Talk:Gaza synagogue

Damage to the mosaic

I have removed the following sentence from the article:

Shortly after the mosaic's discovery, the main figure's face was gouged out.

There are two reasons for this: (1) the statement is not supported by photos taken during the 1967 excavation [perhaps it depends what is meant by "shortly after"] and (2) it is not commented on by Ovadiah in the pieces he wrote for Qadmoniyot and the Israel Exploration Journal. Given the significance of the mosaic, that seems like quite the omission. Richard Nevell (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Richard Nevell. Sorry to disagree.

1. Unless you can show that Shanks' BAR article is not RS, you cannot do that. You removed a clear statement by Shanks, who cites good sources, based on your own hunch/supposition. That's totally unacceptable on Wiki.
2. It doesn't take much effort to prove you wrong. HUJI's Bezalel Narkiss Index of Jewish Art and Material Culture has the originat photo, Img. ID: 945 with description ("...David is depicted sitting on a throne, wearing a cloak and a crown; his head is encircled by a halo. ... With one hand he plucks the strings; in the other he holds a plectrum"). You can see the complete David in the black & white photo (large file here), with the contrasting current state description reading "Condition: A large part of the mosaic is destroyed. This includes most of the bottom area, David's head, his left hand, parts of his clothes and lyre, most of the snake's body, the lioness' hind part and most of the gazelle's body. David's head, his left hand and parts of the lyre were reconstructed." A clear BEFORE vs AFTER.
3. Shanks' statement is explicitly based on that of a specialist who dealt with the mosaic, Connie Kestenbaum Green (already used as a RS), see her article (https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/king-davids-head-from-gaza-synagogue-restored/ "King David’s Head from Gaza Synagogue Restored"). Access to her article is by subscription only, but the free intro is rather clear in conjunction with and contrast to the original photo ("restoration work was aided by advanced computer technology to reproduce an image of King David that was thought to be forever lost"). Her BAS article is also cited (Connie Kestenbaum Green, “King David’s Head from Gaza Synagogue Restored,” BAR 20-02, Mar-Apr 1994) as the base for a Center for Online Jewish Studies (COJS) article, which reads "After the 1967 Six-Day War, when Israel took control of Gaza, Israeli archaeologists rushed to the site to inspect the synagogue and mosaic they had read about but had never seen. / The site had lain unprotected since its discovery in 1965. When the Israelis arrived, they found that part of the mosaic had been destroyed- David’s head, one of his hands and several other small areas were gone." (https://cojs.org/gaza_synagogue_mosaic-_6th_century_ce/ Gaza Synagogue Mosaic, 6th century CE, Apr 9, 2008).

I'm sure you can find more material in libraries you have access to as an archaeologist.

Shanks' choice of words ("gauge") might be seen as non-academic, but the described fact can't be contested. So both formally (BAR is generally accepted as RS) and factually (see original photo, etc.), Shanks's claim is rock-solid. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

No need to apologise for disagreeing, Arminden, that’s just how Wikipedia works and often to the benefit of articles. I do, however, wish to apologise for the ambiguous wording of my initial post. It is not in doubt that the mosaic suffered damage – where the uncertainty lies is when the damage was incurred.

The article still mentions that the mosaic was damaged: The mosaic was cleaned and the damaged area where David's head had been was replaced based on black and white photographs.

I don't have time to reply in full right now, but wanted to address that point now. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. I reacted to the notification re. your edit. Arminden (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Ovadiah's article in Qadmoniyot doesn't say when the mosaic was damaged but does at least give us a latest date: when his excavations began in August 1967. Kestenbaum Green and Shanks don't provide more precision on when the damage happened, so hopefully this will do. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

References