Talk:Maiuma (city)

Maiuma vs Port of Gaza

I have a problem, what goes into this article, and what goes into the Port of Gaza article?

I have stuff from Karmon, that is from 1799, which could go here, or into the Port of Gaza article. Same with stuff from SWP, this is el Mineh on SWP map 19, SWP III, p. 236, El Mîneh, the harbour, Palmer, p. 361.

Or should we join the two articles?? Huldra (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

One idea is to leave the "Bishops of Gaza" section in this article, and the move the rest to the Port of Gaza, perhaps renaming this article?Huldra (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I am a fan of a merging these. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

My two cents - leave the pre crusades stuff here, and later later stuff in port of gaza. In ancient time this was a separate city. I am not sure the current fishing port is on the same site. The port of gaza could use shipping data from Ottoman (the port was in use but in decline toward end of period), and mandate period (I think Gaza lost traffic to Haifa mainly under the British, was not able to find great sourcing), Egyptian (not sure, suspect just fishing), and Israel/PA (pretty sure just fishing).Icewhiz (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Icewhiz: from the archeological evidence it seems pretty certain that Maiuma was where the present Port of Gaza is, Huldra (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Roughly yes. But did the walled city (inland) cover the same area? Maiuma was an actual city, and quite an important one. The present day port is a minor commercial facility. Note that the gaza port article covers the future port plans (which would be a major commercial port) as well, at length, which many plans potentially place in a different spot along or off the coast.Icewhiz (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, after thinking about this a bit, and if there are no huge protests, I think I will try User:Icewhiz suggestion: all Crusader stuff, and earlier, will go into the Maiuma article, while newer stuff goes into the Port of Gaza article. Im not saying that this is the final answer: they may be joined in the future. But Im saying that dividing them clearly, will be an improvement on the mess it is today, Huldra (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

List of bishops: VERY poor job...

A well-intentioned, probably intense piece of OR, but must be thoroughly processed. Just did quite a bit, but still a long way to go. Is it worth it...?

"Bishops of Gaza and/or Maiuma

Maiuma is identified as the seat of the Roman era Diocese of Gaza."

1. Roman dioceses were civil administrative units. The Church did or didn't adopt them as they were. Also, pre-Constantine the Church worked quite ad hoc, a bishop didn't need to have a large see. All this considered: how relevant is the above sentence, what does it mean, and what's the source? Weren't "Roman" & "Byzantine" mixed up?

1. Not clear if there weren't at times 2 simultaneous bishops, 1 in Gaza and 1 in Maiumas. Must be clarified & stated!

1. Check all the "dubious" tags, red links, etc.

Good luck. Arminden (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The whole bishops list is untenable as long as distinction between the 2 bishoprics, Maiuma & Gaza, isn't taken into consideration. Almost all refs, if any are offered, are lacking or insufficient. Arminden (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Removed dubious entries. Here they are, in case relevant RS can be offered. Note that the first bishops OF GAZA resided in Maiuma as long as Gaza remained pagan. Bishops are named after their sea, the title matters, a Bishop of Gaza is not a Bishop of Maiuma even if he resides in Maiuma.

• Timothy, Bishop of Gaza, 304{{dubious|reason= as per source, Maiuma was split of Gaza and thus it would be wrong to include Timothy, Bishop of Gaza on Maiuma list |date= January 2024}}
• Paul of Gaza, 308{{dubious|reason= as per source, Maiuma was split of Gaza and thus it would be wrong to include Paul, Bishop of Gaza on Maiuma list |date= January 2024}}
• Samonas, Bishop of Gaza (fl. c. 1056)<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|author1=[[James Strong (theologian)|James Strong]] |author2=[[John McClintock (theologian)|John McClintock]] |title=Samonas from the McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia |entry= Samonas |encyclopedia= The Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature |publisher= Haper and Brothers |location= New York |year= 1880 |via= biblicalcyclopedia.com |url= https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/S/samonas.html |access-date= 3 December 2023}}</ref>{{dubious|reason= as per source, Maiuma was split of Gaza and thus it would be wrong to include Samonas, Bishop of Gaza on Maiuma list |date= January 2024}}

Arminden (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Mayoumas = harbour place? In what language, through what etymology?

"Maioumas ("harbour place"), ref: Patai"

With all due respect for Raphael Patai, but this looks highly dubious. There doesn't seem to be any Greek word for port or bay resembling 'maiouma(s)'. Prof. Patai doesn't indicate a different, non-Greek origin for the word and how he came to his brisk conclusion either.

Robert M. Good's thesis is that Punic (so Semitic, Canaanite -> Phoenician -> Punic) my'ms, ultimately mayumas, is a calque after Greek hydrophoria and therefore means "rites of water movement". He notes that "[f]estivals of water movement were common in the ancient Syro-Palestinian world" and sees a Canaanite-Phoenician-Carthaginian tradition as very likely. See Robert M. Good (1986). "The Carthaginian Mayumas" in Studi epigrafici e linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico (SEL) 3.

A more recent American Phoenician language scholar, Philip Schmitz (see hid webpage here), suggests that the Punic word my'ms is derived by word combination from the name of the spring festival Μαιουμα(ς). See Philip Schmitz (2023). "Punic my'ms and Greek Μαιουμα(ς): a re-examination". In Journal of Ancient History, doi:10.1515/jah-2023-0019.

All in all, apart for the relation to water, there is no suggestion that mayoumas can mean "harbour place" in any relevant language, and Patai doesn't offer any explanation either. Arminden (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Clarified. Arminden (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Mystery refs

"Cart. Mad." used twice as ref. Meaning WHAT? Mystery!

At 2nd use it is combined with "Antoninus Placentinus", which is fishy in itself. The author of the 6th-c. itinerarium remains anonymous, the name Antoninus is based on an old misidentification with a 3rd-c. martyr. If a book containing this misidentification is meant to be cited here, then pls say so & give the needed details. Arminden (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe "Carte de Madaba", Madaba Map in French?

1. We don't edit just for Sherlock Holmes' benefit. Nor do we copy & paste like robots. Or do we?

2. We don't place 2 sources in 1 ref. That's lazy & misleading, here it looks like some cryptic chapter indexing formula for the work of the author mentioned in the 1st part of the ref. Arminden (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Name Maiuma only after Julian (4th c.)?

So it seems, but fact is well hidden. Must be clearly stated, from the lead onwards.

The fact that refs are so poorly written (no edition, no link, some even worse than that - just the author), which doesn't allow to check up what the sources called the place at different points in time, again makes work here way too difficult. Arminden (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)