Talk:Bi'ina

Removed from article

I have removed the section below from the article, as it is by no means certain that Bi'ina is Beth-Anath, Ain Aata in Lebanon is also a contender for that position, Huldra (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Historical geographers have a daunting task at identifying ancient place names in toponymy, and occasionally they disagree with each other. This, however, should not prevent us from mentioning both views, so long as they can be supported by academic sources. We have often found ancient sites with disputed identifications, such as the biblical Giloh, the biblical Gath, the biblical Ekron, Timnah, etc. etc. Therefore, here it is no different. While mentioning Samuel Klein's view - a very well-respected historical geographer, whose entire life was spent in the field of biblical research and cited by a host of modern academics, we can also mention the views of others alongside of his own, and thereby remain neutral.Davidbena (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

There was also a theory that Bu'eine Nujeidat is Beth-Anath. I think such theories can be mentioned, but we shouldn't appear more sure than current experts are. Zero^talk 09:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Shmuel Aijituv, Canaanite Toponyms In Ancient Egyptian Documents, citing Aharoni, says Safed el Battikh in Lebanon (Pb in PEF map #2). Zero^talk 09:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Zvi Gal, The Late Bronze Age in Galilee: A Reassessment, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 272 (Nov., 1988), pp. 79-84 says: "Various sites have been suggested for this city: Ba'inah in the Beyt Hakerem Valley, (Albright 1923: 19-20; Sfrai and Sfrai 1976), Ba'inah in the Beyt Netopah Valley (Alt 1946: 55-57), Tel Ros (Amiran 1953: 125-26), and Tell el Hirbeh (Garstang 1931:244-45). Aharoni (157:70-74) combined the biblical and classical sources and suggested Safad el-Batih as Beth-anath. There is, however, no archaeological evidence to support the existence of a biblical settlement in any of those sites, with the possible exception of Tel Ros." Zero^talk 09:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

If the WP:RS mention the site as possible location we should mention it too --Shrike (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm very glad to hear the divergent opinions, and, yes, I totally agree with User:Zero0000 and User:Shrike. As an editor here on this encyclopedia, I appreciate whenever we can get such feedback and input from contributing editors, especially when one well-sourced opinion is controverted by another well-sourced opinion. Feeling happy today.Davidbena (talk) 12:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, what is below is not what I removed from the article, the original statement didn't allow for much doubt on the subject of the identification.

Secondly, this is why I always prefer a "stand alone" article on these old subjects, there are about 5 different places (if I have counted correctly) all suggested as Beth-Anath. I suggest we expand the Beth-Anath (presently just a redir to Ain Aata) with all the detail, mentioning them chronologically, guess that will be a starting with Charles William Meredith van de Velde. Then we can just write the "It has been suggested that this is ancient Beth-Anath in this article, and in Bu'eine Nujeidat, Ain Aata (and in Safed el Battikh when that article is started.)." User:Davidbena, would you care to expand Beth-Anath? Huldra (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus with the "heavy-weights" (viz., W.F. Albright, Samuel Klein and Ze'ev Safrai) that Ain Aata is not to be identified with Beth-anath, which place was - according to Judges 1:33 - in the territory known as Galilee, rather than Lebanon. This is also the consensus of the Wikipedia editors who have contributed to this discussion above, and we have all agreed to mention the dissenting views (in accordance with your wish), which we duly did in a footnote. A footnote is a proper place for this, since the article does not treat specifically on those other sites. Bi'ina is an ancient site and is worthy of having its own ancient history mentioned here, at least as it was understood by the "heavy-weights" of archaeology and toponymy mentioned above. As for the other articles you mentioned, we can indeed insert the said scholar's individual view point concerning these specific sites in their respective articles, although not directly related to this article here.Davidbena (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm reading Shmuel Ahituv, Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents, (p. 75 ff), he is making a summary of available info, and he seem anything but clear; in fact he seem to favour Safed el-Battikh, (that is on map SWP 2, SWP I, p. 95, that is in Template:Bint Jbeil District ...article not yet made.) Huldra (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, his view is already mentioned here in the current article, in a footnote. Of course, his view is a minority view.Davidbena (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Ahituv writes that "Aharoni's analysis clarifies that Beth-anath is located north of Kedesh/Tell Qadis in the Upper Galilee" (citing Yohanan Aharoni) ...so Ahituv isn't alone of that opinion. Huldra (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Aharoni has, likewise, already been mentioned here in this article (in a footnote), but his view is still a minority view. Bear in mind that several factors come into play when deciding on a site, whether or not it meets the criterion for a certain biblical site, such as its name (even in a "corrupted" form), location, and also its archaeological features. Klein mentions the use of irrigation pools for the agrarian needs of the people of Beth-anath, and which water systems for this place are described in the Tosefta. He goes on to point out how that in the immediate environs of Bi'ina it meets this description, where he describes the presence of a large pool containing more than 500 cubic metres (500,000 L) of water, formerly used by Jews and Gentiles in common. Ze'ev Safrai agrees with his identification, as did W.F. Albright before him. All that we wish to do here is give credit to where it is due.Davidbena (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Ahituv also writes about the distance between Caesarea and Beth-anath, which seem to fit with the Lebanese village. The thing is: there seem to be at least as many "authorities" which disagree with the Bi'ina=Beth-anath hypothesis, as agree, Huldra (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The divergent views, as noted, have already been briefly mentioned here in a footnote. In the final analysis it comes down to WP:DUE and in respecting the consensus for the current edit.Davidbena (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

David, the biggest problem is the absence of Gal's statement that no archaeological evidence has been found at Bi'ina for settlement in the right time period. This is not just a detail, but (without further archaeological evidence) enough reason to reject previous claims that were based on analysis of a very small amount of textual evidence. There is no case at all for starting with Klein. Instead, the text should say something like "Along with several other sites, Bi'ina was proposed as the location of ancient Beth-Anath mentioned in Egyptian and biblical texts. However, as of 1988, there is no archaeological evidence to support this identification." With 3-4 citations, of course. Zero^talk 22:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, your suggestion seems far better than mine. I would, however, make this one remark concerning Gal's statement on pp. 82-83, where he wrote: "There is no archaeological evidence to support the existence of a biblical settlement in any of those sites (Bi'ina included), with the possible exception of Tel Roš." Gal makes it clear on p. 80 that he is relying there on information passed down from Aharoni in 1957 who had examined six sites in the Galilee (ʾIqrit, Jatt, Tel Roš, Tel Kedesh, Tell el-Ḥirbeh and Jiš - this last site thought to be either Ahlab or Helbah mentioned in Judges 1:31, and called Gush-Halab in Mishnaic times) and where Gal sums-up Aharoni's findings by writing: "Only in Tel Kedesh and Tell el-Ḥirbeh did he (Aharoni) specifically mention evidence for Late Bronze Age occupation (Aharoni 1957: 10-16)." Gal immediately writes thereafter, "the four other sites – ʾIqrit, Jatt, Tel Roš and Jiš – were indeed settled in the Early Bronze Age," meaning that by the Late Bronze Age they had ceased to be an active settlement, but merely ruins. Gal's entire treatise concerns active settlement (occupation) in Galilee, and makes it clear that there were periods where these sites were settled, ceased to be settled, and then resettled. If we keep this in mind, even if Bi'ina was indeed the biblical Beth-Anath as Klein, Albright and Safrai allege that it was, it does not contradict Gal's conclusions that Bi'ina was no longer an inhabited city by the Late Bronze Age (during the Israelite conquest of Canaan), but that it, indeed, had been inhabited in the Early Bronze Age. In the Late Bronze Age, when uninhabited, it still retained its namesake (as do most ruins), and then later, obviously as it was, re-inhabited at some later period in time, as referenced by the Tosefta. The only thing that we're able to learn from Gal's statement is that Bi'ina (even if it were the biblical Beth-Anath) was not inhabited during the Late Bronze Age, but that it may have been inhabited earlier and that it retained its name, as did Jish (= Jiš). Therefore, the conclusions reached by Klein, Albright, Safrai, and others (perhaps, too, Isaiah Press) are still valid and can still be upheld. One of the things to remember here is that, according to Judges 1:33, Beth-Anath was in the territorial domain of Naphtali.Davidbena (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I still think most of the material should go into Beth-Anath, and we can then just link to Beth-Anath from this article (and from the other possible locations for Beth-Anath), Huldra (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Huldra, see my reply to Zero0000. I am in agreement with Zero000 that there is a place for rewording our text to: "Along with several other sites, Bi'ina was proposed as the location of ancient Beth-Anath mentioned in Egyptian and biblical texts." I would, however, make this one slight modification: Instead of writing, "However, as of 1988, there is no archaeological evidence to support this identification," we can write: "Bi'ina, though perhaps occupied in the Early Bronze Age, was no longer occupied in the Late Bronze Age."Davidbena (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

David, I think you are reading too much into Gal's article. He does not cite Aharoni at all in regard to that locality, so nothing can be deduced from it. I'm looking for additional archaeological sources but so far failed to find any. Zero^talk 09:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Zero0000, you say that Gal doesn't cite Aharoni at all. Look again at page 80, starting with the second paragraph that begins "Aharoni attempted to present the Galilee, etc." and continue into the consecutive three or four paragraphs on the same page. Everything that Gal concludes there is in complete consonance with Aharoni. Here, we're speaking about periods of settlement and non-settlement.Davidbena (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I said that Gal does not cite Aharoni in relation to Bi'ina. Which is true. We don't know what, if anything, Aharoni wrote about Bi'ina, except that Aharoni placed Beth-Anath far away at Safad el-Batih. Incidentally, Rafael Frankel, Settlement dynamics and regional diversity in ancient Upper Galilee : archaeological survey of Upper Galilee, IAA Reports #14, 2001, might have something useful. Zero^talk 09:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Based on the map shown in Zvi Gal's article, Gal was unsure about the location of Beth-Anath, for which reason it is marked there with a question mark. And, yes, you're right that Aharoni did not speak specifically about Bi'ina. It is my understanding, however, that Gal drew his own conclusions about Bi'ina based on the archaeological evidence of settlement/non-settlement of Bi'ina during the Late Bronze Age from whatever archaeological evidence that he may have had (which, by the way, he doesn't mention), and that in his concluding remarks about "the existence of a biblical settlement" or "non existence of a biblical settlement," it must be understood in the context of what he has been projecting all along in his article, namely, a lull or intermission in settlement. In any event, Gal's view is only one of many, and in the final analysis, there are some who say that Bi'ina is Beth-Anath and who were/are themselves archaeologists. As for Rafael Frankel, is his paper published online? If so, please give me the link.Davidbena (talk) 10:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

P.S. - I found the link to Rafael Frankel's article here. Thanks.Davidbena (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Zero0000, I will kindly ask your indulgence for a moment. Yesterday (Sunday), I went to the National Library in Jerusalem to check out the book, Settlement dynamics and regional diversity in ancient Upper Galilee: archaeological survey of Upper Galilee, IAA Reports, no. 14, published by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) in Jerusalem, 2001, and written by Rafael Frankel, Nimrod Getzov, Mordechai Aviam, and Avi Degani. First, I want to thank you for calling my attention to this book. There, they write on page 136, under the caption "The Bet Ha-Kerem Valley", the following:

• "No Late Bronze Age sites were identified but in the Iron Age the centre moved to el-Biʿna. This was apparently the Bet Anat of Talmudic literature. References suggest that it was the centre of an administrative district (Safrai and Safrai 1970)." END QUOTE.

Though not directly related to our research on Beth Anath, I also noticed where they differed with Zvi Gal's conclusions concerning Jiš (Gush Ḥalav) and where he wrote that it was no longer settled in the Late Bronze Age. They disagree, writing on page 41 (entry # 340) that in Jiš there had been found archaeological evidence suggesting that it had been an active settlement in the periods Early Bronze II-III; Middle Bronze II; Late Bronze; Iron I; Iron II; Persian; Hellenistic; Roman; Byzantine; Crusader/Mamluk; Ottoman. They also cited references for these findings.

I also looked for the opinion of the famous editor of A Topographical-Historical Encyclopaedia of Palestine, the scholar Isaiah Press, who wrote in vol. 1 of that series, on pages 95–96, s.v. בית ענת, that Beth-Anath is thought, by way of conjecture, to be Ain Aata, based on Guérin's identification of this place in Galilée II, p. 374. However, he mentions W.F. Albright's identification of site with al-Baʿana, southwest of al-Buqei'ah in the middle of Upper Galilee. He goes on to name a host of scholars who followed Albright's view, namely: Abel, "La Liste géographique du Papyrus 71 de Zénon", RB 1928, pp. 409–415; idem. Géog. II, p. 266; Alt, PJB 22 (1926), pp. 55–ff.; 24 (1928), p. 87; Saarisalo, "Boundary", p. 189.

Albright's view is mentioned in the article "Contribution to the Historical Geography of Palestine", published in the Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, vols. 2-3, Yale University Press: New Haven 1923, p. 19, where Albright wrote: "The Talmud of Jerusalem (ʿOrlah) names as one of the Galilaean towns on the Jewish border Bēaná (so, ביאנה instead of באינה of the text), which the Tosefta (Kilayim, 2) gives as Bet-ʿanah (בית ענה). This is obviously identical with our Bet-ʿAnat, as Neubauer saw (Géographie du Talmud, p. 235–ff.), and further with modern Beʿnah." END QUOTE. In a footnote, Albright appends the following: "This identification, which I had completely overlooked, supersedes the rash suggestion in JPOS, 1921, p. 55, n. 3, that Beth Anath might be Tell Belat."

Albright goes on to conjecture (p. 19) that the ancient town of Beth Anath was probably situated at the mound of Jelamet el-Beʿneh, less than a mile southeast of Beʿneh, and surrounded by fertile fields. He writes that the word jelameh, "hill, mound," is sometimes employed instead of tell. As for why the "t" in Beth is not prevalent in the name Bi'ina, he explains (p. 19): "In Palestinian Aramaic... the element bēt was often contracted to bē - (e.g. Bēšán for Bētšan)." END QUOTE

Finally, I saw where Yoel Elitzur wrote in his book, Ancient Place Names in the Holy Land - Preservation and History, Jerusalem / Winona Lake, Indiana 2004, p. 374 ISBN 1-57506-071-X, the following remark: "The identification with ʿAynāta, suggested in the early phases of modern Eretz-Israel scholarship, is no longer accepted today, as the location does not fit the biblical data (52 n. 12)." END QUOTE.

One interesting discovery yesterday was that Samuel Klein was not referring to our Bi'ina in his "Notes on History of Large Estates in Palestine" in: (Journal) Yediot - Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society (pp. 5–7), but to a site formerly called by the same name in Iturea, on the opposite side of Mount Hermon, and southwest of Damascus, a place now called Hinah, near Rimah in Syria (places that you can see here). This is clearly explained by Isaiah Press in his Encyclopaedia, s.v. בית ענת. Klein's view, however, has been rejected by the majority of historical geographers, in place for our Bi'ina in Upper Galilee. Hopefully, I'll get around to making these corrections and/or additions to our text.Davidbena (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

All of this obviously belong in theBeth-Anath article!! (and on its talk page) To me, it looks totally absurd that Beth-Anath is simply a redirect to this article, Huldra (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the best thing is not to have a redirect at all. But if there is to be a redirect, this article is definitely the best one, since the preponderance of scholarly opinions points to this place as the biblical Beth-Anath. With that said, your objections are completely unfounded, Huldra, since the consensus here is to mention that Bi'ina has been suggested as the biblical Beth-Anath, with dissenting views out there. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 02:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

That is exactly what I think: we should not have a redirect; we should put all this in the Beth-Anath article ...and all the sources you bring to the table only strengthen that argument. Huldra (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

David, Thanks for your effort on this. But after reading it, and the sources mentioned earlier, I can only summarize the situation as "nobody knows where Beth Anath was but there are many competing theories". I don't agree that there is a consensus that it was at this place, and none of the arguments are very compelling. (It's funny how archaeology is like Wikipedia: everyone claims that their own version is the consensus.) The details of the story belong on a separate page for (possibly not unique) Beth Anath. Zero^talk 06:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Zero0000, by "consensus" I meant a majority view of scholarship. Even so, our current edit does not say that Bi'ina is without question the site of the biblical Beth Anath. Rather, the edit makes it clear that it is a possibility (after your own suggestion), based on the input of several outstanding archaeologists and historical geographers. To name a few: Albright, W.F. (1923). "Contribution to the Historical Geography of Palestine". Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research. 2–3: 19–20., Neubauer (Géographie du Talmud, p. 235–ff.); Abel ("La Liste géographique du Papyrus 71 de Zénon", RB 1928, pp. 409–415, idem. Géog. II, p. 266); Alt (PJB 22, 1926, pp. 55–ff., 24, 1928, p. 87); Saarisalo ("Boundary", p. 189); Safrai ("Beth-Anath", Sinai 78, 1976, pp. 18–34), Safrai, Z. (1985). Chapters of Galilee, During Mishnaic and Talmudic Times: Pirkei Galil (in Hebrew). Jerusalem. p. 62.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link); Rafael Frankel (Settlement dynamics and regional diversity in ancient Upper Galilee, 2001, p. 136); Yoel Elitzur (Ancient Place Names in the Holy Land, 2004, p. 374), this last writer rejecting the site of Ain Aata as the biblical Beth-Anath.Davidbena (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

But wouldn't it be better that reader of this article also got to know which other contenders to position of Beth-Anath there is/has been? Presently, there is no way of getting to know that, for a casual reader. Please feel free to make the Beth-Anath redirection into a proper article...(Note to self: start the Safed el-Battikh article) Huldra (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The reader of this article can get to know the other opinions if he will simply click into the footnotes mentioning Beth-anath here.Davidbena (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Huldra, in consideration of your request, there is a new REDIRECT for Beth-Anath. Click it to see. This redirect is neutral, without purporting to say where exactly the old site is located. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Davidbena, no, that is not what I requested at all! Dont twist my words. It still does get the info about the other places. Huldra (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. What exactly did you mean? Please, if you can elaborate what you mean precisely, and what you feel may be lacking in this article, that is, by giving pointers here on this Talk-Page, we would be better informed. In this article, which speaks specifically about Bi'ina, we have mentioned what the scholars have written about the site - no more and no less.Davidbena (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Davidbena, what I mean its that we should expand Beth-Anath to a proper article...with links to ALL the different places which have been suggested as "Beth-Anath". Huldra (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

And where is Beth-Anath that we can expand it to include links to all the other places? Zero0000, Shrike and I have all agreed to mention their views here, in this article - being merely one of several possibilities, but with the largest consensus. Are you saying that Beth-Anath is a universally accepted site recognised by all, and different to this article?Davidbena (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

No, the Beth-Anath should be along the line of the Emmaus article: first we mention the ancient text (what you presently redirected it to), then we list all the different places which have been suggested as "Beth-Anath", Huldra (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Presently, this article is already along the lines of the Emmaus article, where each suggested site (e.g. Emmaus Nicopolis) mentions the academic views regarding that site. If you wish to write a separate article entitled "Beth Anath", feel free to do so. There, you can also incorporate all the controversial views about the biblical site's location. It still would not take away from this article. The scope and undertaking, of course, will be much larger than what we have divulged here for our readers, since brevity was the guideline here.Davidbena (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Classical antiquity

Historical geographer, Samuel Klein, citing the Zenon Papyri where it mentions Beth-anath as one of the way stops in Galilee, surmises that the ancient site should be identified with Bi'ina. Beth-anath is also mentioned in the 2nd-century Tosefta (Kila'im 2:16) as being a borderline village, inhabited by both Jews and Gentiles.

References

16th-century population

@Huldra: Hi, see Rhodes (1979) p. 184. It's a table of Christians in the Safad Sanjak. It shows ratios of the Christian/non-Christian population of villages in the sanjak. For the year 1547/48 Rhodes notes this year was "based on Hutteroth-Abdulfattah Historical Geography pp. 175–195". Under that year he lists the ratio as 75 Christian (households or people?)/305 total (households or people?). The article here states 61 Muslim households and 15 Christian households. My understanding is that the "1596" records used by HA are actually for 1543 or 1547. So (1) is this a discrepancy? And (2) do the numbers used by Rhodes in this table denote persons or households? --Al Ameer (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I checked the Hutteroth-Abdulfattah; the numbers in the article are correct (according to them), while Rhodes (1979), p. 6 says that Hutteroth-Abdulfattahs numbers are from 955 A.H. (154B-9), while on p. 184 he writes 1547-8. So Rhodes messed up his numbers about the year, but I think he gave the total number of inhabitants, (not hana=households, like HA did), Huldra (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll update the article then on the basis that these numbers represented persons. Al Ameer (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

On a related note, Rhodes mentions a Christian village, one of the few listed in the 16th-century tax registers for Safad Sanjak, called "Majdal Alya" ("the high tower"--my translation). Could this in fact be Deir al-Asad? It is wedged between Majd al-Kurum and Bi'ina on the map of the nahiya of Akka on page 210 of Rhodes's thesis. I was working on Deir al-Asad recently and came to find that it was a Christian village in the 16th century known in contemporary literary sources as "Deir al-Bi'ina" or "Deir al-Khidr" and was granted to a Sufi shaykh named Muhammad al-Asad by either sultan Selim I or Suleiman the Magnificent, probably the former. Its Christians were expelled to Bi'ina, though it is not specified when exactly. Let me know your thoughts on this. Pinging Zero0000 as well. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, that map page 210 in Rhodes is interesting. "Qabra" and "Mibliyah" are found in moderen times as "khirbets". The problem is that "Da'nah" is east of "Majdal Alya" on that map, (while Deir al-Asad is (slightly) west of Bi'ina today; otherwise I would have said that "Da'nah" =Deir al-Asad (="Deir al-Bi'ina" or "Deir al-Khidr"?) and "Majdal Alya"= Bi'ina. That would fit with the Christians being expelled from "Deir al-Bi'ina" or "Deir al-Khidr" (=Deir al-Asad) to "Majdal Alya"= Bi'ina.

If the Christians were expelled to Bi'ina during the time Selim I or Suleiman the Magnificent, that would fit with a Christian population in 1596, (albeit only 15 out of 61 households)

BUT: HA#p.191 has a Majdal 'Alya 7?, just after Bi'ina and Majd al-Krum, and they have Majdal 'Alya was a wholly Muslim village (11 households, +11 bachelors). 1/3 of the revenue went to a waqf, and it is noted "near Majdal Kurum")

So how does Rhode get it to be a Christian village in the 16th century?

Rhode, p. 84 has Majdal 'Alya at 175/258, ie 2 km south of Deir al-Asad. It has a note 39 (=p.111) which says: "This village is above the village of Majdal Kurum. On the map, it is listed as al-Qal'ah, the only fortress above Majdal Kurum." (Which map? I cannot find any al-Qal'ah in the vicinity). The closest is Kh. al-Qabra, just west of Majd al-Krum. And on his map, p. 210, Majdal 'Alya is listed as Majdal 'Alya, just above al-Qabra.

Also, al-Qal'ah = "fortress" (if my Arabic is correct), that fits with the very high number of bachelors.

Were there any villages/fortress there in the 16th century, which has disappeared today? It doesn't look so from SWP map3; no other khirbeh marked.

I would have tended to belive that the map on page 210 in Rhodes is inaccurate, and that "Da'nah" =Deir al-Asad (="Deir al-B'ina" or "Deir al-Khidr", while "Majdal Alya"= Bi'ina. Perhaps they took their "old" name of "Deir al-Bi'ina" and applied it to their new village, the old "Majdal Alya"?

However, that doesn't fit with HA at all, it indicates "Majdal Alya" =Deir al-Asad, if any at all.

As a tentative conclusion: I don't find any identifications which "fits" all the info given...........

On another note, Rhode has set 5 people = 1 household in the 16th century records (though nowhere in his thesis does he say so directly, AFAIK). W. Khalidi used 5.5 persons = 1 hana, if I recall correctly. Huldra (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

This map shows a number of tracts of land called El Qal'a near El Bina. There are three around below it, and one to the NW just under the map boundary (the village cut off there is Deir el Asad). Whether these are relevant, I don't know. Zero^talk 00:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, this was probably wishful thinking on my part. The history, names and habitation of Deir al-Asad and Bi'ina were so intertwined from the Crusader, Mamluk and, evidently, the early Ottoman, periods. Besides Rhodes (and HA) I have not been able to find anything whatsoever on Majdal Alya and its plausible alternative English spellings (Majd al-Aliya, etc.) or on al-Qal'a. I have to look in Rhodes again, but I believe he notes that Majd al-Alya was originally listed as a farm in the earlier 16th century tax registers before becoming a village in later 16th century registers. Thus, it may have had shallow roots to begin with and was abandoned not long after, leaving little trace. Odd that there would be zero trace of al-Qal'a though, if it was, as the name implies, a fortress. —Al Ameer (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Sites excavated by the Israel Antiquities Authority

Huldra, shalom. I have rechecked the sources that you thought may have been referring to Bu'eine Nujeidat, two Arab villages that were merged in 1987, and where there have been found Iron Age, Roman and Byzantine relics from the distant past. However, as for Bi'ina (our article here), the one IAA source for 2014 says explicitly that it was "Bee'ina" where excavations were being conducted (see item # A-7169) here. As for the second IAA source, dated 2016, it too says that it was "Beina," not Bu'eine Nujeidat, that was being excavated, as you can see here (item # A-7632). How do we know that these two IAA excavations were carried out in Bu'eine Nujeidat, as you claim, rather than in Bi'ina? I'm just curious to know how you came-up with this information. Again, your time-belaboring research on Wikipedia is to be commended. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Davidbena; I was looking for anything published about these excavations over at hadashot-esi.org.il; but didn't find anything. Then I just searched for A-7169 and A-7632 in the "Permit" field here; that gives you the relevant articles, which are already added to the Bu'eine Nujeidat-articles (working on including the info into the articles now..) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!Davidbena (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, that "some excavation-permit" has been given, or "some excavation" has taken place anywhere isn't very interesting, me thinks. However, what has been excavated is very interesting, IMO. So these notices about excavations conducted/permits given might be more relevant for the Talk-pages of articles? So we can come back and check for what any excavation-report says and add that to the article in question? Huldra (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)