Talk:Four-room house

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Jewish history

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Purpose of rooms?[edit]

What were the four rooms used for? For example, was one a kitchen? Or were they not rooms in the modern sense? -- Beland (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The people actually mainly lived on the upper floor. The four rooms on the ground floor were mainly used for animals and storage. Not sure where the hearth was... AnonMoos (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Four-Room House": hyphen is mandatory[edit]

Pls change title accordingly. Thanks. Arminden (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We would follow the usage of archaeologists (WP:COMMONNAME), not necessarily theoretically correct punctuation... AnonMoos (talk) 07:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Arminden and AnonMoos: a quick check looks as though the title needs a change. Sources seem to mainly use the hyphen, as of course does our article. Doug Weller talk 10:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Finkelstein, 1988: 237–59"[edit]

What is it? AnonMoos (talk) 07:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos: sources used by the cited source. Doug Weller talk 10:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See my edit summary where I restored my original text. Doug Weller talk 11:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zevit quote is self-contradictory, need original[edit]

Total nonsense, self-contradictory: not typically Israelite, but characteristic for Israelite sites. It actually is a footnote quoting books by Amihai and Finkelstein: we need those, with the original quotes! Otherwise better remove it all.

Also, the sites-cum-layers listed there make sense only to scholars who immediately associate the layers with a time period (part of either Late Bronze or Early Iron Ages), and an identified non-Israelite population.

As it is now, it looks like not understood, but copied and pasted in. Arminden (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, it's a footnote:

"The Iron Age pillared houses, the “four-room house,” arc not uniquely Israelite. They arc found in Iron Age non-Israelite sites such as Tell Kaisan, Tell Abu Hawam IV, and Tel Qasilc X, Tell esh-Sharia' VII, but they arc unlike the Late Bronze II pillared house discovered at Tel Barash and they are characteristic of Israelite sites (A. Mazar, 1985a: 67-8; Finkclstein, 1988: 237-59)."

It doesn't say "not typically". We could cut out the examples if you want to simplify the quote.

We don't need the original, that's not the way we work. Or of course you are free to look at Mazar and Finkelstein. You seem to be on first name terms with Mazar so that one should be easy to check. Doug Weller talk 12:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the sources, but there seems to be a slightly messy archaeological situation where there isn't necessarily a simple exceptionless absolute 100% correlation between a four-room house and Israelite identity, but there's still a strong overall correlation between the rise and spread of four-room houses and the rise and spread of Israelite identity. We can discuss how such a situation should be presented on the article... AnonMoos (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]