Talk:Tel Zeton

Sources

Articles

• 1958 Excavations of Tombs near Tell Qasile 2) at Kefar Gil'adi 3) at Tell Abu Zeitun (mention + mention in French)
• 2008 [https://www.jstor.org/stable/26592911 Tel Zeton: Final Report - Dor Golan
• 2016 Tel Zeton: Final Report - Angelina Dagot
• 2019 Bene Beraq, Ha-Yarqon Street: Preliminary Report - Ayelet Dayan and Dor Golan

Minor

• identification with Gath-Rimmon
• Samaria roads
• Philistines
• Kaplan on Jewish ostracon

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Sketch of the inscription written in Aramaic alphabet

• ... that the name "Hashub", found in the Hebrew Bible at Nehemiah 3:23, was found on a piece of pottery contemporary to Nehemiah at the archaeological site of Tel Zeton, Israel?

Source: Jacob Kaplan, The Archaeology and History of Tel Aviv-Jaffa, p. 87: At Tell Abu Zeitun, which has two occupation strata from this period [the Persian period], was found an ostracon with the Aramaic inscription "Hashub," a name also known among the Levite families who participated in the construction of the Jerusalem city walls (Neh. 3:23)" + Jacob Kaplan, Excavation in Tell Abu Zeitun in 1957, p.99: The upper Persian phase Ia, many important findings were uncovered, indicating that in that period - parallel to the days of Ezra and Nechemia - there was a Jewish settlement here. Among the findings - an ostracon with the name "Hashub" incised in Aramaic letters..."

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Detroit-style pizza
• Comment: expansion began on 29 April

5x expanded by Bolter21 (talk). Self-nominated at 12:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC).

• New enough, long enough, notable enough, no copyvio, format OK, NPOV OK, QPQ OK. Not enough inline citations in my opinion, especially at § Persian period (538 - 332 BCE). I hope you don't mind, but I also slightly rewrote your hook for accuracy. I thought it was going too far to say that the name "Hasshub" is "from" the Hebrew Bible when it could just be a coincidental occurrence. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Completely fine with the intention of the hook change. One thing though, and it just my English. Is it understood from "contemporary piece of pottery" that the pottery piece is dated to the same historical period as the biblical verse? As for the inline citations, the Persian period section has 6 of them, one repeated and one simply refers to the biblical verse, so four different sources. Most of the information comes from two sources written by Kaplan so I figured out if someone has access and wants to read the sources, it would be pretty easy since each source is only one page.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, "contemporary" here means "from the same period as the Book of Nehemiah was written". Regarding inline cites, Kaplan 1958 and Kaplan 1972 should be more carefully placed to show which parts of the paragraph come from each, in my opinion. The same problem is more acute in § Identification; it's not clear why three sources are all lumped together at the end, and makes keeping WP:INTEGRITY harder. If all three sources say everything in the paragraph, then it's not clear why we even need three cites if it's not particularly contentious, perhaps a WP:CITEBUNDLE might help. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 10:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Alright. I simply moved the sources. The 1957 source is the excavation report. The 1972 source deals more precisely with the biblical connection. The third citation is simply the biblical verse.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Please do the same for § Identification. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Done.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you bolter21 for putting up with me—this hook is now good to go in my opinion. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 11:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I came by to promote this, but you're spelling Hashub/Hasshub different ways in the hook and article, and the article doesn't match the time period with Nehemiah, but with Persian rule. Yoninah (talk) 01:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Nehemiah was a Persian governor, per Gesenius,([1]) so the artifact is indeed contemporary to him. The spelling doesn't seem a big deal to me, that's how the KJV spells it, there's a degree of free spelling when it comes to transliteration of words in ancient Semitic languages; but if you'd like to change it, I doubt Bolter21 would be upset. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 02:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• What do you mean? The hook fact has to be verified by the article. We can't have two different spellings. And by the same token, the article should spell out that Nehemiah was a Persian governor. The hook and article are not independent entities. Please reread WP:DYK#Cited hook. Yoninah (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Changed the hook to "Hashub". This is how Kaplan translates it and it comes directly from Hebrew. With respect to the KJV its transliterations are very odd sometimes and there are countless other translations to the Hebrew Bible. As for the other matter, the Hebrew source says "In the upper Persian phase Ia [archaeological layer], important artifacts were found, indicating during this period of time - parallel to the days of Ezra and Nehemia - there was a Jewish settlement here." I've took it to mean the 5th century BCE since Ezra and Nehemia lived in the 5th-century BCE. I've made sure to emphasize that this is Kaplan's conclusion. Is that not ok?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Bolter21: the way you wrote the article is fine. What I'm questioning is why the hook wording contemporary to Nehemiah doesn't appear in the article. BTW are you amenable to using the bibleverse template in your article? E.g. Nehemiah 3:23. Yoninah (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: the article says it is from the "from the time of the Return to Zion" (Shivat Tziyon), which refers to the eras of Ezra and Nehemia. Generally speaking this is an article about archaeology so I didn't bother to put much emphasis on the biblical stuff. Should I add more to make it easier for readers less fluent in biblical stories or just rely on the wikilinks to provide information to the curious ones?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Bolter21: I'd just like to see Nehemiah mentioned in the same context as the hook in the article, so that readers who click on the article and search for him will find him. Something as simple as adding after the Return to Zion link, "roughly the period of leadership of Ezra and Nehemiah", or some such wording. Yoninah (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Alright. I'll fix that tomorrow and let you know.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• @Yoninah: I've edited the article to match the hook (and not the other way around, cause the new information can help the readers).--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Bolter21: thank you. But we need a cite for the Nehemiah fact. Page 87 of Kaplan only mentions Hashub. Yoninah (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: done.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you! Restoring tick per Psiĥedelisto's review. Yoninah (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)