![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
"Al-Samakiyya was a Palestinian Arab village .... located at Tel Hum, which has been identified with Capernaum."
Really? The ruins of pre-749 Kfar Nahum were bought (from whom? Essential!) by the Franciscans, those of the post-749 town by the Greek Orthodox, for all I know with no dwellings of any kind on the respective plots of land. The only map attached to the article shows Samakiyya village well north (NE) of both. On the map "Telhum" is located away from the ancient site, which might be inaccurate.
Altogether, a very shaky case of equating the three locations as one. Arminden ( talk) 11:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't see Tel Hum on a modern map. Abright asserted Tel Hum = Capernaum. Es Samakiya and Kefar Nahum are adjacent, within 200m. Zero talk 11:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Zero0000. That's good for me to know, but it's nowhere to be seen in the article.
A few hundred metres away from a hamlet of maximum 330 people (and this you write was the entire tribe, not just the village dwellers) means: it's not part of it. So the Capernaum article has no reason to have "The village subsequently became known as al-Samakiyya; it was depopulated" etc. in it, not in the lead, not anywhere. Tribal lands are something else, don't know how that worked legally, but both the Franciscans and the Greek Patriarchy have bought the lands they own and aren't being challenged on that. I don't know if even the Greek church and "monastery" can be seen as "within the village". It only has one monk-priest, one building next to the church, access to the lake and a piece of land around it excavated by Tzaferis on its SW side, all fenced in, partially with a stone wall. Monasteries don't mingle. But the site known as Capernaum, the Franciscan-owned one, most certainly wasn't within the village. They bought it before the Greeks, with no buildings on it, just empty land with columns poking through. I'll remove that sentence. That point is clarified. The wider Samakiyeh story (if Amnun & Korazim on their land but Kh. Karazza not, then their border with the Zangariyeh must have been very twisted indeed) is still unclear, as is the wide issue of Bedouin tribal lands in general. The Hula population is a good study case, they were a combination of downtrodden people who came together in a malaria-infested area not wanted by anyone else, and it would be interesting to see when and how under the Ottomans presence & use turned into legal deeds. The whole Bedouin tribal lands comeplx should have a well-researched article all by itself. Cheers, Arminden ( talk) 07:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
"Al-Samakiyya was a Palestinian Arab village .... located at Tel Hum, which has been identified with Capernaum."
Really? The ruins of pre-749 Kfar Nahum were bought (from whom? Essential!) by the Franciscans, those of the post-749 town by the Greek Orthodox, for all I know with no dwellings of any kind on the respective plots of land. The only map attached to the article shows Samakiyya village well north (NE) of both. On the map "Telhum" is located away from the ancient site, which might be inaccurate.
Altogether, a very shaky case of equating the three locations as one. Arminden ( talk) 11:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't see Tel Hum on a modern map. Abright asserted Tel Hum = Capernaum. Es Samakiya and Kefar Nahum are adjacent, within 200m. Zero talk 11:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Zero0000. That's good for me to know, but it's nowhere to be seen in the article.
A few hundred metres away from a hamlet of maximum 330 people (and this you write was the entire tribe, not just the village dwellers) means: it's not part of it. So the Capernaum article has no reason to have "The village subsequently became known as al-Samakiyya; it was depopulated" etc. in it, not in the lead, not anywhere. Tribal lands are something else, don't know how that worked legally, but both the Franciscans and the Greek Patriarchy have bought the lands they own and aren't being challenged on that. I don't know if even the Greek church and "monastery" can be seen as "within the village". It only has one monk-priest, one building next to the church, access to the lake and a piece of land around it excavated by Tzaferis on its SW side, all fenced in, partially with a stone wall. Monasteries don't mingle. But the site known as Capernaum, the Franciscan-owned one, most certainly wasn't within the village. They bought it before the Greeks, with no buildings on it, just empty land with columns poking through. I'll remove that sentence. That point is clarified. The wider Samakiyeh story (if Amnun & Korazim on their land but Kh. Karazza not, then their border with the Zangariyeh must have been very twisted indeed) is still unclear, as is the wide issue of Bedouin tribal lands in general. The Hula population is a good study case, they were a combination of downtrodden people who came together in a malaria-infested area not wanted by anyone else, and it would be interesting to see when and how under the Ottomans presence & use turned into legal deeds. The whole Bedouin tribal lands comeplx should have a well-researched article all by itself. Cheers, Arminden ( talk) 07:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)