Talk:Khirbat Zakariyya

Serious issues with this article.

Khirbet Zakariyya, as understood by its name, is a ruin. The 19th century sources it is not mentioned as a village, and only ruins are stated. The British lists as it seems only mention the place from 1945 and only state that there are cereals grown there, but no population. A 1:20,000 map of the place (El Qubab map) doesn't show any built-up area. I have checked the sources of Benny Morris and I didn't see any mention to Zakariya, but to the other villages in the area. Also, I don't understand why Rashid Khalidi's comment on Mevo Modi'in is relevent here, as this settlement was clearly built on the land of al-Midya (which is still standing by the way). The OIS/Palestine Grid block 147/148 doesn't show anything but a lonely well. Is there any justification for this article to stand as an article on a "depopulated Palestinian village"? To me it seems more like a ruin that was probably used by semi-nomads or by the nearby villages. The available sources on excavations by the IAA shows there has been a settlement there from the 9th to 16th centuries CE (See: [1])--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

(1) Morris gives causes of depopulation, which is hard if there was no population. (2) Lots of populated places are called "Khirbet", so that name is not really evidence. (3) Khirbet Zakariyya had village lands, why?

These are not a strong reply to your concerns. Maybe it had bedouin residents as did many other places without a built-up area; I can't prove it. The PhD thesis of Seth Frantzman says it had 10 houses and a population of 69 in the 1931 census. However, the spelling in the census is Ez Zuheiriya which is almost certainly Khirbat al-Duhayriyya so I think Frantzman made a mistake. This mistake is confirmed by the fact that the 1938 village statistics lists "Khirbet Zakariyya" and "Ez Zuheiriya" separately. Zero^talk 04:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The only thing Morris gives is a cause of depopulation, but the rest of the citations in the article (one page of them I couldn't access) don't even mention Zakariyya but the villages next to it. I am not saying that Zakariya was not a village, becuase I don't know that for sure. I say that the existing evidence, both cited in the article and in what I observed (in the 1942 maps for example), do not indicate the existence of a village but rather an administrative division simmilar to many other places which were inhabited by semi-nomadic people. The 1946 1:250,000 map shows it as a ruin and not a settled place. Either way, it seems that the 20th century settlement, whatever it may be, is very young, and that the place has a richer history not as a "depopulated Palestinian village" but as an Early Islamic settlement. I don't think I will have much time to deal with the article, but it felt neccessary to express that there are certain issues with the series of articles about Palestinian villages, which are based solely on 19th-20th century sources. I have had the discussion with Onceinawhile some time ago about how the history of the land is either Israeli/Zionist or Palestinian, and that's, strictly speaking, false.

As for the article, I think the Morris references need to be rechecked and removed if I was not mistaken. I also think that Khalidi's comment is irrelevent becuase as I've said Mevo Modiin was not built in Zakariyas land. I would also suggest rephrasing the lead a bit, to state that Khirbet Zakariya is an ancient site next to Modi'in, which was listed as a Palestinian Arab village in 1945. That's as true as it can get.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, this article was started by Blofeld, back in 2009, when he started all the articles mentioned in Khalidi (actually, he used the Pal.rem. site, but that was at the time wholly based on Khalidi). Then I, later, added the stuff I could find.

Do you have Morris, 2004? If not, please tell. Morris says (in the index):

Khirbet Zakariya/Jimzu, xvii, 354, 376, 433, 435.

On p. 376 in the book it then says Khirbet Zakariya/Jimzu, (Jimzu was ~ 2km WNW of Khirbet Zakariya)

but on pp 354, 433, & 435 in the book only mentions Jimzu.

So, all he writes about Jimzu is also valid for Khirbet Zakariya? That is the way it is presently interpreted. I guess only Morris can say if that is correct. Huldra (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Btw, there are a lot of pictures in the Clermont-Ganneau-article, which really should be uploaded to commons, Huldra (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

There are also lots of articles on Khurbet el Kelkh/Horbat Kelah: Search for Horbat Kelah. Those should also be incorporated into the article, somehow....Huldra (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it would make sense to combine two archaeological sites within an article on a village whose nature and existence are not so clear. The place appears on maps as a village territory adjacent to Jimzu to the east, no map show any settlement there other than some crop fields. British records give it no population and its "depopulation" based on Morris's 2004 Birth Revisited book in 1948 is linked to Jimzu. In his Hebrew book titled "1948" I found no mention of Khirbet Zakariya. In the Hebrew original of "Independence Versus Nakba" by Gelber there is no mention to Zakariya as well. He quotes a telegram sent to the AHC office in Damascus stating: "The enemny conquered yesterday Bayt Nabala, Jimzu, Innaba, Deir Tarif, Qula, al-Tira, al-Zariya, Ramla, Lod, the Airport in Lod..." no mention of Khirbet Zakariya. (Gelber 2004, p. 250)

To my understanding, Khirbet Zakariya is no village. It had no population and all of the available sources about it apart from the British lists provide information about its antiquities.

Therefore I suggest changing the scope of the article from a Palestinian village to an archaeological site and providing information about it being listed as a village in British lists, with agricultural lands worked by Arabs until the fall of Jimzu in 1948.

Most of the excavations on Khirbet Kelah are not really on Khirbet Kelah but in the region and to be honest, I am not really sure where is Khirbet Kelah. British lists have located it on a hill north of Zakariya, and the Archaeological Survey of Israel agrees, but one of the IAA reports's maps place it much to the north. The recent edition of 1:25,000 maps of modern Israel doesnt show Kelah anywhere and there's a bug on GovMap so I can't access the archaeological layer. It is a common practice for the IAA to name random rescue excavations of a tiny section of a wall of unknown purpose or an agricultural installation of an unknown period and name it after the second/third closest archaeological site. I suspect it is done partially in order to create a narrative that will protect a landscape from contractors who want to built on top of it.

So Zakariya is best represented by the impressive remains from the 2017-2018 IAA excavation.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The coordinates for Horbat Kelah in this article are about 500 meters south-west of Khirbet Zakariyya. Since it says "eastern slopes of Horbat Kelah" that Horbat should be slightly further west but I don't see it on a map. Incidentally the coordinates in our article seem to be way off; I'll investigate that tomorrow. Zero^talk 15:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Huldra, I have contacted Marom and he told that Kh. Zakariyya was an unpopulated estate. He provided me with an Hebrew article he wrote about Jindas, where Kh. Zakariyya is mentioned as one of three estates owned by Hawaja family of the Yaman along with Khirbat al-Duhayriyya and Dayr Abu Salama.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Bolter21; I have no reason to doubt you or Marum, BUT: at the moment it sounds as pretty much the definition of WP:OR. It is very interesting info that the land was owned by the Hawaja family; but note that both Khirbat al-Duhayriyya and Dayr Abu Salama were populated in 1945 (and likely also 1948), so that is no proof, or even indication that the land was empty in 1948. And Morris, 2004, p. 376 says: "On 20 August, the settlement executives submitted the revised plan: "It provided for 32 settlements on JNF, State and Arab-owned lands [] The 32 were: [] Khirbet Zakariya/Jimzu (Gimzo) and Khirbet al Kunaisiya/al Qubab (Mishmar-Ayalon and Kfar Bin-Nun) etc, etc" Note 202, p. 407. So the "Settlement Committee of the National Institutions" wrote as if it was a separate location. (This is in the chapter "Blocking a return": if it was empty before 1948: why would they need to block a return?)

As for combining two archaeological sites; those who wrote about it in the second half of 19th century (Guerin, Clermont-Ganneau) seem to look at it as more or less a continous site. User:Onceinawhile; can you see if those places were inside the borderline of Khirbat Zakariyya? Huldra (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The two archaeological sites are visible at the bottom left corner of this map: File:Survey of Western Palestine 1880.14.jpg. They are within 300-400m of each other. Per this map: File:14-14-ElQubab-1942.jpg (top right corner), they are both within the village lands of Khirbat Zakariyya. Visually they look like the same broad area, given how close they are. Incidentally, this link shows an archaeological site in the area, which looks to be about 100-200m to the south of both sites, but may be related. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Initially I was inclined to dissent, since PEF shows Kh. Kelkh to the NE of Kh. Zakariyya while [this report gives coordinates to the SW. However, on looking at various other Horbat Kelah reports I see locations scattered around a fairly large area and it seems like "Horbat Kelah" is used for the general area and not just to the specific location. Zero^talk 03:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I have never said that it was an empty place as it was clearly cultivated by Arabs. All I am saying is that at best I could spot a single structure in the 1:20000 map and even that is no so consistent with Khalidi's description, which is vague on its own. Marom's article in an academic jorunal states that it was an estate owned by a family from another village. Both of Morris' sources do not prove it was a village but that it was captured by the Israelis, and solely in relation to Jimzu. Being an estate does not mean it can't have a population, but being an estate means it can't be considered a village. I am asking to take a more cautious stance to prevent confusion, when we don't even know what was the nature of the place. The current description is not consistent with what we know based on the sources we have, and it follows to blindly what seems to be confusions created by Morris (a war historian) and Khalidi (whose "All That Remains" is clearly not the best source to describe villages). With the recent addition of archaeological material from excavation, as well as 19th century explorers, I would again call for caution to prevent confusions.--User:Bolter21--2001:BF8:200:392:AB:7563:4FD:AB92 (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Bolter; I tend to agree with you, BUT: WP:OR still holds.

Also, if Marom has published in an academic journal that the Hawaja family owned the land of this place, and the land of Khirbat al-Duhayriyya and Dayr Abu Salama; then the info really should be put into those 3 articles!

That Morris' sources mention this place in connection with Jimzu is not an argument that they are the same; in the above he also mention, say, Khirbet al Kunaisiya/al Qubab together; they were still 2 distinct villages.

From the maps; it clearly mention Kh. Zakariyya, BUT: no major structures -> indicate bedouin.

As for including both the archeological places; read Guerin: he writes about Kh. Zakarieh, then mentions that Clermont-Ganneau "found there a beautiful baptistery" etc. If you look at Clermont-Ganneau original, he clearly says that the baptistry was found at Kh. el Kelkh (p. 357); for me, this makes it not easy to split up, Huldra (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok let me try and clarify some things. First of all, as for the two archaeological sites, it is a tough one. It is really safe to say that apart from the excavations just south of Khirbet Zakariya which exposed a settlement of the Early Arab period, we don't know much on either sites. They have been explored by 19th century explorers, but they represent an amateur archaeological research and by amateur I mean that virtually all archaeological work in the 19th century was amateur. The Survey of the Map of Gezer (Map 82), conducted by Alon Shavit and his team in recent decades, separates these two sites: Zakariya and Kelah. They mostly overlap in history, but surface finds in Kelah show it is much older, including Iron Age II, Persian, Hellenistic and Roman remains, while Zakariya begins its history as early as the Byzantine. The excavation reports show evidence of activity near the site in the Roman, but still that would make Kelah at least 700 years older than Zakariya. I wouldn't suggest combining these two, especially given that these two sites are located under the sun and may be subjected to rescue excavations in coming years.

Back to the village, I have never said that Jimzu and Zakariya are the same place. All I've said is that the evidence supporting this place being a "village" is insfficient, especially when one article refers to it as an estate. This is not OR, since we do have at least one reliable source (Marom's article) which refers to it as an estate. You can't create an article about a "village" when you can't even say it had a population, let alone structures. I do believe in certain cases, a critical reading of our relialbe sources is warranted, and we don't have to carelessly go by any source we read. We should refrain from original research, but we should also refrain from including confusing laconic information which is very possibly wrong and doesn't even touch the subject directly (As the book of Morris talks about war and not settlements). Census data and military history do not breathe life into a place and a cold reading of them can create a confusing narrative. I would suggest writing something like "Khirbet Zakariya is an archaeological site of an Early Islamic settlement... In the early 20th century the Hawaja family owned an estate on the ruin and its surrounding lands, recorded in the 1945 village survey and its lands were used to grow cereals. The estate was captured and destroyed along with nearby Jimzu by the IDF during operation Dani". All of these are backed by reliable sources (IAA excavation reports+survey data, Marom's article, 1945 Village survey, Khalidi and Morris). It is just a more careful summary of the sources to express our very humble knowledge of the place.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• The village first: the problem with your proposal is that it chooses one WP:RS, and ignores two other RS. I don't think we can -or should- do that. An alternative: "Khirbet Zakariya is a site located in/at bla,bla. Khalidi and Morris writes that Khirbet Zakariya was a Palestinian village depopulated in 1948, while <> Roy Marom writes that in the 20th century the Hawaja family owned an estate on the ruin of Khirbet Zakariya and its surrounding lands." (The Roy Marom-bit needs some work, and the <> should say something about his qualifications, since we cannot link to a wiki-article about him.) "Major archeological remains from the Early Islamic era (++?) have been found here."
• As for the archeological part: as you say, we don't know too much about either site (and I totally agree about the quality of the socalled "archaeological excavations" in the 19th century.) But: since we don't know much (Khirbet Zakariya might yet show itself to be equally old as Kh. Kelkh.) And as both seem to be within the Mandatory borders of Khirbet Zakariya, I suggest that we treat them both here. We can easily fork them in the future, if they are different settlements. Huldra (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that it chooses one RS over another. First of all, Morris does not explicitly refer to Zakariyya as a village. In Brith-Revisited, Khirbet Zakariyya appears only twice. The first time in p.xvii, no.231 in the list - stating Khirbet Zakariyya was destroyed on 12-13 July 1948 and the reasons stated are: M - "Military assault on settlement" and C - "Influence of nearby town's fall". It is worth mentioning that the date for its destruction is later than Jimzu's on 10 July.

The second time Khirbet Zakariya appears is on p.376, conjoined with Jimzu as a place appearing in a list of Arab settlements on whose lands new Jewish settlements are to be built.

Apart from that, Zakariya is not mentioned. The index refers to Jimzu and Zakariya together, but the rest of the mentions to Jimzu have nothing we can say about Zakariya.

It is not so clear to how Morris determined that Zakariya was captured on 12-13 July 1948, as this doesn't appear in the book. I don't see any reason why this is sufficient enough to constitute a RS that there was a village named Khirbet Zakariyya.

Furthermore, I have scrolled through a very detailed description of Operation Dani, compiled by Dr. Oren Elhanan (Israeli military historian), it provides a table (unfortunately in Hebrew), which the events to the level of which batallion and company were involved, in what part of the day sometimes even to the level of at what hour. I am not saying it is probably 100% accurate, but it is intriguing that there is absolutely no mention to any attack on Khirbet Zakariya between 12-13 July. What you can find there, is that after Jimzu was captured on 10 July, armored troops from Barfiliya (south of Zakariya) tried to attack the Israeli forces in Lod and were stopped by the troops at Jimzu and on 13 July another attack on Haditha is thwarted by Israeli troops. Then, in the morning of 13 July, Dayr Abu Salama is captured. All of the dates are consistent with Morris' list, but the absence of Zakariya is noted. Just to make sure again, I checked Morris' description of Operation Dani in his "1948" book (both in English and in Hebrew. In the Hebrew version which I have printed there's a map of all villages captured and their dates. Zakariyya is not on the map). As mentioned above, I've also checked the Hebrew version of Independence versus Nakba by Yoav Gelber, and again, a detailed description of operation Dani, though no mention of Zakariyya. Checked also in David Tal's "War in Palestine" book. Mentioned all villages other than Zakariyya.

I think that's quite clear. The only mention to a military attack on Zakariya is in the list of Morris, which he himself doesn't explane in any of his books: Birth, Birth-Revisited and 1948. It doesn't appear in any of the other books, while other small settlements such as Dayr Abu Salama and Duhureiriya do appear, consistent with the rest of Morris' list.

Now as for Khalidi, he does provide some description about the village, but it is not clear from where does he take this information. His description of the village, as standing on a westward sloping hill, between two converging rivers, seems consistent with the location he provides: 147/148, but no map shows anything there.

The British lists provide no population.

Marom's article states that Zakariyya was an estate owned by the Hawaja family from Niilin along with Dayr Abu Salama and Duhreiyriya. He does not mention if it was populated or not, just that it was an estate. (That Marom told me that it was unpopulated is of no use for us). If you'll look at the Lydda map from 1944, you'll see that the territory of Zakariya is not even refered to as Zakariya but as "Ni'lin (DET. 2)". I don't know really what that says. But in all other maps of Palestine, Khirbet Zakariyya appears as an archaeological site, and no village is stated there. It is abcent from all descriptions of Operation Dani except for a miserable mention in one unexplained list by Morris. Rashidi's description is also quite vague and it is unclear how he determines what he determines.

I have no ability to contribute all information that exists on this site because I don't have access to all sources (which are plenty as you can see here under the "Source of Knowledge" tab). The whole area today is a tourist attraction for Israelis, known as "Monk's Caves". I can't provide much RS to create an article on that but that's just something I know from spending enough time there. I only have access to the 19th century sources like you, and to a modern entry in a work titled "CHRISTIANS AND CHRISTIANITY CORPUS OF CHRISTIAN SITES IN SAMARIA AND NORTHERN JUDEA" which contains a two-page summary of the research at the site.

So to conclude all of the bullshit I am writing here: I think this article requires clean-up and a change of scope. It shouldn't explicitly be referred to as a "village" since it has no population or structures. The only real source for it is a village is Khalidi and until anything will come up, it should be included in the article because obviously, we can't remove RS so lightly (I personally don't think that All That Remains is an RS but in this case, there is no other option). Marom's article will be linked to state that Zakariya and its lands were owned by a Ni'lin family. It does not deny it is a village, but it gives an explanation as to why it has no population. The British lists in this case are consistent with the maps: It is a cultivated territory. I think the entire "1948 and after" section can be removed, as it is all based on the entry in Morris' list, which is not explained in his book and is not repeated by any of the other books I've checked, including Morris' own books. The only text mention to Zakariya in Morris' book, as mentioned above, talks about establishing a Jewish settlement there, but no Jewish settlement have been established on Zakariya's land until in the 21st century an industrial zone was established there (By the way, I have an Hebrew article about a resident protest against the expansion of the industrial zone to the ruin, which by the way, seem to have failed) It makes no sense that a place with no population would be depopulated. Khalidi in his book does not repeat Morris' dates.

It is very well clear, that to simply state "Khirbet Zakariyya" is a village is impossible. There is no good evidence to support that and all British maps show no sign of any settlement there. We know for sure a land was defined under the name "Khirbet Zakariyya" and was cultivated by Arabs, and there is strong evidence to suggest it was owned by a family from Ni'lin (Marom as an RS and the Lydda map for our own confidence). By the way at this point, I would to state that I am not talking with Marom on this or having any permanent communication with him. I've met him once and sent him an Email. Cause I don't want to make an impression that I am pushing my colleagues' opinions out of some courtesy to them.

It is also very clear that Zakariya's Palestinian history is limited to the 20th century since in the late 19th century it was uninhabited. It has impressive ruins and the region is linked to activity all throughout the first millennium BCE (Byzantine monastic activity, Early Islamic settlement). It is ridiculous that this article will be presented as a Palestinian village when clearly this chapter of its history is both poorly sourced and also limited to a few years at best.

My OR and opinions don't matter here as I am not going to put any of them in the article. I am just asking to clean up confusing and probably wrong information--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Two points. Morris' table is not for date of destruction, but "decisive causes of abandonment" (p. xiv). So I think you are overstating your case there, though you are certainly correct that Morris provides only sparse information. You raise an interesting issue with that map. The site of the khirbet is further south, on this map at 1476/1480 adjacent to where it says "En Nabi Dhikrawi". You can see it is within the dotted boundary labeled as the village lands "Kh. Zakariya". On the other hand, those dotted boundaries extend into your map where the region is labeled "Nilin (Det. 2)". These two maps were published in the same year 1942, so there is an apparent contradiction. I have a 1950 map still in English but (as the Survey of Israel did in its first printing of the maps) the village boundaries are erased. I can't explain the contradiction, but I can report that "Khirbat Zakariya" is still listed as a village in the Ramle Sub-District in the Administrative Divisions (Amendment) Proclamation, 1947 (Gazette #1552, Jan 1947, Supplement 2). It is also shown that way in two official lists bracketing the map publication (Gazette #1163, Jan 1942, Suppl. 2; #1255, Mar 1943, Suppl. 2). Zero^talk 02:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Zero0000 Thanks for the reply. I was under the impression that the Morris list talks about "depopulation" because this is the rhetoric used in Wikipedia articles. I've missed that. Either way, that it was abandoned is clear - Zakariya had crops that were clearly abandoned. If you are referring to this, than it is not listed as a "village". It is just listed as a place from where the Brits collect taxes. This list shows no distinction between villages and cities. For example, in the Nazareth section, Nazareth is listed among the villages, but clearly, Nazareth wasn't a village at that time. In Hadawi's list, Zakariya appears with no population, just like El-Qubeiba (between Duhreyriya and Abu Salama in the Lydda map). If you"ll look at Kfar Uria, you'll see that the Government of Palestine had no problem counting as few as 20 people living in one settlement. In Deir 'Amr they even counted as few as 10. It is safe to say, that the list doesn't lie and that Zakariya had no settled population. A look at the map shows that there is no structures in the territory of Zakariya and that the whole territory is clearly named after an antiquities site. Aparently, as state before, there is one, not so strong of a source but still publised in an academic journal (Roy Marom's Hebrew article on Jindas), which states that Zakariya, along with Duhreyriya and Abu Salama were estates owned by the Hawaja family of Ni'lin, and to my surprise, this is somewhat hinted in the Lydda map (only for Zakariya, the other two estates have no indication they belong to someone on that map). Stating it again, but Marom, who knows about the region probably more than all of us combined, has told me in person that Zakariya was an unpopulated estate. Of course, this is far from an RS, but it makes much more sense than anything written in the article or in Khalidi's unreferenced entry with vague pictures and coordinates that lead nowhere.

As I've said somewhere above, census and tax lists do not breathe life into a settled place, and cannot serve as the only source for its description. The reading of the British tax list to say that Zakariya is a village is simply wrong. We have plenty of sources concerning antiquities at the site, and based on the fact that the place doesn't even appear in the 1922 and 1935 lists, it seems that even if there was any village (which by 1942 seems to not be the case), it had an extremely short history, especially in comparison to the rich history of the site based on its antiquities. Even the picture in the article is titled "Monk's Valley", which is a tourist attraction in the area, that is clearly unrelated to any Arab settlement there. These heaps of stones, with the industrial zone in the background look like something located in the actual site of Nabi Dhirkawi. May be the agricultural terraces that Alon Shavit mentions in the survey entry, but we can't know for sure.

This article creates an extremely false narrative, and it should be changed completely to an article about an archaeological site. I will visit the place sometime in the future, so now I have a reason to take a crapload of pictures. Anyway, we have here a shrine, a pool, monastic caves, interesting finds from early Christianity, excavated Early Islamic village, and survey data attesting to an even older occupation. Nothing can be added until there is a consensus that indeed the village didn't exist, to the best of owr knowledge (cause that's what the lead section, the infobox, the "about" notice above and the template below say).--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bolter21: The administrative proclamations list regions, not populated places. They are often referred to as "villages" (for example in multiple footnotes to the 1942 list) but really they are village units. The number of population centers they contain could be anything from 0 to several, so the fact that they appear in the list doesn't prove anything for sure about population. I only brought up these lists in response to your point about the name "Nilin (Det. 2)" appearing on a map. The fact that "Khirbat Zakariya" continued to appear on the lists right up to the end of the mandate shows that that village unit did not get renamed as part of the Nilin unit. If there was no population even at the start of the mandate, how did it get to be a separately named unit at all? I don't have a theory. Regarding population, I am convinced by the map evidence that there was no built-up area, unless it was just a few houses. The possibility of a seasonal or nomadic population is undetermined and I don't know how to determine it. Zero^talk 11:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, I have no explanation to that Ni'lin thing either. But as stated before, in a footnote in this article published Lod, Lydda, Diospolis journal, Zakariya is mentioned as one of three estates owned by the Hawaja family of Ni'lin. You and Huldra both mentioned the Beduin thing, but there were other froms of ownership such as lands which were owned by the waqf. This was the case of Jindas, which was settled and abandoned somewhere between the 17th and 18th century due to the wars between the Qays and Yaman. I don't know if Zakariya was the same, but it was indeed a village in early Islamic period and continued to function through the Crusader, Mamluk and to the very beginning of the Ottoman period, as attested by the IAA premilinary report from 2021. We will probably see in the next years a full report in the 'Atiqot journal. It is quite clear that the settlement at Zakariya was abandoned, as the 19th century traveles completely missed it, as well as the survey conducted there in the 21st century. It was probably completely buried under the soil since neither the PEF nor the Goverment of Palestine recorded it (which is far from uncommon. Giant sites have been missed by surveryers all the time). They only recorded the visible ruins on the top of the hill. It was only a salvage excavation that revealed the latest phase of the settlement at the site. So it is possible that the land of Zakariya was known to the Ottoman authorities and later to the British authorities, as the map and the census data clearly state it was cultivated and someone must have owned it. The answer, at least for the 19th century comes from Marom's article, which states that the Hawaja family (of the Yaman tribe, who migrated controlled Ni'lin, Midya, Zakariya, Abu Salam and Duhreyriya.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Another (tiny) piece of evidence is the 1948 Index Gazetteer of Palestine, which listed all the place names marked on the 1:100,000 maps. This place is indicated as "khirba". The explanation of "khirba" is this: "Kirba means either an abandoned or a temporary site of habitation. This term may be used to describe anything from a few scattered stones to permanently inhabited villages and appears several hundred times on Palestine maps. An attempt has been made to classify the more important." Looking through the list, many places with "Khirbat" in their name are classified as "hamlet", "ruin", etc, but this place is not classified at all. Zero^talk 15:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Change of scope

I would be BOLD but that might not be a good idea. I would like to have a clear consensus. Huldra, Zero0000 - It would same based on all information we gathered above, that in order for the article to be accurate the lead section should be completely rephrased, the infobox and bottom templates removed, and the scope in general shift to the many antiquities at the site. Any information from British lists will be kept and phrased carefully. If this is accepted in principal, this article can enjoy a makeover.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not agree with this. To repeat: you are choosing one version, and dismissing another. It is not up to us (ie wikipedia editors) to do that. As for Khalidi; he based his description of the pre-1948 site on Mustafa al-Dabbagh's "Biladuna Filastin", which unfortunately only exists in Arabic. (Btw, didn't al-Dabbagh get his info by asking people in the refugee camps to describe their (former) villages?)

I agree that the intro should be rewritten; I still suggest that we should present both views, Huldra (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It is not a matter of two views, clearly Khalidi's work is unverifiable and contradicts virtually anything else. A village with no recorded population, no continuous history prior to the second quarter of the 20th century, doesn't exist in maps, doesn't exist in lists and is absent from any description of Operation Dani. This may seem complicated given the appearance of WP:RS supporting the existence of the source, but a careful examination shows Morris' accounts contribute nothing, and Khalidi's unreferenced work cannot be taken seriously and better be ignored. Wikipedia articles are a mosaic of sources, in this case, we can't create a picture of a Palestinian village out of the sources we have, because the utterly laconic and suspiciously unreferenced evidence comes down to one entry in a book with a clear agenda. Based on what we have, Khirbet Zakariya is no village. Look at the bibliography you yourself created:

• Clermont-Ganneau: archaeological site
• Conder, Kitchener: archaeological site
• Danziger, Omri: archaeological site
• Village Statistics, 1945: no population, no built-up area only crops
• Guérin: archaeological site
• Khalidi: only source about a "village" but still with no population, coordinates leading nowhere, and pictures of a naked hill. Unreferenced, we can't verify anything written there other than the British lists
• Morris: only gives a date of "abandonment" that is not repeated in any other work and not explained in text, mentions nothing on a village
• Palmer, E.H.: name of the shrine, not the khirbe/village
• Shachar, Dan: archaeological site
• Tendler, Avraham: archaeological site

Besides that:

• Doesn't appear in the Socin list from 1871 (not to be confused with Az-Zakariyya from the Hebron district
• Doesn't appear in the 1922 census
• Doesn't appear in the 1931 census
• No village seen in 1942 map
• Appears as a ruin in 1944 1:250,000 map
• Appears as a ruin in a smaller territory with no name and no settlement in the 1929 1:20,000 map
• Appears as a ruin the 1:100,000 map of 1942, in its additions up to 1952, it is not mentioned as a "destroyed" village
• Roy Marom, 2022, Jindās at Lydda’s Entrance: A Cornerstone of the Study of the City’s Rural Hinterland (1459 – 1948) - Hebrew: במאה ה-19 ,נחשבה משפחת אל-ח'ואג'ה למנהיגת מחנה הימן בכפרי בני חמאר, ושלטונה התפרס על הכפרים נעלין, אל-מִ דְ יָא ועל האחוזות זכריא, דיר אבו סלאמה וח'רבת אל-ט'היריה )כיום בתחומי יער בן שמן(. - In the 19th century, the Hawaja family was considered the dominant in the Yaman camp among the Bani Hamar villages, and its rule spread over the villages of Ni'lin, Midiya and estates Zakariya, Duheryriya and Abu Salama (Today in the bounds of Ben Shemen Forest)

I am beginning to lose patience. This is ridiculous. Khirbet Zakariya was no village. I wish not to use the dumb rhetoric of some of our Israeli/Zionist friends here, but really this article amounts to fake history and false narratives, to which I blame no one in this discussion. A series of innocent, good faith mistakes brought this article to life but in light of what we have seen and has been published recently, it is time to correct the mistake and write on what we can and not what we can't. I am at the very least removing Morris' unrelated citations, which touch Jimzu and not Zakariya. I am also removing the Mevo Modi'in comment since it was not built on Zakariya's land and is relevant to the topic.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I have a lot of sympathy for your position and think we should seek a compromise. Perhaps we can go with "village unit" rather than "village" in the first sentence and immediately explain that we don't know if there was a population in 1948. The absence of a built-up area is very clear, but the possibility of a tribal and/or seasonal population cannot be seen from maps. The places where Morris mentions Khirbat Zakariyya by name should stay, including the "date the depopulation" which is different from the date given for Jimzu (proving you are not correct that Morris considered them the same). Zero^talk 04:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

As long as the Infobox is replaced with an Archaeological site template, and the Depopulated Palestinian villages template below is removed, as well as the category, most of the information can remain with slight rephrasing. We know for sure that Zakariya was a unit listed in the 1945 village survey. We know it was an estate belonging to a certain family. We know that at least in the early 20th century, the unit served for growing cereals. There is no problem with any of this information. The date of abandonment makes some sense, and with nothing else in hand, I see no problem to include it (hence why I kept the reference). There is nothing wrong with an article about an archaeological site, including the 20th century as the final period.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The Template:Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus can remain only if the fact some of these places are not villages or towns will be addressed: its titles will include "and other localities" after "Towns and villages". Otherwise, keeping it in the article is false and misleading.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not agree with removing the Depopulated Palestinian villages template; perhaps because I have more respect for Khalidi's work; I have checked hundreds of his sources, and he is very rarely wrong. Unfortunately none of us (?) have access to Mustafa al-Dabbagh' work (or can read it).

To repeat: The fact that it was owned by others isn't an argument either of for or against it being populated; many villages were tenant farmers, including, apparently, the villagers of Khirbat al-Duhayriyya and Dayr Abu Salama.

You also removed Morris, p.376, (where he mentions Khirbet Zakariya), I am inserting it back.

None of us (?) disagree that with the statement that in the 19th century this was an archaeological site.

By all means; please do insert an Archaeological site template; I think the article merits both. And certainly the archaeological remains should be expanded, Huldra (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Huldra, please. In our hands, there is no evidence for this village's existence other than Khalidi's account which contradicts anything else and cannot be verified because he does not provide references and we have no access to his sources. With the benefit of the doubt, it is absolutely absurd to keep this information. You can't by no means claim this place to be a village, because the Government of Palestine, either Ottoman or British, never recognized it to be a village - not in administrative lists nor in maps.

As for al-Dabbagh, I have no access to his works, but I do have access to the table of contents of his Jaffa volume. (It can be downloaded here). In there, there is a title: قضاء الرملة ("District of Ramla", p.xii). Below that, in p.xiv, there is a title: قرى قضاء الرملة ("Villages of the District of Ramla). Below that a list of all villages in the district of Ramla. In p.xv you have: جمزو (Jimzu), برفيليا (Barfiliya), خربة الضهيرية (Khirbat al-Duhayriyya), دانيال (Daniyal), خروبة (Kharuba), دير أبو سالمة (Deir Abu Salama), الحديثة (al-Haditha), بيت نباا (Bait Nabala), دير طريف (Deir Tarif), طيرة دندن (Tira Dandan-probably mispelled the second part), قولة (Qula)... Searched for خربة and didn't find a matching زكريا. I also tried only searching the first letter ز and found no زكريا. So at the very least, Zakariya has no entry in the supposed source of Khalidi. Just like the description of operation Dani, no mention of Zakariya but a mention of every single other populated place. Even the smallest was not missed.

You can't even say where exactly is the village, what was its population and built-up area, when the lists obviously indicate it had none. Clearly, Khalidi's vague 1km square of coordinates does not even fit the location of the khirbe after which the estate is named after. So either this article turns into an article on an archaeological site, or any other reference to an archaeological site must be removed since the supposed village doesn't match the location of the ruins. An alternative article named "Valley of the Monks" (Which is the modern Israeli name for the archaeological complex) including Khirbet Zakariya, El Habs, and Khirbet Kelah (which both contemporary Israeli authorities and the PEF regarded as a complex of sites) will be formed I/P stuff won't interfere with actual historical and archaeological knowledge.

Plus, you placed the Morris references after "Khirbat Zakariyya became depopulated on July 12–13, 1948, after a military assault by Israeli forces". The page states: On 20 August, the settlement executives submitted the revised plan: It provided for 32 settlements on JNF, State and Arab-owned lands. They stressed that settlement on Arab land would be only on sites where there was sufficient land both for the new settlement and the sustenance of the original inhabitants, should they return. The 32 were: (Arab) Khulda (eventually Kibbutz Mishmar-David), Khirbet Beit Far (Tal-Shahar)...Khirbet Zakariya/Jimzu (Gimzo).... In this case, Zakariya is not mentioned alone but with Jimzu, and we all know that no settlement was established on Zakariya's land. The settlement that was established is Gimzo, which is not on Zakariya's land. So really, this reference has nothing to do with Zakariya, and has no relation to the sentence you put it on. So yeah, I am removing it again. You can't add references that have nothing to do with the information they appear after. I really don't understand what's your end here. If you trust Khalidi so much, why would you add a reference to Morris, unrelated to the information written in the article? What exactly are you trying to do here? Because clearly there is no connection between Morris' reference and the subject of the article, let alone the sentence after which it appears.

I am tired from digging up every piece of information I can to prove what was obvious from the start while the only thing standing in the way is faith Khalidi. I wish not to turn it into an edit war and I really have no patience to start searching for Wikipedia policies to shove here and involve some arbitration or RfCs. There is absolutely no way, that from this miserable entry by Khalidi, a village that doesn't exist will have an article on Wikipedia, especially when it steals the scope from thousands of years of archaeological and historical narratives.

So please accept that in absence of any conclusive information, this village's existence cannot be confirmed, and the article should change scope to the obvious. If you'll come across other reliable sources that prove it, be my guest. They would have to answer to why it has no population or built-up area both in list and maps though. I have hapily expanded Qira, Haifa, Al-Tina and Abu Zurayq without touching their narratives as Palestinian villages, because I have no problem with Palestinian Arab history. We had a simmilar issue with Ma'ayan Harod and its alternate names Ayn Jalud or Ein Harod. In any cases, reliable sources determine the fate and in this case, nothing we have really support to existence of this village. Or in other words, we have dozens of sources that should mention a village but they don't and one that can't be verified that does.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

On page 592 of Khalidi, he compares his village list to 6 other village lists and notes that 5 of the 6 list Khirbat Zakariya. So Khalidi is not alone in this matter but I can't judge the reliability of the other sources. Also, archaeological reports frequently fail to mention recent occupation, so they aren't evidence unless they explicitly say there was no recent occupation. Zero^talk 04:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I looked through Khalidi's sources. First of all, he refers to Morris and we have already concluded that Morris's account says nothing. So you can take it down to 4 out of 5. One of the sources, BZ was prepared by Abdulfattah, but Khalidi states that it was "...privately distributed...The criteria are not spelled out and no sources are given." I think in that case, you can tone it down to 3 out of 4. PE refers to The Palestine Encyclopedia (al-Mawsu'a al-Filastiniya) to wich I have no access and was the basis for the Biladuna Filastin. As stated above, the Arab source (Biladuna Filastin), to which we also have no access, has no entry for Zakariyya. NM refers to "Towards the De-Arabization of Palestine/Israel 1945-1977". I have no access to the book, but from Google Books I can see that it has one list entry which also provides no population. It is titled "demolished" but it is unclear how was that determined when we have no access to the source and what are its sources. The last one, AS, is a list complied by Aref el-Aref, which we have no access to, and the Shahak papers, whose citation seems wrong (as it brought me to an article titled "Educating a Community in Exile: The Palestinian Experience"). Either way, Shahak if I recall correctly, was a Chemist and civil rights activist and not a geographer or historian.

Virtually all of this soures, are lists of villages destroyed in 1948. Most of them were written by naturaly biased Palestinian scholars and we have no access to any of them (apart from Morris which was proven to be insufficient). Even the source that I could find an the entry of Zakariyya within it, showed no population.

You guys are insisting on something that is clearly wrong and at the very least, utterly ambiguous. Villages don't come to life from historical narratives of wars, especially when all you can say about them is that they appear in lists based on each other. A village must have a population and built-up area and must appear in contemporary maps that show virtually all other villages.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Being unable to access a source has never been a reason to assume it supports what you are trying to prove instead of what it is said to support. And villages do not have to have built-up areas. Zero^talk 12:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

In that case, I think our lack of access to the sources is enough to remove information that is only supported by inaccessible sources, while ignored or contradicted by all other accessible sources. You say that a village doesn't need to have a built-up area (if you are referring to nomads then wouldn't you call it a "camp"?). Know what? I wouldn't even argue about that. The more serious question is, if all you can say about Khirbet Zakariya is that it was something in 1945 (since it doesn't appear in 1931, nor in 1922 and all late 19th century sources mention no village), and that it was abandoned during Operation Danny in 1948 (let's say it has no more than 17 years or history and to the very least 3 years of history) why would it be the scope of an article containing information of archaeological data of 2000 years? What can you say about the depopulated Palestinian village of Zakariyya other than nothing? When all of the sources supporting its existence are entries in lists of localities destroyed in 1948? What was its population? Who were day? When during the gap between 1892 and 1945 was it established? Who exactly destroyed it? What happened to its refugees? I stopped asking these questions when all British maps showed Zakariyya as a ruin, its population and built-up area are listed both as 0, it has no indication of a village or built-up area in the British Maps and a historical article stated it was an estate.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we will agree here; so I suggest you start an article (or two: Khar'bet Zakarieh/Khurbet el Kelkh) about the archeological place(s), then and move everything about them (Guerin, Clermont-Ganneau, SWP) from this article into that (those) article(s). You can then put an archeological place template on that (those) article(s), and we can place a {{see also | etc}} in the various articles. (And no: I don't understand how you can say that Morris p.376 has nothing to do with this place (as it is mentioned with Jimzu): as I showed above, it also mention Khirbet al Kunaisiya/al Qubab together, and they are different places). (And no, it is not "population and built-up area are listed both as 0"; it is that population and built-up area is not listed: there is a difference.) The Roy Marom info (about this being an estate of the Hawaja family) should go into this article, though. Huldra (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I know there are statistics for refugees itemized by their place of origin, but I don't know where they can be found. Such a source would go a long way towards establishing if there was a population in 1948. Zero^talk 03:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Huldra as for Morris, as I explained, the content of the page is about Zionist settlement plans, which ended up with the construction of Gimzo. Given that Gimzo was not built on Zakariya's land. Most of Zakariya's land is today covered by the Ben Shemen Forest and the Technological Park of Modi'in.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Possible conclusion?

Huldra and Zero0000. It seems this discussion is going nowhere. Current sources have created different views among us. When they contradict each other, neither view is supported conclusively by these sources. Until more sources appear, there is no point discussing that. I have left the matter for now and just inserted archaeological material into the article, without removing the lead section and the templates. What I discovered is that there is more than enough material to support up to three unique articles on Kh. Zakariya, Kh. Kelkh and el-Habs. Apart from the small salvage excavations, the whole area was thoroughly surveyed and excavated in 2000, and survey data from nearby sites attest to the agricultural hinterlands of both settlements. So as Huldra suggests, that's what I'll probably do.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)