Talk:Silat ad-Dhahr

Latin sources:

User:Nishidani: may I ask you a great favour? Could you please check the Latin sources in this article, and translate them for us? Huldra (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Typos:

Clermont-Ganneau, 1888, p. 331 writes 1778, when the correct is 1178. Huldra (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Vague sources

@Huldra: Can you show how ref-9 supports the related paragraph? Thanks --Mhhossein (talk) 06:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: ref-9 is used twice; which use do you refer to? Also, the Latin was translated by Nishidani...I do not speak/read it. Huldra (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I did not see that you had removed the Conder-ref before I reintroduced it. It is referenced in the RHH-#566; and the Conder-ref place it on SWP map XI, that is here, Huldra (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: Thanks but in fact I would like to know how the ref you re-inserted supports the second paragraph of "Histoy" section. Mhhossein (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Ah, right, actually it doesn´t. BUT: it does support the info given in the third paragraph, where it is also used. One solution is to divide that unified ref into two: in paragraph two, ref-9 becomes <ref name=RHH566a>Clermont-Ganneau, 1888, p. [http://archive.org/stream/RecueilDarcheologieOrientaletome1/Recueil_d_archologie_orientale-8#page/n364/mode/1up 331]; cited in Röhricht, 1893, RHH, p. [http://archive.org/stream/regestaregnihie00rhgoog#page/n157/mode/1up 151], #566</ref>

....while ref-9 in paragraph three becomes: <ref name=RHH566b>Conder, 1890, p. [http://archive.org/stream/quarterlystateme21pale#page/35/mode/1up 35]; Clermont-Ganneau, 1888, p. [http://archive.org/stream/RecueilDarcheologieOrientaletome1/Recueil_d_archologie_orientale-8#page/n364/mode/1up 331]; both cited in Röhricht, 1893, RHH, p. [http://archive.org/stream/regestaregnihie00rhgoog#page/n157/mode/1up 151], #566</ref>

Would that solve the problem? Huldra (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Huldra: Well, that's a good idea if the links support their paragraphs. Mhhossein (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)Mhhossein (talk) 06:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

What is the Shilta stuff doeing here?

Shilta cannot have been at Silat ad-Dhahr, as there are no pre-Byzantine remains found there. It might have been located at the nearby Neby Lawin, but special info (like "Therefore, agricultural produce obtained from the area could be taken by Jews without the normal restrictions imposed during the Sabbatical years, or the need for tithing") is totally unwarranted in this article. (It could be relevant in a Neby Lawin article)

Also, User:Tombah: re-introduce Zertal, 2004 reference, when that book is already mentioned in "Bibliography" section; what is the point of that?

Comments? Huldra (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I corrected the reference to Demsky before noticing this comment. If it was Shilta then it wasn't a Jewish village, the opposite of what Tombah added. Jewish villages were subject to the tithing rules, but non-Jewish villages were not. So its designation as a "permitted village" is evidence against it being Jewish. Demsky proposes the list was intended to inform Jewish travelers where they could eat despite the local produce not being kosher. However, this material should be removed completely if there is better evidence that Silat ad-Dhahr is not Shilta at all. Demsky did not cite any archaeological data in his identifications. Zero^talk 02:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the definition of Shilta as "permitted village," I believe I once read that these permitted villages were Jewish settlements that were surrounded by non-Jewish settlements and were therefore exempt from some laws that applied to Jewish settlements in Jewish areas. But in any case, the existing explanation should be kept as long as we only have Demsky's theory. Probably other articles contain the same error. Tombah (talk) 06:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the identification - We now know that there are at least two scholars who have mentioned the identification with Shilta. I have previously read about a number of instances where an identification was questioned due to an absence of archeological evidence, only for the evidence to be later discovered and support the identification (see Hizma for example). In any case, the other identification we have is Naby Lawin, which is situated 1 km to the north of Silat's center and most likely on village land. This fact suggests that we should include this identification on this page, as does Zertal's explanation that the name may have moved to the incredibly nearby site of Silat. Tombah (talk) 06:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I've read a little more about the ancient village and its connections to Shilta. I'll soon be adding it. Tombah (talk) 06:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)