Talk:Tarichaea

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Nikos Kokkinos

The most definitive research carried out on Tarichaea was done by Nikos Kokkinos in 2010. See his research in "The location of Tarichaea: north or south of Tiberias?". There, he brings down all the conflicting opinions and supports strongly its location in the south of Tiberias. Moreover, no one is more authoritative than Josephus himself, who writes explicitly that Tarichaea was in view of Vespasian's soldiers who encamped at

Sennabris, south of Tiberias, and "easily seen by the innovators" at Tarichaea (see: Josephus, Wars of the Jews -- book iii, chapter ix, § 7). This one fact rules out Magdala
to the north of Tiberias. We are therefore under constraints to keep two separate articles on these cities, one on Magdala and the other on Tarichaea.

Kokkinos' work is the most definitive and it confirms Josephus' own testimony. In archaeology, there is no consensus about this one site, except what may be construed as misjudgment. Jewish towns were scattered all up and down the shores of the Sea of Galilee. Many of the unreliable and older sources confused Magdala with Tarichaea, just as many older sources thought

magnum opus, it's unreasonable to think that he would have made an error regarding Tarichaea's location, since he actually lived there!Davidbena (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

David, I did not understand why did you take away my quotation of Kokkinos. I think we agree that it is a very valid scholar position. I think that it could be put or as an answer to the difficulties of the south theory, or even as a new section, because in fact, he proposes that the site has not yet been discovered, and must be sought between Tiberias and Kh. Kerak.--Castaliensis (talk) 07:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your earlier quotes looked more like
WP:Original Research, where you seemed to have been pushing for the Magdala location, north of Tiberias. Now, however, you admit that Kokkinos writes explicitly that Tarichaea "must be sought between Tiberias and Kh. Kerak," which cannot be Magdala, but somewhere south of Tiberias. Sigh. Kokkinos' view is plainly mentioned already. What gives more credence to Kokkinos's view is that, from the prospect of the Roman camp at Sennabris, one could easily see the "innovators of the insurrection" (i.e. where the area of Kerak and Mallaha can easily be seen). However, from Sennabris, one cannot see clearly the "innovators of the insurrection" at Tiberias or Magdala, which were places much farther away.Davidbena (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
David, I am confused. Is it not what you are doing original research? I understand that we not have to discuss the credibility of Kokkinos or of Albright or of any other: we only have to expose what they said, and we can also put what other said of their theories. We can also quote what Pliny said, but without interpreting him: we can only write what Pliny said and how others interpreted him (quoting). Your observation that "the innovators" includes the Magdalenes, is Kokkinos' interpretation, not what Josephus says (he only said "the innovators"). In fact, others observe that for Josephus "the innovators" were only the ones of Tiberias (he writes some lines before: "was Tiberias was fond of innovations, and that Taricheae had revolted", Flavius Josephus, War 3,9,445"). But it is not to me or to you to interpret. So, again, may I reinsert that reference of Kokkinos interpreting Josephus? Thanks--Castaliensis (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Identification not conclusive => map is misleading

The info box gives Magdala, the map gives Kh. Kerak/Malahha. Not good at all, badly misleading. (talk) 05:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the map does not point to Magdala at all. It rather points to a region south of Tiberias, near Kerak, where the majority of scholars place the ancient site.Davidbena (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David, that's exactly what I said: "the info box gives Magdala, the map gives Kh. Kerak/Malahha". It's a contradiction and it confuses the user. The article offers both theories, plus a 3rd, old one. If you know how, please add the 3-dot sign to the northern location (Magdala), too, so that the map conforms with the article. If you think that Karak is the majority view, pls add sources; I have found Magdala to be often associated with the sea battle.

Maps do not point to two places. The rule of thumb here is to use the place that is overwhelmingly suggested by scholars, and to reject the lesser known or fringe views. People are always free to click onto the links of the other named places.Davidbena (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bring again this theme. It is confusing to put that map, because there is no consensus about the location. In any case, there is an overwhelming majority of scholars that prefer the option of Magdala. Check this publication: https://books.google.co.il/books?id=J7UzjipP3l8C&lpg=PA332&ots=DjqQZ6bi43&dq=al%20kerah%20galilee&hl=es&pg=PA239#v=onepage&q=magdala&f=false. So, I simply suggest to take away the map. --Castaliensis (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC) I add something. The article of Nikos Kokkinos quoted as the evidence that the map is exact, starts confirming that "The current consensus regarding the location of Tarichaea as lying north of Tiberias by the Sea of Galilee, and as being identical to one of two cities with the name MGDL" (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1179/003103209X12483454548167?needAccess=true). I think this article, by putting that map, is taking part by Kokkinos' theory. Thanks. --Castaliensis (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The views of
C. R. Conder, W.M. Thomson, D.F. Buhl and E. Schürer, along with the scholarly research of Nikos Kokkinos, cannot be taken lightly.Davidbena (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The writings of Josephus (without the lenses of Kokkinos), of Albright and most of the scholars until today (cf. Baukham, Magdala of Galilee: A Jewish City in the Hellenistic and Roman Period, Baylor University Press 2018), cannot be taken lightly. So, the most reasonable thing would be to leave it as theories, and take the map away: it is misleading.

--Castaliensis (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I, personally, do not think that it is misleading (but who am I to say?). Josephus' words also fit very well in the location given by Pliny, as he puts Tarichaea in Lower Galilee, which, as we know, stretches from Kfar Hananya and Bersabe in central Galilee all the way to the south, where the Jezreel Valley begins. Pliny's words are stronger than those of archaeologist William Albright, who admits, in his own words, that it is one of the most perplexing problems, in his view, to determine where Tarichaea actually lies. If he admits the difficulty, who are we then to decide, based purely upon his own determination? Many of the early archaeological maps are plainly wrong, as they ignore Pliny's words altogether. The article is plain, in that it brings down the dissenting views. Baukham's view can be mentioned in the Magdala section. Davidbena (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your constructive answer. However, your argument seems to me contradictory. You maintain that there is an ongoing discussion, that you are no one to say if the map is misleading... but on the other hand, for you it seems plainly clear that Tarrichea is in the south ("maps are 'plainly' wrong", you say). So, if you agree that we are not authorities to decide which place is correct, and two users (Arminden and me) find it misleading, why not be neutral and take away that map? The place of this map is in the article of Khirbet Kerak.
N.B. I am really not fully convinced by the option of Magdala, though it seems to me better (and this is the majority's view, as Kokkinos says in his article). However, I think that I have to present both options with neutrality. Thanks again! --Castaliensis (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The map shows the opinion of the greater authority, Pliny, as followed by many historical geographers. Perhaps, though, we can mention on the map that the location is based on Pliny's view. This will solve everything.Davidbena (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, the solution is not to change the legend of the map, but to eliminate that map or to put it into the section devoted to explaining the Kh. Kerak theory. You quoted Albright saying that it is one of the most difficult problems. So, let us not deceive people giving them an image if we do not have it.--Castaliensis (talk) 06:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Castaliensis, why do you think it is being deceptive when the map clearly points out that the location shown on the map is strictly based on Pliny's opinion? By clarifying that the map shows the view of Pliny the Elder, a primary source, there is no deception. Perhaps, though, a small inserted map can be added in the Magdala section where others suggest that Tarichaea may have been located there.Davidbena (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Castaliensis:, shalom. Nikos Kokkinos is, indeed, an archaeologist, as you can see from his web-page here. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David, I don't understand why you are leading a damn crusade for imposing on Wikipedia users one major theory over a second one. This is neither your role, nor indeed your right as an editor.

Also: the lead photo caption keeps on returning to "Tarichaea". This cannot be said, because Magdala remains in the run. The photo shows the (general) area of Kh. Kerak, Bet Yerah, Malahha or whatever name you want to call it, EXCEPT Tarichaea, with which it cannot be positively identified.

I would much appreciate if the map showed both possible locations, with two red dots and a collage of two photos. There is no point in coming up with some obscure WP rules if they go against logic, and the actual content of the article. It makes no sense whatsever contradicting the article by the map and photo at its the lead. That is basic.

Cheers, Arminden (talk) 04:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tarichaea

Shalom, David. First of all, I know that Hebrew is spoken today: I live in Israel and I love this country. I am actually right now at Tarichae :) I suggest that we resolve our questions before editing what the other writes, especially before modifying the other's text. I mean, if I spent hours trying to make a clear presentation of the arguments about why Tarichae can or cannot be south or north of Tiberias, and you add a phrase in the middle, you break the line of thought. I think we can express very clearly all that has been said on Tarichaea (not what we think, because that is not Wikipedia). You insist that the arguments in favour of Magdala can be explained otherwise, and you are right, but leave first the author (Albright) make his point clearly, and afterwards, you write down all the problems. --Castaliensis (talk) 06:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting this discussion. This is, without question, the proper step to take. Openly discussing these matters will lead to a consensus. You have already made several good suggestions and those edits were kept. Hopefully, together, we can expand this article and improve it, using good and reliable sources.Davidbena (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Castaliensis, shalom. Please note that there is a dispute among archaeologists and historical geographers as to the place of Tarichaea, mentioned by Josephus, whether it was located north of Tiberias (where Magdala now lies), or south of Tiberias (where approximately Kerak now lies). Our job as collaborative editors is to present the facts to our readers, based on all available reliable sources. We do not shun from the difficulties raised when discussing the pros and cons of the Magdala location, nor do we shun from the difficulties raised when discussing the pros and cons of the Kerak location. Just as we mention the opposite pretensions in the Kerak section, so, too, we mention the opposite pretensions in the Magdala section. In the case of the former, we have written:

"...The difficulty with these identifications is that some historical geographers have reasoned that the movement of the Roman army would have proceeded from a southern to northerly direction, without breaking-off the movement.
Scythopolis) with his troops, and pitched his camp at Sennabris (a place identified with Khirbet Kerak).[2] This view does not take into account military stratagems, if they indeed existed, such as reconnoitering the Roman army to a place further north (Tiberias) where insurgents were also known to be,[3]
 and to prevent their sallying-out to their brothers' defence in the south, and only afterwards to engage the enemy in the south (Tarichaea)." (END QUOTE)

In the case of the latter (i.e. the Magdala location), we have suggested the following edit:

"...Although Josephus does not say if Tarichaea was north or south of Tiberias, he places the city some thirty stadia (
furlongs) from Tiberias, or what are a little more than 5.5 kilometres (3.4 mi),[4] which is approximately the distance from Tiberias to Magdala. Indeed, his description of the war against Tiberias and Tarichaea (cf. The Jewish War, book iii, chapter ix, § 7), putting Vespasian's camp at Sennabris, taking first Tiberias and then attacking Tarichaea, makes very plausible this position,[5] although it can equally be argued that Vespasian wanted to neutralise Tiberias so that they would not rally to the defence of their besieged brothers towards the south. However, Albright himself recognised that 'it may safely be said that the question of the exact site of Taricheae is the most complicated topographical problem in Palestine'."[6]
(END QUOTE)

You see, if we mention the opposite pretensions in one section, it is only fair that we mention the opposite pretensions in the other section as well. Our readers can decide for themselves where the truth lies.

References

  1. Kitchener, H.H. (1878), 165–166
  2. ^ cf. The Jewish War, book iii, chapter ix, § 7.
  3. ^ When the Romans made a camp in Sennabris (which lay on a hill), the elders of Tiberias decided to surrender and hand over the authors of the revolt to Vespasian. At that time, insurgents in Tiberias “ran away to Tarichaea,” which they could have done either by sea or by foot. (see: The Jewish War 3.9.7-8).
  4. Vita § 32
    (p. 9)
  5. Kitchener, H.H. (1878), 165–166
    : Against the identification of Tarichaea with Khirbet el Kerak he wrote that Tarichaea "must be sought to the north of Tiberias. The finding of Sennabris, the place where the Roman host encamped before marching on Tiberias and Tarichaea, clearly proves that the latter place could not have been anywhere near the southern end of the lake" (p. 165)
  6. Albright, W.F.
    (1923a), p. 29

. Shavua Tov!Davidbena (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: According to this web-site here, Kokkinos did actively take-part in archaeological excavations in Israel, and any archaeologist who surveys a site (even if he did not actually participate in a dig on the site) does not diminish from his honorary title of archaeologist. In his capacity as an archaeologist, he has surveyed the general sites of Kerak and Sennabris, and the adjoining region, and has described in his writings what he saw there, as he did in 2010 = "The Location of Tarichaea: North or South of Tiberias?",

Palestine Exploration Quarterly 142, 7-23.Davidbena (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Shalom, David.
1. I do not pretend to say that Magdala is the only possible location, nor that we do not have to write the cons of the Magdala party. Note that I wrote in the Magdala section the last paragraph, in which I quote Pliny. I really think that it is necessary to present well the pros and the cons, but what I propose is to do it in order: first put all the pros, and then the cons. If you mix them both all the time, it is difficult to understand if it is in favour or against the location. So, going to the concrete: in the Magdala section we say that it looks "plausible" to think that the movements described by Josephus indicate that Tarichaea was to the north of Tiberias. And that is true: it looks plausible. But if you add then that "it can equally be argued that Vespasian wanted to neutralise Tiberias so that they would not rally to the defence of their besieged brothers towards the south" you are not allowing the reader the logic of Albright argument (a propos, this phrase is a Kokkinos' idea and it should be quoted). That should be written in the critic of the argument, in the last paragraph. Then, when we are critisizing the Kerak option, we have to present well the critic; but you again added an explanation of why this critic is not valid ("This view does not take into account military stratagems..."). What I propose is that we build up the arguments in different paragraphs. So, for instance, in the last example, that could be another paragraph, making explicit that it is N. Kokkinos proposal (because it is his idea and he ows to be recognised): "N. Kokkinos suggested that the traditional understanding of F. Josephus was based in an misunderstanding of the Greek text and of the military strategies...".
By "opposite pretensions" is meant the "opposite claim or assertion of a claim to something." In the space provided below, please give me an example of the edit that you would like to see written there, based on the pros and cons written in order, first putting all the pros, and then the cons. Actually, there are not very many. Otherwise, your suggestions are mere abstract ideas. Our suggestion is currently a good suggestion. At first it seemed that you rejected writing the cons in the Magdala section, but you had no objection of writing the cons in the Kerak section. That would have been partial. Now you're suggesting that the pros and cons be divided into separate paragraphs. That's Okay with me. Please provide an example of both pros and cons. So far, what you wrote about adding the cons after the pros, saying that it does "not allow the reader the logic of Albright's argument," is flatly wrong. It simply takes into account both arguments. Moreover, we should be concise in our wording, rather than burdensome. If you can provide a better edit, then please do so here with a preview. Davidbena (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. In that chart "Archaeologist" means the archaeologist that excavated that particular site. At least this is what we scholars would understand by it. I do have not the proof, but if add Kokkinos as archaeologist, why not add D. Gorni, M. Zapata, S. De Luca, A. Lenna, etc.? They all Archaeologists, with a higher degree, not just a BA, and who really excavated in Israel, in a place that they all claim to be Tarichaea. So, if we put Kokkinos, we put also all these.
First, to correct you. Nikos Kokkinos holds a PhD degree in History/Archaeology, as you can see here. Moreover, of course we can mention ALL archaeologists who have surveyed the sites near Sennabris, such as Kerak and Mallaha. It is my understanding that Kokkinos has done just that. If you should have information that Kokkinos has not done so, then please provide that information. Meanwhile, I have sent a personal e-mail to Kokkinos, inquiring of him as to what he has done in this area.Davidbena (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. I bring again this subject: I want to delete the misleading map. Do you oppose?

Thank you, and shavua tov!--Castaliensis (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the map is NOT misleading. It points to the location where
WP:RFC.Davidbena (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Castaliensis, shalom. I just now received a reply in an e-mail from Nikos Kokkinos. When I asked him if he were an archaeologist and where he thought Tarichaea lay, and if he had actually surveyed the sites in and around Kerak and Mallaha, he wrote to me, among other things: I am an archaeologist as well as an ancient historian (see below websites). I have visited the area I proposed between Kinneret-Moshava and Qevutsa when I was working on this matter, and I had plans for a survey to include an underwater excavation. Unfortunately, I was taken ill and this project did not materialise. I am currently working on different subjects, but I may return to Tarichaea one day. So, in this case, while he is an archaeologist, Nikos has not conducted an archaeological survey or excavation at the general sites thought to be Tarichaea south of Tiberias. Nikos provided me with two of his web-sites, which can be accessed here: website 1: www.kokkinos.co.uk ; website 2: www.centuries.co.uk . Davidbena (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments on your last affirmations:

1. Kokkinos does not "hold a PhD degree in History/Archaeology" as you claim. He holds only "an Honours BA degree in Roman Archaeology at London (1987)" (https://nikoskokkinos.webs.com/biographicalsketch.htm). His PhD is in History.

2. About the other archaeologists that I suggest introduce in that box if Kokkinos name is mantained, why have you decided that only the ones of Kerak and Mallaha should be included? It looks like you are imposoing your opinion.

3. About your e-mail to Kokkinos and his answer, it is pointless for Wikipedia. Here we quoted published sources only and do not original research. If you cannot quote a published source in which is stated that Kokkinos is Taricheas' archaeologist, it cannot be put in that box.

4. You claim that Tarichaea should be located only in the south, and therefore that map is not misleading. It looks like you have a very clear opinion. There is a hosts of scholars who think that is to the north, but your opinion and Kokkinos is the only possible valid because of the authority of a Roman who was never in Judaea. Videant consules...

5. Very practical question: Could you please write how many archaeologists and scholars of the 20th and 21th centuries have mantained that Tarichaea is near Kh. Kerak? Thank you. --Castaliensis (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tarichaea and Pliny's View of this Ancient Site

H.H. Kitchener in the following terms: "During the survey of the shores [of the Sea of Galilee] we made one considerable discovery: the site of Sennabris, mentioned by Josephus as the place where Vespasian pitched his camp when marching on the insurgents of Tiberias. The name Sinn en Nabra still exists, and is well known to the natives; it applies to a ruin situated on a spur from the hills that close the southern end of the Sea of Galilee; it formed, therefore, the defence against an invader from the Jordan plain, and blocked the great main road in the valley. Close beside it there is a large artificially-formed plateau, defended by a water-ditch on the south, communicating with Jordan, and by the Sea of Galilee on the north. This is called Kh. el Kerak, and is, I have not the slightest doubt, the remains of Vespasian's camp described by Josephus" (1878 Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement, p. 165). What really concerns us, however, is that the dot on the map points exactly at the location of these three sites, in the southwest portion of the Sea of Galilee. Your edit summary, where you wrote, "The photo positively shows the Khirbet Kerak area, NOT Tarichaea," does not take into account that the point on the map is all-inclusive - and centers on all three sites, based on the scholarly opinions given for Pliny's location of Tarichaea. Perhaps a better caption in the inserted image would be: "General area of Tarichaea (based on Pliny)".Be well.Davidbena (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Hi David. My point was a different one: the caption keeps on returning to "Tarichaea". This cannot be said, because Magdala remains in the run. The photo shows the (general) area of Kh. Kerak, Bet Yerah, Malahha or whatever name you want to call it, EXCEPT Tarichaea, with which it cannot be positively identified.
Also, I would much appreciate if the map showed both possible locations, with two red dots and a collage of two photos. It makes no sense contradicting the article content by the map and photo in the lead. That is basic. Cheers,
The caption mentions Tarichaea's "general area," which, although it has not yet been positively identified (whether Magdala in the north, or the other sites in the south), the "general location" is still correct as far as Pliny's view is concerned, and which is clearly pointed out as being the view of Pliny. Perhaps, though, the current map, or one similar to it - but smaller - can be put in the section that speaks specifically on the sites in the southern area, whereas a different map can be inserted in the section which speaks on Magdala.Davidbena (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Arminden, I have just now added a different map to the Magdala section, based on
W. F. Albright's proposition.Davidbena (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
 Done Both maps are now in their individual sections.Davidbena (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Davidbena, shalom. Thank you for your last editions.--Castaliensis (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your patience pays off (smile).Davidbena (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tarichaea&oldid=1212311012"