Talk:Ancient history of the Negev

This draft

There is currently no article about the History of the Negev. The brief sections on the Negev page have been rightly criticized multiple times on the talk page; some parts are outdated, and others are overly simplified. Therefore, I have drafted a more accurate Wikipedia history of the Negev here. Since I avoided simplifications, it has become too long, so I would like to split it into "Ancient History of the Negev," "The Taba Crisis," and "Modern History of the Negev." This draft corresponds to the first part. DaWalda (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Erickson-Gini

@Alaexis: You deleted 1,5 sentences about Erickson-Gini's video. I'm not too attached to it. However, are you sure that this is not relevant? Erickson-Gini is making several extraordinary claims, and they were only published in the form of this video lecture, which was specifically given for followers of the Israel Antiquities Authority and had a specific occasion. It seemed to me that all of this is important for assessing the reliability of this source. --DaWalda (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

If the source is unreliable and/or you consider the claim extraordinary feel free to remove it altogether. "As of 2024, it remains to be seen whether this interpretation will resurface" is a sentence that works in a scientific article but not here since this is your own conclusion and which makes it, by definition, original research. Alaexis_¿question? 20:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Erickson-Gini was the chief archaeologist of the IAA for the Beersheba district for several decades. She is too important (and usually too good; this lecture is a real exception) for me to presume to exclude her from Wikipedia. So, let's leave it as it is. Thanks again. :) DaWalda (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we could add "on social media" to make it clear that it might be a bit reliable than other information. Alaexis_¿question? 08:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Idumaeans

@DaWalda, I'm not sure I understand this passage

“ Josephus reports that the Maccabees conquered the Idumean border towns of Maresha and Adoraim and presented the Idumaeans with a choice: either be circumcised and adopt Jewish customs or leave the area. Since the Idumaeans were already practicing circumcision and several other customs that would later be recognized as "Jewish" after the time of the Maccabees even before the Judeans, however, unlike a corresponding report about the forced conversion of the Itureans, Josephus might be telling the truth in this case: Archaeology shows that during the Maccabean era, almost the entire region was depopulated, mostly without signs of conflict. ”

As far as I remember, Josephus says that they stayed and adopted Jewish customs. So if they fled en masse after the Hasmonean conquest it would contradict his account. Alaexis_¿question? 08:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to say that, according to excavation results, Josephus' account is, in any case, not fictional like with the Itureans, or purely etiological, as Thompson assumes, but evidently has a foundation in fact. Is "However, unlike a corresponding report about the forced conversion of the Itureans, Josephus' account might be partially true in this case..." better? DaWalda (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Josephus makes two claims: that John Hyrcanus gave the Idumeans an ultimatum and that they chose to adopt the conquerors' customs rather than leaving the country ([1]).

If in fact they mostly fled, making the region depopulated then Josephus' account is mostly wrong. In the best case only his first claim could be true.

In Edom#Conversion_to_Judaism there is a pretty recent article (Levin 2020) that disagrees with Josephus that the conversion was forced but evidently doesn't think that Idumeans mostly left in the wake of the Maccabees' conquest. I don't know which of these viewpoints should have more weight, wdyt? Alaexis_¿question? 20:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I like how thoroughly you proofread.

I know the article, it's good.

The conquest and conversion of the Idumeans is a historically contentious issue that has been debated for several decades. Levin holds a unique position on this matter. There are roughly four positions in this debate. I didn't break down the different positions more thoroughly because otherwise it would require too much space. But to be honest, I would have expected the Edom page to cover this in more detail. Maybe I'll take on that page myself at some point. And maybe it needs to be more detailed here, as long as it's not covered in more detail on the Edom page. WDYT?

The debate originally arose because it was recognized how extraordinary Josephus's two reports of forced conversions were, since the Idumeans were already circumcised and forced circumcisions are almost never reported otherwise. Therefore, many authors focus particularly on this question: conquest with forced conversion or conquest without forced conversion? However, the debate has since progressed. The four positions are:

1. It was, as Josephus reported: The Maccabees conquered all of Idumea and forcibly converted and circumcised the Idumeans (e.g., Goodman 1994, p. 75 f.).
2. Josephus exaggerated: Firstly, only Maresha and Adoraim were conquered; secondly, the conversion there happened peacefully, and the other Idumean locations also peacefully joined the Jews without conquest and converted to Judaism. (2a) Reports of forced conversion are antisemitic propaganda that Josephus unfortunately adopted (most prominently, Kasher 1988, p. 46-48) vs. (2b) They are merely Maccabean propaganda (e.g., Weitzman 1999).
3. Conquest and conversion overall are entirely fictional. Especially prominent: Atkinson 2016, p. 67-69, 95. I summarize briefly because you probably cannot see the relevant pages on Google Books: Atkinson fundamentally thinks that for Josephus's "account of the period between 129-104 B.C.E.", there is "no archaeological support:" (p. 67 f.). The places that Hyrcanus supposedly conquered could not have been conquered as early as 129 B.C.E., as Josephus claims, but must have been conquered, as excavation finds in Samaria, Shechem, and Maresha individually show, at the earliest after 112/111 B.C.E. For Idumea (=northern + biblical Negev), furthermore: "There is no archaeological evidence of a widespread destruction of Idumea." (p. 68). Even though Maresha declined after it was abandoned by the Mareshans, this did not result from a conquest but from ordinary aging decay (p. 68 f. [This is often viewed differently because of a single Hasmonean coin that was found in Maresha.]). Also, Tel Ira (biblical Negev) and Tal Halif (Shephela) showed "no visible signs of destruction" (p. 69). Therefore: "The lack of any clear evidence of fortresses in Idumea lends additional support for this reconstruction, and reveals that the region south of Judea was annexed without any significant conflict." (p. 69). Plus: On p. 69, he writes that the ritual baths found in Maresha indicate that the Idumeans had adopted the Jewish faith, whereas on p. 95, he deduces from the history of Costobar (a Qos-priest with Qos in his name ["Qos-tobar"] under Herod, whom Josephus reports worked for the Qos faith) that "many Idumeans, despite their relationship with the Hasmoneans, never fully embraced Judaism." Thus, two aspects are being questioned here: (a) The conquests are fictional, (b) The conversions probably did occur, as evidenced by the baths, but only superficially / incompletely, as seen with Costobar.
4. With both aspects, research has now progressed further: For (3a), we now mainly have Sandhaus’s overview (see article page) of the Idumean core area in the Shephela and some newer excavations in the biblical Negev (see Freud: Malhata, Beersheba, Horvat Uza), according to which most Idumean locations there did also not become Judean peacefully, but were abandoned like Maresha, Tal Halif, and Tel Ira. For (b), firstly, there was recently a small hype around the Qos temples in the two border locations Hebron and Mamre, which were interpreted as additional evidence for non-occurring conversions besides the Costobar story, and especially, we now have very clear archaeological evidence that the baths are not counter-evidence, but that for the Idumeans, baths, circumcision, burial customs and ritually purified vessels can be archaeologically proven even earlier than for Jews.

Levin holds an intermediate position here by only including the second of these latest findings: He apparently does assume a conquest — in any case, he assumes that Idumea was "integrated into the Hasmonean state" — but is simultaneously one of the most important authors on these new religious-historical findings: The Idumeans were indeed also "integrated into Judaism"; according to Levin, however, this can no longer be seen on the fact that they adopted Judean practices, but rather on the fact that conversely the Jews integrated these Idumean practices into Judaism ("In any case, while we have no idea of the demographics involved, the integration of the Idumeans into Judaism undoubtedly had an influence on the latter as well, and Stern has suggested that at least some of the “Idumean” customs noted above, such as ritual immersion in baths, burial in caves with kokhim, and perforation of pottery vessels possibly as a way of purifying them may have eventually been adapted into Pharisaic Judaism.") DaWalda (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Wine

The article by Seligman et al seems to contradict the claim that viticulture and trade with Gaza wine continued unabated in the first Islamic century. The article says

“ The huge quantity of amphorae produced in these kilns ... is a clear indicator of the scale of the Gaza and Ashqelon wine industry in Yavne and along the southern coastal plain, which reached its peak from the 5th to the beginning of the 7th centuries CE. ”

So it must have abated after the beginning of the 7th century. Alaexis_¿question? 08:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

You're probably right. I suggest simply omitting "unabated." Although one might assume that wine production already slightly declined in the late 7th century (he explicitly places the "dramatic drop" only after 700), this cannot be evidenced with this source. DaWalda (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I've reworded this passage a bit, let me know what you think. Alaexis_¿question? 12:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Fine by me. In any case, it's definitely closer to the source, thanks. DaWalda (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)