Talk:Ascalon

Lede

@Emolu: please explain your edits here in as much detail as you can. Coming back to the article every few days to force in the same text without discussing it (see WP:BRD) is known as a slow edit war, and is not allowed. Either we discuss and find a form of compromise wording, or we will end up in WP:DR. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: Apologies for the delay – I concede that you were right, and including the "modern" descriptor was confusing, hence I removed it right after I reverted the edit. I feel that, now, it is well worded. Emolu (talk)

1942 Survey of Palestine map showing the Palestinian localities and archaeological ruins in the area that became the Israeli city of Ashkelon

Ashkelon region in the 1950s

@Emolu: thanks for your explanation. There are two issues that still need solving with the current version:

(1) "Tel Ashkelon" is not the most ancient part of what is today named Ashkelon. See [1] and click on #91 (as well as 87,88,92). There are many pre-historic and early Bronze Age sites which are older than Tel Ashkelon.

(2) "Tel Ashkelon" is simply the historic place known as Ashkelon. Modern Ashkelon is a confusing 1950s renaming of the Palestinian town of Al-Majdal, which later expanded to cover ancient Ashkelon (see the maps to the right which might help explain). What this means is that it is not possible to use a normal formulation like "is the historic city centre of Ashkelon" or similar.

I am not sure what the right form of words is to encapsulate this neatly in the opening sentences. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 20 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Ascalon, per discussion. I see no true opposition to the name "Ascalon", and a consensus for the name. I wasn't thinking and closed at first without clarifying/a rationale... oops. Also, (closed by non-admin page mover) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

---

• Tel Ashkelon → Askalon
• Tel Ashkelon → Ascalon
• Ascalon → Ascalon (disambiguation)

See addendum below. The page should move to the naturally disambiguated name for the ancient city of "Askalon", per WP:NCDAB. This page is about the ancient city of Ascalon, Ashkelon or Askalon, but is currently prevented from occupying either the first two of those by, respectively, the expansive disambiguation page for Ascalon and the modern Israeli city at Ashkelon. While "Tel Ashkelon" is also natural disambiguation, it is longer, more technical and more obscure (and thus less recognizable) than the proposed. Readers cannot be expected to either search for "Tel" or, upon seeing "Tel", deduce that this is an archaeological site and therefore the page about the ancient city, if that is what they are looking for. This is not useful or helpful. A rudimentary Google Scholar search appears to show around 1,500 hits for "Askalon" +ancient city, compared to a few hundred for "Tel Ashkelon", providing a clear indication that the current title and natural disambiguation is a more rarefied one than the proposed. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Addendum: Upon reflection on the balance of usage and sources, and the discussion below, it feels like the subject here, as the eponymous city of antiquity and the medieval period from which all other uses of the name "Ascalon" are derived, actually does have a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC claim, and the page should be at Ascalon, with the disambiguation page at Ascalon (disambiguation). Iskandar323 (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Light oppose - I understand your point that numerous, technically distinct, locales have occupied the ancient site, however, Askalon is a decently attested version of the standard English Ashkelon which has no distinct connotation of the ancient city, whereas Tel Ashkelon unambiguously refers to the ancient Iron Age locale. The Google Scholar results likewise do not use Askalon to refer exclusively to the ancient city - to the contrary, almost all of the results you have linked use Askalon to refer to the modern city, despite the mentions of the ancient city therein. On a side note: the usage of Askalon doesn't seem to have clear ancient precedent, the Greek form is only attested to in the late Classical era of antiquity, after the 4th century BC, which leaves out the thousands of years of habitation at Ashkelon that preceded it. Not to mention, there are older forms of the name, cf. Egyptian Isqaluni, Hebrew ʾAšqəlōn, reconstructed Philistine *ʾAšqalōn, or Akkadian Isqaluna. That being said, I concur that there are numerous cases for disambiguation, and so I offer a suggestion: rather than batch renaming, why not separate some of the various phases of inhabitation into their own pages? There is a precedent for this: compare Samaria (ancient city) and Sebastia, Nablus; or Shechem/Tell Balata and Balata village/Nablus. Emolu (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ascalon is the principle variant of the name used by the Byzantines Greeks/Romans and essentially from that point onwards by Western Christendom until the end of the Crusades at the tail of the High Middle Ages in 1270 CE, and Askalon is just a variant spelling of Ascalon - but Askalon has not been widely re-used as a place name and popular culture reference like Ascalon. In terms of it claim to fame, Ascalon/Askalon is most associated with the medieval city, as reflected in the Battle of Ascalon and Siege of Ascalon of the Crusader period, and this is, in turn, arguably the city's most famous period, as somewhat evidenced by the section on the page. Perhaps it should simply be at Ascalon, and the disambiguation page should move to Ascalon (disambiguation), but that's something of another layer of discussion. The sources for the general usage are things like [2][3][4][5][6] - all of which pertain to the excavation of the ancient city. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  NB: Having done a bit more reading, and feeling the weighting of the sources, I'm now thinking that a straight move to Ascalon, displacing that disambiguation page to Ascalon (disambiguation) might actually be the best option. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ngrams would agree with you. "Ascalon" always refers to the historical site – i.e. the subject of this article – and is good natural disambiguation. Notably even today Ascalon and Ashkelon are roughly equal in frequency, and usually referring to the ancient and modern locations respectively. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ascalon was a rather bloated disambiguation page when I began the RM, but in its present trimmed down and streamlined form, it's pretty clear that there is little real competition for the classical/medieval city. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

"Readers cannot be expected to either search for "Tel" or, upon seeing "Tel", deduce that this is an archaeological site" Why? We have an article on the term tell and an entire category on Category:Tells (archaeology). The name is not unique. Dimadick (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I know a tell is a thing, but whether Ascalon was ever a tell in the classical archaeological sense of a distinctive settlement mound is unclear. It seems like every since archaeological site in Israel is named Tel something regardless of whether or not it is a tell, as if tell just shorthand for 'archaeological site'. Is it actually meant to signify the specific archaeological feature of a tell here? I can't tell. Ascalon was a semi-circular port city that as far as I can tell was never properly buried, but remained always partially visible, notably along the beach. But one way or another, it is a side point. The main point is actual usage and the weighty WP:COMMONNAME case. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support. I'm not a fan of these sorts of distinctions between etymologically indistinguishable and in practice often interchangeable forms, but it is true that "Ascalon" always refers to the historical site and is not used for the modern city. Given the obvious problems with the current title, it seems an improvement. It's also the obvious primary topic. Srnec (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Clear common name and primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support per my comment above. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re-ordering sentence

Changing "In 1991 the ruins of a small ceramic tabernacle was found a finely cast bronze statuette..." to "In 1991, in the ruins of a small ceramic tabernacle, there was found a finely cast bronze statuette..." I'm guessing that is what was intended, although that paragraph has no reference to consult. Merriam-Webster's first definition of tabernacle involves a building, but its second definition is for a receptacle. Dgndenver (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Merge with Ashkelon

It's more than logical.

For Palestinian sensitivities, we can keep the relevant part ALSO on a separate Majdal/Askalan page.

I really don't understand this separation. "The conflict" has weird effects on some. Arminden (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

They're not the same subject. Ashkelon isn't Ascalon. Ashkelon is a modern city established inland on the former site of Al-Majdal. Ascalon was an ancient city that largely came to ruin in 1270 and whose closest proximate modern parallel of a settlement was Al-Jura until it's depopulation. That the modern city was renamed after the ancient city that it held no claim to be the heir to does not somehow unify the subjects. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. There are dozens of examples of modern cities whose centre is not PRECISELY on top of the ancient one, but keep or adopt the old name. I guess the problem is with the ideology behind it, not with the identification. Human settlement is a matter of context and decision, and then of development, not of hard science and precise, closed drawers.

All settlements in the area of modern Ashkelon were esrablished there for more or less the same reason: location. Access to the sea, road (Via Maris), access to water, agricultural hinterland. Canaanites, Philistines, etc., including Arabs and now Zionist Jews: the location makes the city. Now it's a big one and covers several archaeological and historical sites; means nothing, just size. The Philistine city-state was also much larger than the intra muros port city, and nobody would deny calling its entire territory Ascalon. The same goes for the Fatimid stronghold during the Crusades. But whatever, the I/P game goes on. Arminden (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The initial modern settlement was called "Migdal" precisely because that was where it was located – at a site a full two miles inland from ancient Ascalon. The subsequent renaming after the ancient coastal city is understandable romantic pageantry, but little more. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course. Mind that it goes both ways, I mean this logic will be in the way of equating Tel Aviv with Al-Shaykh Muwannis once you'll consider arguing in support of that. And a million other such issues. Enjoy the struggle. Arminden (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Romantic pageantry means blurry-eyed. I think it was anything but. It was dream big and act pragmatically. A vision yes, but based on plans and sweat. Love it or hate it, even hate it a lot - it's still a different beast from flower-power communes or even Christian-minded utopia on steppe or prairie.

Some Zionist naming went totally wrong, like Kiryat Gat. It's nowhere close to Gath/Tell es-Safi. At Majdal, there was no guessing, it was known where Ascalon had stood. And now it is within the city borders.

The point here is that some wish to stress a connection, and others to deny it. That can't be proven in counting km from the bouleuterion in the archaeological park to the Ashkelon Town Hall. Nor in calculating the habitation gaps in years and ethnicities. This is just fodder for the spin, this way or that.

That's why archaeologists, to stay on the academically safe side, don't give names and count cities instead, not just phases. Once the place is destroyed, they count a new city. People think differently, they live in a different continuum, not in peer-reviewed papers. And that is still far from being romanticism or sight-blurrying pageantry. Arminden (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

To your point on destruction, that is also rather key to the differentiation here given that Ascalon itself was all but erased in 1270, with only traces of later habitation on the same site. If I built out the town of Kumkale until it lapped at the site of Troy and decided that was close enough for it to be the heir to the site of yore, would that be within historical discretion or be ahistorical sleight of hand? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

That was exactly not my point. If people in the region had lived with the story of Troy as their own for centuries and had finally managed to build a large modern city a couple of km outside Schliemann's mound, named it Troy, and a few decades later would only need to cycle down the pavement or take the tram to the ruins: of course I'd argue for placing Troy inside the article about their city! With a spin-off page if the archaeology section would end up dwarfing everything else. Of course I'd make sure to write why they can't claim habitation continuity (every nationalist's fix idea), nor call Hector their own grandpa, but that's a different story.

You can always easily find trickier situations. With Ashdod I'd have to think quite hard. There's also the story with tandem cities, as they were common on the coast: Gaza, Azotus and Jamnia each had an inland city and one or even two closely connected ports, at times more independent, at times firmly under the rule of the inland city. But by now, I don't think you'd try to remove Maiuma and Anthedon from the Gaza topic, and if it's been done, I'd try to fix it. Arminden (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to touch on the exceptionalism case, because I think this type of reasoning is untenable. But on the note about tandem cities: yes they were common, and yes they are typically covered separately because they work best as distinct subjects – for instance, Pompeii and Herculaneum is never going to be a single page. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I was wondering too why we need two separate articles. Especially if the ancient site is right there within the modern city (as opposed to, for example, ancient Modi'in, whose real location is unknown). @Arminden, if that's the case, I'm totally up for renaming it. Mariamnei (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I was going to stay away, but Mariamne brought me back.

I don't know enough about Pompeii and Herculaneum, had never heard about the latter being the port of the former, so I checked. And it turns out that this case works more as an argument in FAVOUR of my proposal:

1. Herculaneum was NOT the port of Pompeii. Oplontis and Stabiae were much closer, Surrentum at about the same distance.
2. Ercolano, one of 2 towns built over Herculaneum, was actually quite recently renamed after the ancient town: it was known as Resina at least between the 10th century (first mention) and modern times, until long after the rediscovery of the ruins beneath it. So yes, not that uncommon a phenomenon.

So there's no valid comparison to be made there. But I know this won't help much, I/P has its way of steaming away over such considerations. Arminden (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I made a untenable comparison, but such considerations are neither for nor against; they're just food for the discussion, though incidentally, Oplontis and Stabiae are also their own pages. If we can get back to basics, this page exists because it is its own notable topic - a topic that is both historically and geographically extremely distinct from the namesake urban conurbation that developed nearby 800 years later and has simply now sprawled over the decades up to its periphery. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

And even were the topics contiguous, which it seems quite obvious they are not, it would still not preclude having separate articles based on standalone notability, as well as size and split considerations. Londinium is its own article because it would be ludicrous to clutter the page on modern London with ancient Roman history. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

That we actually agree on :) In the end it proved to be about semantics, which I didn't notice, mea culpa. I'm all in favour of spin-offs where articles become too large. The fact that at Ashkelon the "History" section has a headtag "Main: Ascalon" is perfectly enough for me. I hope I didn't wake up any sleeping dogs with this remark :) Arminden (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

ASCALON at start of lead, not any variation

Ascalon is the topic here. There's been a long process to reach this solution, good or bad as it might be, so don't just go BOLD and change it.

The name underwent a dozen transformations, many while still a Canaanite city, see the Huehnergard article at JSTOR. Ascalon is the classic, Graeco-Latin generic form that is being used in literature. Enough of this national activism when the topic isn't politics. Soon some will start going around replacing Latin from botanics, zoology and anatomy, 'cause it's settler-colonial. Rather than learn it. Arminden (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I see it was done by an infantile troll with vague traces of literacy. So it doesn't concern the serious editors. Fixed. Arminden (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Merge Ashkelon National Park into this article

The Ashkelon National Park and the Ascalon articles refer to virtually the same place. In that case, I think the former should be merged into this article. There is no information about the park there, only historical information. Whether we add information about the park, it should be a section in this article. And an honorable mention in the lead for the national park and its name in bold is warranted. This is an article, first and foremost, about a place. And that's a place that people visit. And I think one of the common people thing people do when they visit a place, is to search on it in Wikipedia. Bolter21 (talk to me) 07:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Strongly support. We have two chaotic articles dealing with the exact same topic. Zero reason to have it split like this. The historical city ("Ascalon" if you wish) is the topic, the park just a footnote. Arminden (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. This pdf from the park management is quite good. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to rediscuss the name of the article.

I have looked into the discussions in this article. I am not too fond of the chose to change this to "Ascalon", since it is virtually the same as "Ashkelon", and I believe most people know it as "Ashkelon" and not Ascalon. There's a weird insitence on choosing bad names over slightly longer names. I think "Ancient Ashkelon" or "Ashkelon (ancient city) would just be fine. We are an encylopedia of virtually everything, and we must have duplications of names. The Leon Levy Expedition, which probably wrote most of the information about Ashkelon (8 volumes, with each with 250-1000 pages, a 9th forthcoming), have chosen to call it "Ashkelon", even in late antiquity and medieval. This is the name of park as well, and today. Writing "Ascalon" will not bring you to your desired destination when asking Waze, Moovit, Goolge Maps or a local. The arguments in favor of Ascalon were very weak in my opinion. We are not doing any kindness to our readers here.

I would advice fellow editors to rethink the change to "Ascalon". I think we cannot conclude that "Ascalon" is the primary topic, since clearly the narrative on Ashkelon isn't complete here. I don't think that when describing a place of such importance and length of history, it is wise to declare a certain episode to be the primary topic. When walking in Tel Ashkelon, the most prominent feature is the Middle Bronze Age ramparts, which give the place its shape. Its most monumental feature is the Bronze Age Gate. There's so much more knowledge about the ancient city missing in the article.

I think is should be agreed that we are talking primarily about a place, and not about a certain episode in its history. It is first and foremost a place, not a city, not an archaeological site, not a park, but a place, whose history is written not only on paper, but in its soil. Therefore, I think we should go with the name most commonly used to describe this place, to encompass its entire history. That is Ashkelon. This is what scholars use and this is what visitors use. Ascalon was indeed used, but mostly in early 20th century contexts, or when refering to the historical entity in certain periods of the site.

Some examples for your convenience:

• A Late Neolithic Site near Ashkelon
• Recent Discoveries in Ashkelon - talks about Crusader, Middle Bronze and Iron Age finds altogether
• Ashkelon (Brittanica)
• The Basilica, Bouleuterion, and Civic Center of Ashkelon (Roman period)
• The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East$ The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East
• A Building Inscription with the Name of Commodus from Askalon

Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bolter, good to hear from you and thanks for the thoughtfully written post.

I took a look at Ngrams. It shows that historically Ascalon was far more common, and even today, Ascalon is used almost as frequently as Ashkelon, despite the latter name also referring to the modern city.

Ascalon is the Greek name, from Ἀσκάλων. That is why it was used in classical and medieval literature, and is also used in some bibles, like the Douay–Rheims.

Bear in mind the name is used only eleven times in the entire bible (Jud 1:18, 14:19; 1 Sam 6:17; 2 Sam 1:20; Jer 25:20, 47:5,7; Amos 1:8; Zeph 2:4,7; Zech 9:5); i.e. it was not a major biblical location. Its notability was greatest from the classical period to the medieval period.

Does any of that change your thinking above?

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately none of these arguments is compelling.

The core of my argument: We are talking about a place that exists today and can be visited. Not a period in its history.

The fact that the name was used well in the 19th century does not change the fact that today, the place itself, as a physical entity, one studied and visited so much, is known as Ashkelon.

The trend you kindly provided actually shows that in recent years, the name Ashkelon has prevailed over Ascalon. But I wouldn't take that last note as supporting my position, since we don't know in what context Ashkelon or Ascalon is mentioned there, nor the value and relevance of the sources. I am not fond of these meta-analyses of names. They most often say nothing, and should be used with caution.

To say Ashkelon is not an important place in the bible is an opinion. I will refrain from arguing the other way around, since as I've said, it doesn't matter what it was called throughout history, but what it is referred to as today, both in geographical, touristic, and academic contexts.

So no, none of these change my thinking. I think it should be called "Ashkelon", preferably "Ashkelon (ancient city)" or "Ashkelon (archaeological site). A good examples is Athens and Classical Athens (instead of Athênai). I think another good option is "History of Ashkelon". Just like History of Athens. That way it would be convenient to add Neolithic and Early Bronze Ashkelon, which wasn't on the Tel (the site of Ascalon). If the article will be too long (which I do not suspect will happen soon), we can always split it.

We don't call Jerusalem "Al-Quds". In English, today, it is most commonly known as Jerusalem. Damascus is called "Dimasq" and Aleppo "Halab", and Byblos "Jubeil" but we call them by what they are best known as. This is what appears on signs, what appears in most tourist papers, and what appears in most academic works describing these places. And when I say "describing these places" I mean, describing these places with their entire span of history.

Ascalon was a good name for the site. It isn't anymore. We live in 2024, and most articles refer to ancient Ashkelon as a whole, despite some of those referring specifically to the periods during which it had a Greek/Crusader population, call it "Ashkelon", from the Neolithic to this current day. The name Ascalon is used mostly in historical contexts or in archaeological contexts referring to these historical contexts.

Some more examples:

This article (2024) has a title that includes both: Roman-period trade in ceramic building materials on the Levantine Mediterranean coast: evidence from a farmstead site near Ashqelon/Ascalon, Israel. The choice to include Ashkelon, despite it clearly not being called as such in that period, highlights the fact that this name is accepted as refering to the general place.

Another great example is here, when this article titled "Cultivating the Hills and the Sands: A Comparative Archaeobotanical Investigation of Early Islamic Agriculture in Palestine, has the following sentence in its abstract: These sites – the coastal urban centres of Ashkelon and Caesarea Maritima, and the large inland village of Neby Zakaria – are situated in different environmental settings and had distinct socioeconomic functions. As you can see, Hebrew, Latin, and Arabic names are used to describe places from the Early Islamic period. The reason for this is clearly because the actual name of the settlement in these times is secondary to their conventional names in contemporary scholarly work. There is a name for the second: "Qaysāriyyah". But most people know it as Ceasarea Maritima. The same goes for Ashkelon.

Some more: A mediterranean pantheon: Cults and deities in hellenistic and roman Ashkelon, A Hellenistic/Early Roman Shipwreck Assemblage off Ashkelon, Israel, The Funeral Kit: A Newly Defined Canaanite Mortuary Practice Based on the Middle and Late Bronze Age Tomb Complex at Ashkelon, Two Notes on the History of Ashkelon and Ekron in the Late Eighth-Seventh Centuries B.C.E., NEOLITHIC ASHKELON, The Gaza 'Wine' Jar (Gazition) and the 'Lost' Ashkelon Jar (Askalônion).

You can see that Ascalon will appear only when referring to the Hellenistic-Roman or Crusader periods. Ashkelon will encompass all periods, including these. Therefore, for this place, Ashkelon is the correct term. Take a look also at the very bibliography of this Wikipedia article. You will see the same pattern. That, to me, is the justification to call this Ashkelon. And because there's already a modern city, we would call it "Ashkelon (ancient city)" or "Ashkelon (archaeological site)" or "History of Ashkelon" (giving a slightly broader context of a place) and everything will be fine. The name is just a little bit longer than one word, but the article is much longer (:--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I guess the I/P warrior argument is that it resembles too much/is too associative with the name of the modern Israeli city, which is a Zionist misnomer, being actually inland Majdal/Migdal. That's to keep the discussion open and frank ;) Arminden (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I have joyfully refrained from touching this issue since it doesn't really matter, even though it is an intuitive thought. The same old characters such as me and you and the rest appear in these discussions all the time. We are all familiar with everyone's political positions. I think some respect to thousands of years of history and the hard work of scholars is warranted, instead of this petty brawl between people arguing whether their Hummus is morally superior, and how much lethal force constitutes a valid argument. Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Any other comment, please keep it within the frame of the original discussion. PLEASE.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I can't. Here is my comment: thank you for the laugh! I really needed it. Happy Moral Hummus Day!

PS: all the power to you. Arminden (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Any comment? Iskandar323, Onceinawhile, Srnec, Necrothesp, Emolu, Dimadick.

Prehistory

Hi Bolter21. Nice work.

I guess you removed the following passage because it was unsourced:

The adjacent site had no built structures and was believed to have been used seasonally by pastoral nomads for processing and curing food.

They came to the flat area before the bluff hit by the waves, used saltpans to make salt, and used it to cure the meat they had hunted, before moving camp again.

I am very confident that it's correct, plus it conjures a useful, relatable image of the life and activity of those nomads, unlike the dry dates, names of periods & archaeologists, etc. Here more than elsewhere, I find it much more user-friendly to keep the info and look for sources, rather than remove it. Wouldn't you agree? Arminden (talk) 09:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the remark that it is better than hard descriptions. It seems to be wrong though. The excavations revealed the remains of dwelling pits, which were depressions in rock surrounded by walls made either of organic material or mud-brick. There is more information about the Neolithic from the special studies about animal remains and flint tools. I didn't have the time to add them, but they appear in Garfinkels monograph. If you have access to JSTOR you can look into the Discussion and Conclusion of these chapters and add them.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Here you are:

Yosef Garfinkel, Doron Dag, Lawrence E. Stager. Ashkelon: THE NEOLITHIC SITE IN THE AFRIDAR NEIGHBORHOOD

Unless you can access Neolithic Ashkelon: meat processing and early pastoralism on the Mediterranean coast. Arminden (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Arminden That looks more promising and friendlier. I must admit, the Neolithic period is far from being a period I am most familiar with, besides the introductory basics. It is also difficult to translate academic language into wikipedic prose, without risking WP:OR.

Hopefully in the next episode of procrastination, I'll add some more girth to the article. If you need any source on any period, I might have it. Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)