at [10]? Appearing in a "documentary film" means nothing, there are thousands of "documentary films" that claim all sorts of stuff, from alien visitations, ghosts, time travel, you name it. Besides that, even eminent film makers often include people with fringe opinions to make the film more exciting, it doesn't mean we have to accept what they say. Zero^talk 00:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Zero, my mistake. There were a lot of links and I mixed one up. Here's the right one,[11] that shows the Hebrew University project on Khirbet Qeiyafa inviting The Foundation Stone to head the project. And I did qualify the documentary film as not necessarily adding to reliability, but maybe to credentials in being sought as an expert. I think, though, that with the organization being trusted to develop the project itself by the university and Prof. Garfinkel, then this adds to their reliability as a source. MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

FoundationStone can't be a reliable source - this is an academic topic and "reliable sources" are academics with a background in a relevant discipline - archaeology and linguyistics. PiCo (talk) 05:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• The content referenced to Foundation Stone is the history section of the article, not information about archaeology or linguistics. Reliability would then need be pertinent in an educational context for the information sourced to them. Here are new sources for that context.

1. The Hebrew University and excavation director have appointed Foundation Stone to oversee the development of the project.[12]
2. The New York Times reports that Foundation Stone is financing the excavation in the context of Jewish education.[13]
3. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that Foundation Stone is an educational organization encouraging volunteers to join the dig.[14]
4. Haaretz reports that Foundation Stone is a Jewish educational organization bringing volunteers to work and learn national and historical lessons at the site.[15]
5. Arutz Sheva reports that Foundation Stone is underwriting the project and turning the site into an educational attraction.[16]

• This seems to constitute sufficient reliability for the historical/educational content. If there are no objections, I'll restore the references. MichaelNetzer (talk) 08:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd still avoid Foundationstone as a source. Try looking up "Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Judean Shephelah: Some Considerations (by) Yehudah Dagan". This should come up on Google as a PFD file. Dagan is an archaeologist and the paper is published through the Israel Antiquities Authority. All in all it's much more impeccable. PiCo (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added Dagan's conclusion to the article. There's room to reference him also in the history but the FS content is significant and proper for this project. I'll come back to it soon. MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't Dagan's conclusions I was interested in so much as the basic info at the head of the article - where the place is, how big, that sort of thing. PiCo (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The basic info is already in the article and well sourced. Dagan's info is technical and detailed and would clutter it up. People who want that can read it in the sources. His conclusion is more important here. MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Etymology section

I've deleted the Etymology section, and I'd better explain as one editor seems to want it in. Put simply, what was there was not an etymology at all. The etymology of a word is its linguistic origin, so if you want to talk about the etymology of Khirbet Qeiyafa you'll have to talk about what these words mean in Arabic and the trilateral roots involved and maybe a connection to an underlying Hebrew original if there is one. That's what the word "etymology" means. PiCo (talk) 07:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Then it would be more sensible to change the name of the section than delete important well sourced information. Don't be so aggressive and try to improve the article instead. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

PiCo wants to remove the Etymology section and "Elah Fortress" references from the article. Here's his reasoning that he left at my talk page after I reverted his edit which didn't explain itself sufficiently.

"I think this really belongs on the article talk page, since it concerns editing the article, but I'll answer here.

First the etymology question: The etymology of a word means its linguistic origins, and there's no way that the phrase "Khirbet Qeiyafa" has anything to do with David (with the word David that is - etymology is about words). But more important, no etymology is needed - this is an archaeological site, why would yopu need to find out where the name comes from?

Second, the use of the phrase "Elah Fortress": this just looks strange; it's not a name used even in the Bible. All the literature calls it Khirbet Qeiyafa." --PiCo

While you make an interesting point about the section title being "Etymology", I've looked around for the meaning of the word Qeiyafa in Arabic to see if it has any relation to Daoud or David or anything close to it. I haven't found anything yet but I'm not sure it can be discounted without more research. But I do think the local Beduin name bears mention, and maybe even expanded upon a little more. I'd suggest we look around a little more and if needed change the name of the section to something like "Local name" or some such. It can also be inserted into another section but none are suitable. And it's not proper to put in the lead unless there's more on it in the body of the article.

On the use of "Elah Fortress". It might look strange to you but it's used often when referencing the site by very reliable sources. [17], [18], [19], [20].

I see you've since deleted Etymology again before seeing through the discussion and waiting for a response to your message which I was researching and preparing. This is considered aggressive editing and frowned upon in WP which is a collaborative project and asks to settle disputes by trying to come to an agreement instead. You're coming precariously close to being disruptive and should try to exercise more restraint. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Settler mouthpiece Arutz Sheva is not a reliable source. Zero^talk 08:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue the reliability of Arutz Sheva as a source right now. But this is the second time on this talk page that you've dismissed reliability based on sources pertaining to settlers, and somewhat pejoratively at that. For the record, I don't think it's proper for a Wikipedia admin (or any editor) to impose their personal views on content in this way. If you don't think Arutz Sheva is a reliable source, the reason should not be because A7 is a "settler mouthpiece". --MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd never heard of Aretz Sheva till Zero mentioned it here. I looked it up on google, but the first thing that came up was the wikipedia article (who says wikipedia has no influence!) From what I read, Aretz S seems the very opposite of reliable - a religious Zionist news network with, to say the least, an agenda. Give them a wide berth I say! PiCo (talk) 10:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

"Kirbet" means ruins, specifically a small ruin; "Qeiyafah" has no meaning that I'm aware of and might be a distortion of some older, pre-Arabic name (just a guess).PiCo (talk) 08:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It is an old Arabic name. The Survey of Western Palestine (1880-ish) suggested "the ruin of tracking foot-steps". Whatever that means. Zero^talk 11:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

A7 is unreliable because it is not reliable. Everyone knows it is not a normal news agency but a political organization. The only thing it might be reliable for is quotations of persons of similar political persuasion. It is ridiculous to trust it for a claim about Bedouins, just like we wouldn't trust the PA newspaper for an unsupported statement about Jews. Zero^talk 11:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite. But even if Aretz S were reliable, I still wouldn't place anything on modern Bedouin calling a place after David, any more than I believe that the Devil's Causeway is the work of Old Nick. This should be left out. PiCo (talk) 12:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If a reliable reference is found giving the Bedouin name as "Khirbet Daoud", it is not up to PiCo to question their motives. You'll notice no one has inserted the claim that they called it Khirbet Daoud because "it's really, absolutely the place where our divinely anointed king slew Goliath", or any claim about who this "Daoud" actually is. Believe anything you wish, it's their name and a perfectly valid addition to the article. Having said that, AS is not a WP:RS. Poliocretes (talk) 12:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Poliocretes, though of course it isn't "etymology". Zero^talk 13:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I put Qeiyafa through an online Arabic English dictionary. The first "a" is a long sound "aleph", the second would normally be a short "h" the way PiCo spelled it above (قيافه). But it's not certain from the English spelling and it brought up nothing anyway. So I also tried it with a long "a" at the end (قيافا). It came up "Caiaphas", the high priest of the Sanhedrin who according to the story condemned JC to the Romans. I remember hearing his name in Arabic before. I'm pretty fluent in the language. Aside from maybe the word being a high literal form of the word "stand" as in 'the stand', it doesn't bring anything else to mind. Caiaphas also doesn't make much sense, but if such a conjecture were to show up anywhere, it would be quite suggestive. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Arutz Sheva is an RS. We don't dismiss as RSs any source that an editor indicates is religious. Or that in the editor's subjective view "has an agenda". If it meets our RS criteria. We even have used the Palestinian Intifadah (if I recall the name correctly) as an RS.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • There isn't a consensus in Wikipedia that Arutz Sheva is an RS. This is clear from previous discussions at the noticeboard and by default, sources don't qualify as RS. It's an RS in the same sense that The New Light of Myanmar is an RS. AS/INN is presumably fine as a source for the opinion of the settler movement with the opinions attributed to them. It can't reasonably be considered a reliable source for unattributed statements of fact. Many of the people who have advocated its use in that way in the past have already been topic banned, a trend I fully expect to see continue because, in my view, there is a very fundamental incompatibility between the belief that this kind of source is a reliable source for facts and the hard reality of the rules that govern content. It's the same kind of incompatibility that exists between the widespread belief that the Bible and it's derived sources in the Intelligent Design movement are reliable sources for statements of fact about the modern evolutionary synthesis and the hard reality of the rules in place that mandate the use of genuinely reliable sources. Regarding Palestinian Intifadah which is probably Electronic Intifada, as far as I'm aware there is no consensus that EI is an RS for unattributed statements of fact on Wikipedia. If you can provide examples where it is being used it that way I will have a look at them. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

To summarise (since we've probably reached the point where people start to repeat themselves), and remembering that this thread is about the section headed Etymology: 1. We've pretty much agreed that "David" is not an etymology of "Khirbet Qeiyafa". 2. We don't actually have an etymology for "Khirbet Qeiyafa" - some interesting leads ("Ruins of Tracking Footsteps", "Ruins of Caiaphas"...), but no actual etymology. Therefore the section heading should be deleted. That leaves the question of what to do with the actual content of the section - the material about David, sourced from Aretz S. That's a separate question. But I think for the time being we need to delete the section heading, as there's no content to go in it. PiCo (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The material about David is not sourced to Arutz Sheva anymore, though all the reasons given for AS non-reliability seem to be biased and POV driven. Making arguments here on sweeping grounds of "religion" and "settlers" being unreliable violates WP neutrality policy. The material is now sourced to an RS organization appointed to develop the project by the Hebrew University. We also don't just "delete" section headings. We change them to better reflect the content. Wholesale removal of important sourced material does not improve the encyclopedia. I'm suggesting "Name history" instead of etymology. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That's ok by me. I've made a few small edits that I hope are explained in the edit summary, but question me here if you need. By the way, on a quick scan through Dagan I can't see anything about the Fortress Elah name - are you sure you aren't mixing this with the other source, where I know it's mentioned? And is there a way of adding page numbers to our refs? PiCo (talk) 09:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Your removing "scholars" is unwarranted and wrong. Yehuda Dagan and the source from whom he received the information, Hamoudi Khalaily, are both scholars in their fields. You should have checked what 'scholars' means before removing it. What you've done is turned the sentence into an obscure opinion instead of an academic scholarly one. The danger of trying to split hairs on this information is that one can become so involved in the details that they don't look at the entire article anymore. The first reliable source for Elah Fortress is in the first sentence of the article lead. It doesn't need to be presented again every time the term appears. The sentence attributed to Dagan in the Name History section is about the relevance of the name to the geography, not about the name itself. So the sources on these are fine as they are. The standard citation format cite_book has a field for page numbers that should be used whenever specific information is referenced. I also think your removing history from the section title is unnecessary because there is a historical perspective of the different names adopted to the site over the passage of time. But I'm not going to change that now until maybe someone else has other or better suggestions. I appreciate that you want to be more exact but please don't make decisions impulsively without researching the wide range of considerations for the information. Thank you. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to cast doubt on the sources for the meaning of the Arabic name, I was simply trying to create a more readable English sentence. Don't worry about the sourcing, the footnote takes readers to the article if they want to check it - I doubt that anyone really cares, though.

About Elah Fortress: the source given in the first line of the article is a Reuters report, which says this: "Archaeologists from the Hebrew University said they found five lines of text written in black ink on a shard of pottery dug up at a five-acre (two-hectare) site called Elah Fortress, or Khirbet Qeiyafa." That makes it sound as if the translation of Khirbet Qeiyafah is Elah Fortress, which we know is not so. I'd leave it out - the archaeologists themselves always seem to call it by the Arabic name. PiCo (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The site is more than just archaeological by nature. It has historic value and yields information relevant to a wide range of studies. It also acquires new knowlege derived from discovery of new evidence. The name Elah Fortress has become a part of the site like Khirbet Qeiyafa, because the site holds evidence from previous cultures to the Arabic name. Khirbet Qeiyafa is not the lost original name of the site, but was rather also adopted by a presiding culture long after the site was first built. Archaeological standards are used in order to organize the work but no archaeologist would claim that K.Q is the original name or the only name the site can be known by. To leave out well sourced information outside of the archaeological discipline is not good form for an encyclopedia, which tries to encompass the sum knowledge of any subject. I worry about your quick finger on the trigger in wanting to remove information instead of trying to find out why it's there. Also, the source in the first line does not at all say one name is the translation of the other. It gives both names separately without implying a translation. The rest of the article and sources make that even more clear. It seems fine as it is, but if you have a better idea or want to add another source there for the modern Hebrew name, then fine. What gives cause for concern is your recent push to remove certain information throughout this page, which seems somewhat colored by opinion. It's better to not let personal feelings get into the way of objective editing. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

I'm copying this from Wikipedia RS policy page, as it seems to be a continuing matter of debate:

Scholarship

• Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See Wikipedia:No original research.
• Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars.
• Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.
• One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context.
• Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context.
• Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.[1]

News organizations

News sources often contain both reporting content and editorial content. Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

• When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.[2] If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Book reviews too can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces.[3][4]
• For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context. Articles which deal in depth with specific studies, as a specialized article on science, are apt to be of more value than general articles which only tangentially deal with a topic. Frequently, although not always, such articles are written by specialist writers who may be cited by name.
• While the reporting of rumors has a limited news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.
• Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as a source for their work. Editors should therefore beware of circular sourcing.[5]
• Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case by case basis.
• Some stories are republished or passed along by multiple news organizations. This is especially true for wire services such as the AP. Each single story must only count as being one source.

Recent excavation report

This [21] is a roundup of commentary as of May 9th. There may be material here or linked that is needed to make this NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 07:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC) Thanks to David Meadows' Explorator:

http://phys.org/news/2012-05-archaeologist-evidence-cult-judah-king.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120508103803.htm

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/archaeological-find-stirs-debate-on-david-s-kingdom-1.429087

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/1.429087

http://news.discovery.com/history/shrine-king-david-cult-120510.html

http://www.livescience.com/20204-shrines-biblical-kings-excavated.html

http://www.yourjewishnews.com/Pages/19826.aspx

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=4262

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/155579

http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=269164

http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/the-hebrew-university-press-release-on-the-qeiyafa-discovery/

… and some reaction:

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/the-keys-to-the-kingdom-1.360222

http://gath.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/yossi-garfinkel-on-the-ark/

http://servingtheword.blogspot.ca/2012/05/khirbet-qeiyafa-possible-unintended.html Dougweller (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

These really need reading and working into the article. Eg, the last website above says "Qeiyafa and Jerusalem Did Not Share a Scribal Culture." Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it is a blog and probably not citable. Zero^talk 23:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It's the blog of Seth L. Sanders, Assistant Professor in the Religion Department of Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut (or however that US state spells itself). Given that this is a a subject about which not a lot has been published in the traditional way (peer-reviewed journals, monographs), I think we need to use sources like this, with proper advice to the reader. PiCo (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I would kindly asked everyone to avoid disruptive editing.Tritomex (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I actually consider your editing, Tritomex, to be disruptive. You deleted a piece of text I added that explained what Rollston and others have stated: that those words are not specific Hebrew at all. These words are present in other Canaanite languages and Phoenician is scarcely documented, there are even some pronouns for which we do not know the forms, which doesn't mean they somehow didn't have those pronouns, only that they are not attested. Garfinkel's statements seems to have rather political goals and those who defend him seem to want to delete evidence of something else. --Periergeia (talk) 12:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Qeiyafa Ostrakon written L to R, bottom to top?

Inexpertly, the Qeiyafa Ostrakon looks like it was written from bottom to top (lines 5 to 1). For, the "top" two lines show signs of "cramming" letters together, even at odd orientations, as if the writer was running out of room. Cp. making margin notes in books, often you get to the corner of the page, and have to start writing up the side, sometimes even upside down. Ergo, the Ostrakon may have been written lines 5 to 1. Prof. Gershon Galil's rendering seems sensical, and "sounds Biblical", when so read — "protect the poor, [even] rehabilitate them on the King's coin; [as for] judging the poor, do not do it, but obey Biblical Law". 66.235.38.214 (talk) 06:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Elah is Aramaic the Bible's First Language; 1600BCE was Crete's volcano, see Genesis Chapter 19 & Egypt's Exodus

Elah means nothing to people until they know it is the original name of God. Aramaic predates Paleo, Biblical, and Liturgical Hebrew. And unlike hebrew which disappeared from the world. Aramaic Jesus's language is spoken in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, etc. Elah [God] Fortress & Elah [God] Valley. Aramaic is what Arabic get Allah and Isa, as Jesus was Esaa in the Greek Gospels original Aramaic source works. Greek made it Ii's'oun. Credit for David's House is do to Palestine protecting the Aramaic naming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.107.228 (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Size of Khirbet Qeiyafa 6 acres or 32 acres?

The article states that Khirbet Qeiyafa is 2.4 hectares in size, or nearly 6 acres. Then the article goes on to read, "The site consists of a lower city of about 10 hectares and an upper city of about 3 hectares (7.4 acres) surrounded by a massive defensive wall ranging from 2–4 metres (6 ft 7 in–13 ft 1 in) tall."

Something is wrong here with the measurements. The entire city was only about 6 acres, not 13 hectares (32 acres!) as there are 2.47 acres in one hectare, the article's inconsistency in size makes the town out to be nearly 6 times larger than the original stated size. That would make a big difference!

This Needs clarification. --67.5.239.206 (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Dagan (2009) says that the city wall encloses about 2.5 hectare. Garfinkel and Ganor (2010) say 2.3 hectare though my measurement of their scaled map gives closer to 2.2 hectare. I don't know what the "lower city" means exactly, but it is not usual for there to be a scattering of buildings outside the walls. Some reference to the sources is needed. Zero^talk 06:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

need source replacement

Now that http://www.foundationstone.org has gone away, it is time to replace it as a source. It was never reliable anyway. In particular the web page written by Barnea Lefi Selavan needs a replacement. Zero^talk 00:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

"Others are skeptical"

That's what the source says, "Not all agree that the ruins found in Khirbet Qeiyafa are of the biblical town Shaarayim, let alone the palace of ancient Israel's most famous king." In the body of the article, Israel Finkelstein is named, along with at least Alexander Fantalkin, Nadav Na’aman and Ido Koch.

Finkelstein mentions 3 theories: "Yossi Garfinkel’s - that it was a Judahite city." (quote from F) Canaanite ruins - Nadav Na’aman and Ido Koch Finkelstein and Fantalkin's: "They support Yossi Garfinkel in the sense that they agree the site is associated with hill country. But who were the people? Here Finkelstein and Fantalkin disagree with Garfinkel: "We think the strongest possibility is that the site is affiliated with a North Israelite entity," he says." Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Khirbet Qeiyafa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.asor.org/AM/abstracts07(final).pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.aol.com/article/israeli-archaeologists-find-ancient-text/233027?icid=100214839x1212506023x1200749390

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

merge

It's probably time to merge this into Shaaraim.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree, because the identification of this place as Shaarim is still hotly contested. Zero^talk 23:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

What Zero said. Poliocretes (talk) 06:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Khirbet Qeiyafa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111004154857/http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_99.pdf to http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_99.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005020653/http://newmedia-eng.haifa.ac.il/?p=2043 to http://newmedia-eng.haifa.ac.il/?p=2043

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Guérin

The Dagan, Yehuda (2009) ref which mention Victor Guérin, unfortunately does not mention page number, only that it was publisher in 1869, that is either

• Guérin, Victor (1869). Description Géographique Historique et Archéologique de la Palestine (in French). Vol. 1: Judee, pt. 2. Paris: L'Imprimerie Nationale. or

• Guérin, Victor (1869). Description Géographique Historique et Archéologique de la Palestine (in French). Vol. 1: Judee, pt. 3. Paris: L'Imprimerie Nationale.

Does anyone know which book, and which page number? Huldra (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Huldra: Part 3, pages 331–332. "A une faible distance de là, vers l'ouest-nord-ouest, sur une colline plus élevée et couverte de broussailles, les restes d'un autre village moins important me sont désignés sous le nom de Khirbet Kaïafa." (A short distance to the west-north-west, on a higher hill covered with brush, the remains of another smaller village are referred to as Khirbet Kaïafa). Zero^talk 00:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Zero0000: Thanks! ...I need to update my Guerin page, it seems, Huldra (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Face of god

I removed this:

"During excavations led by Joseph Garfinkel in August 2020, Hebrew University archaeologists announced the discovery of three anthropomorphic male figurine heads which could be the 'face of God'. One sculpture around 5 centimeters in height dating back to the early tenth-century B.C.E was revealed inside a large building of the site. Because of the well worked base of the neck of the figure, it is assumed that the found head was probably attached to another object, a body or a pottery vessel. With a flat top, the head has protruding eyes, ears, and a nose, according to Garfinkel's theory. The figure may be wearing earrings, as the ears are pierced. There is a circle of holes in the upper part of the head. While other researchers disagree with the theory, Garfinkel argues that, the visible image of YHWH depicts the biblicalite God, Yahweh."

There are multiple problems, starting with the fact that only one of the three figures was found by Garfinkel. The last sentence is gibberish, since YHWH and Yahweh are one and the same. But the main problem is that Garfinkel's proposal appears to not have a single supporter. Other archaeologists have been dismissive, even derisive, using words like "irresponsible". See here for a professional response. They claim Garfinkel got practically every point wrong, including misreading the scale on the other two figurines and even misreading the Bible text. I don't know if this incident deserves a mention at all; in any case this text misrepresents it and has to go. Zero^talk 07:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

References