Talk:History of the Southern Levant

Ethnography

I'm not sure any of that ethnographic analysis in the second section really belongs in a "History of Palestine" article. It might be better placed in a page more closely related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Like that one. In my opinion this article should stick to the political history per se as much as possible, meaning who invaded what when, territorial and monarchial stuff, and downplay the ethnic considerations. -- Branden

The history of the area is complex due to the many tribes and (later) nations that settled, conquered and ruled, traded there or moved through: Canaanites, Philistines, Samaritans, Nabataeans, Greeks, Romans, Muslims and Christians.

In pre-Biblical times, the area was known as the Land of Canaan and had been a collection of city-states, tributary to the Egyptian Pharoah, as attested to in the Tel-El Amarna tablets. The breakup of the Egyptian empire beginning about 1500 BC made possible the invasion of the Israelites. According to Jewish tradition, twelve tribes entered Canaan from Egypt and conquered it, led by Moses approximately 1240-1200 BC. Historical evidence from the Amarna tablets suggests that there were already 'apiru' (Hebrews) among the Canaanites in the time of Egyptian rule.

During the final years of the Late Bronze Age, the Philistines also invaded Canaan (1500 - 1200 BC). Other evidence suggests that around 1200 BC, semi-nomads from the desert fringes to the east, joined by elements from Anatolia, the Aegean, and the south, possibly including Egypt, began to settle in the hill country of Canaan. A large proportion - probably a majority of this population - were refugees from the Canaanite city states, destroyed by the Egyptians in one of their periodic invasions. [Francis]

Romans

The article says Romans restored (rather than introduced) the name Palestine after the Bar Kokhba revolt. Are there any reliable sources for this? -- Cema 14:34 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

Everything I've seen indicates that the name Palestine was assigned only after the revolt as a punitive measure and/or to prevent further insurrection. Before that it was just called Israel or referred to by the individual areas, i.e., Judaea, Samaria, etc. Khanele 00:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

One of these "individual areas" was called Palestina. And had been called that for a long long time. John D. Croft 23:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

croft is right; the etymology is that palestine derives from philistine, even though it's a misnomer (philistines being unknown indo-europeans from the "sea" and palestinians being arabs that moved into the area rather later). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.121.196 (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The whole piece of land and parts extending in neighboring countries (nowadays) was called Canaan as its first name.

Zahir Muhsein

I propose to delete the passage attributed to "Zahir Muhsein" unless someone can supply evidence that the interview is genuine and not just an extreme view from an unimportant person. There are hundreds of mentions of "Zahir Muhsein" on the web but I can't find a single one that is not merely repeating this "quotation" (though with variations even in the name of the newspaper). It looks to me like "Zahir Muhsein" is unworthy of mention here. Of course the pan-Arab view of things was very common amongst Palestinian Arabs until the middle of the 20th century, but the implication that it is a significant viewpoint in the PLO needs better proof. - bdm

Ok, I found out more about "Zahir Muhsein" and deleted the quote even though it is probably genuine. The problem is that it is highly misleading. Zuhayr Muhsin was the Secretary General of the group Sa`iqa which consisted of mostly of Syrian Ba'athists and was established by the Syrian government in opposition to Fatah. His membership of the PLO was due to pressure from Syria even though his pan-Arab position (i.e. the Syrian position) put him at constant conflict with the mainstream Palestinian nationalists. At one point he even (allegedly) supported Syrian armed conflict against the PLO in Lebanon. In 1979 he was assassinated. So he was indeed a Palestinian with pan-Arab political views but he was not representative of Palestinians generally and certainly not of the PLO.

I don't know why the Meir quotation is there either. What point is being made? Btw, the reference is Sunday Times (London) 15 June 1969 -- bdm

Palestine - a Roman word...

Every source I have ever seen indicates that "Palestine" was a term introduced by the Romans, and not in use before that. Prior to the Roman conquest, the land was Canaan, or Judea & Samaria, but not Palestine. I don't know what source you got this from, and if you're right, then I apologize, but it sounds like the sort of thing that might have been invented (twisted just slightly) so as to give the current Arabs, likely not directly ethnically/genetically related to the Philistines, a stronger claim to the land. LordAmeth 17:04, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You should mistrust your sources if they make such elementary errors. As the article states, the name was used by the Greeks at least as early as 500BC. An internet resource unlikely to be spreading Arab propaganda is the Jewish Encyclopedia. --Zero 23:29, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think you misunderstod. the term 'palestine' comes from the old nation who lived on the cost at the time of the firat Temple. the Greek term was used to donate the part where they used to live. Calling entire Judea wpalestine' was done by the romens after thr Bar-Kosba revolt.

You might be confused with forms of the word philistine which was in existence before the Romans came along. The word palestine is just a bastardisation of the word philistine, but the philistines were long gone by the time the Romans arrived.

That's actualy correct, Philistine civilization did not exist at that time and for a long time, it seems many people confuse Philistin for Palestinian somehow, even though the word derived from it in my opinion.

What was Philistine "civilisation"? Philistine civilisation as a separate "thing" never really existed. There was a Philistine element added to Canaanite civilisation at about 1200 BCE that survived down to Roman times. From the time of their first settlement of the pentapolis, the bulk of the settlers had been Canaanites. They have remained in the area to the present day. Philistine civilisation survives as much as "Israelite civilisation". To claim otherwise is a distortion of history, and shows a pro-Jewish bias. John D. Croft 00:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

             No not quite, there is no connection between the Philistines and the Palestines, the later simply being the new
             name of what up until that time was called many different names.
             Those who name themselves Palestines are a combined group from syria, jordan, egypt and so on, most of them came to
             Israel, under UK's mandate for the sake of work, and simply never left.
             After failing to stop Israel from existing and claiming the land the jews and british developed (which was a
             wasteland at most during the ottomans' empire era) and trying to kill all the jews over and over again
             the mentioned countries backed off, not taking their citizens back to egypt/jordan (they weren't exiled either)
             resulting in what you call "Palestines" a term self-defining a group that hasn't existed before 1964.
             Even then they chose to name themselves after the land's name.
             Any other claim is pro-"palestine" bias.
             Such as that I suggest erasing this article as it strives to make a connection between two unrelated groups.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.184.141 (talk) 07:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 

"Palestine" was once considered to include lands on the east side of the Jordan River

There is no indication of who "considered" this. Perfect example of "weasel words". Any objection to deleting this? 24.64.166.191 07:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC) So I have deleted the sentence: "Nevertheless, the fact that "Palestine" was once considered to include lands on the east side of the Jordan River continues even today to have significance in political discourse." If someone can say who "considered" this (and when) and tell us what this "political discourse" is about I will be interested to read it.24.64.166.191 04:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Zionists did, and many still do, and it is often brought up in political discource, particularly when people argue that Israel currently occupies only 17.5% of the original mandate.[1] Jayjg ^(talk) 17:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps could this map be of some interest : it seems the Roman Syria Palæstina was including some (much) of the geographical Transjordan, and much of Lebanon (Middle East map). |frdm¦✉|01:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)|

Well the article Transjordan says Transjordan on the east side of the Jordan River was part of the British Mandate of Palestine until 1921-21, although it seems to be unclear whether post 1921-22 there was one mandate or two, although Transjordan was administered seperately by Britain Hugo999 (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment

There is currently a debate at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance about whether or not the Mongols captured Jerusalem in 1300. We would appreciate opinions from other editors who are familiar with the subject matter. --Elonka 16:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(followup) This dispute has continued and expanded, and a formal RfC has been filed. Disputed issues include (1) Was there a major alliance between the Crusaders and the Mongols? (2) How should the Wikipedia article be titled? "Franco-Mongol alliance"? Or "Crusader-Mongol relations" or something else? (3) Did the Mongols conquer Jerusalem in 1300? (4) How many and what types of primary source quotes are appropriate to use for this subject? (5) Were the Knights Templar major proponents of an alliance with the Mongols? (6) Was Jacques de Molay, Grand Master of the Knights Templar, present at a combined Christian-Mongol capture of Jerusalem in 1299/1300? Any opinions on these questions would be appreciated at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Request for comment. --Elonka 10:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

i'll just point out that speaking of christian-mongol alliances is somewhat redundant because the most widespread religion within the expanding mongolian empire was nestorian christianity, especially during the period around 1300. so, that term should definitely be avoided. terms such as crusader-mongol alliance, european-mongol alliance or even christian alliance should be used instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.121.196 (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Scope of the article

I'm curious as to what this article is meant to cover - what is the Southern Levant? Modern Israel plus Occupied Territories plus Jordan? Does it include any of modern Lebanon or is that Northern Levant? And why should this area have it's own history article anyway - a history of the Levant, ok, but just the southern part? PiCo (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The current title is a compromise after "History of Palestine," "History of the Holy Land" etc generated much heat. It ain't great, but it seems to be something most can live with. Solicitr (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I can see that any attempt to write about this area would generate heat. Still, it might be an idea for the lead to define the geographical area being covered. PiCo (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I've C&P'd the lead from the article Southern Levant to provide a geographic def. Solicitr (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have an historical article?

I came to this article because the historical section in "Israel" is seriously lacking, and the "Land of Israel" one is mostly biblical (As it should). Every other article dealing with the past of the area ends up in the same biblical accounts.

Would it be possible to have here a space where we could have just the archaeological account of the time before Rome? If this article with its overtly vague name was created to avoid the conflict we can see in the other ones mentioned, I think we should stick to the facts that can be proven.

Things like the Ghassulian culture, a more extensive explanation of the Canaanite culture, that kind of issues. There are plenty other places to discuss the old testament and its possible accuracy.

Leirus (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the page Archaeology of Israel already exists. The Old Testament as 'history' is, yes, problematic: but not really any more or less so than many other early 'histories.' It's what we've got, and it strikes me as as being non-rigorous either to accept such an obviously syncretic and polemic text at face value, or simply to reject it out of hand simply because it's "religious" (as if e.g. the Egyptian material isn't!)

The best really we can do is label passages so derived, e.g. "according to the Book of Chronicles" etc., and let each reader attach such weight to them as he thinks they deserve. Personally I think the books from Genesis up through Judges are a hodgepodge of myth and folk-legend, and those of Samuel and perhaps I Kings heavily revisionist to fit a political agenda; but on the other hand most of Kings and the Chronicle History line up with archeology and foreign records fairly well, except in their overt hostility to the North Kingdom which seems in actuality to have been significantly richer and more powerful than Judah. Solicitr (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

My problem is that, in most places, the biblical record is all we have, and there is no attempt to explain any other issue, even in the Israel page, and that one is a featured article. I agree (more or less) with what you say about the biblical accuracy, but sentences like "The Israelites dwelt in tribes amongst the other local inhabitants until the installment of King Saul in 879 BCE" sounds to me like a history of Rome starting with the war of Troya or the She-Wolf finding Romulo and Remo, without any advertence (I am not trying to be offensive here, I know this is a matter of faith for a lot of people).

Oddly enough, the best article I have found, which does exactly what I mean and is more complete than the alledgely main one, is this [[2]]. So we have two articles covering the same, with one of them being (in my opinion) better, but under a name that makes it harder to find. Not an ideal situation in my view...

Leirus (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Article is incosistent on king dates

How can Saul's ascension be on 879 BCE but Solomon's death is 925 BCE?? We need the article to be at least coherent. If there are disagreements about the dates you could state that in the article. 114.75.189.253 (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I think it would be best if such dates were omitted entirely; the OT as a source is shaky enough, but then to impose dates which have been calculated centuries later by Biblical exegetes gives an impression of precision which simply isn't warranted.Solicitr (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

change

i change the "Today the southern Levant is roughly the same area as that occupied by the modern states of Israel (including the West Bank and Gaza Strip)" to more correct and less political. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.113.28 (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)