Talk:Hamama

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Palestinian

Please stop changing the history by removing "palestinian" word with no reason, i think you have to read more about Hamama's history and people, why r u that much upset from the truth , even that the i said "WAS" and it's now still under the zionist occupation which you have change it to israel, u have no right to remove palestinian and keep Israel, i'll keep changing it up to death, and I'll tell all my friends to keep watching it and changing ,plz stop doing that, thanks Ubai1982 12:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It was a town in Israel/Palestine, Ubai - we've been over this. Changing Wikipedia won't change the world, so leave it how it was. HawkerTyphoon 12:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Mistakes

It seems as if the description of this is place was missed by Conder and Kitchener. It looks quite large, on SWP map 16, named Hamameh. But it is only mentioned in passing (on p. 418). (Same mistake was done at Kaukab Abu al-Hija.) Cheers Huldra (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The index says that it is on page 267 but it isn't mentioned there I think. Zero^talk 23:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

P. 267 is the correct ref. to Palmer (already in the article). Its neighbouring villages were described in Conder & Kitchener around p. 410.

Also: Petersen, 2001, p. 146 gives SWP II p. 422 as a ref for this place. That is clearly wrong: the "El Hummam" mentioned there, is a tiny structure much further east, on same SWP map 16. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

2026

The caption of the British mandate maps says "Hamada". I think it's a mistake, but I'm not sure. Plyntérêts (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Fixed. Zero^talk 01:36, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hamama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101129211809/http://hamama1948.com/ to http://www.hamama1948.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hamama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101129211809/http://hamama1948.com/ to http://www.hamama1948.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Hütteroth and Abdulfattah, mistake

Hütteroth and Abdulfattah, 1977, p. 142 has a mistake about this place...they write that total revenue is 6,800, but they only list 500 (occasional revenues) and 300 (goats and bees). So where did the other 6000 Akçe come from? It looks as if they missed some posts, Huldra (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Habitation gap? After Byzantine & till Mamluk period

It seems so. If certain, pls state it clearly.

Can anything be said about Mamluk reest.? Maybe situated on barid (postal route), strategic position, veterans settled there, maqam used as settlement incentive,...? Arminden (talk) 07:59, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Arminden, don't remove source-verified historical/toponymical info without providing a reason or discussing it first. Now, regarding the period before the Mamluk one, I couldn't find anything in published sources. From what Taxel etc wrote it seems like the village existed in 1300 CE but no clear background is offered for the time of reestablishment. רמרום (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you רמרום. I think you're wrong, copyright infringement is absolutely a valid reason for removal. Also, I didn't "delete/erase", it, I've put it up here for discussion, "back to the sandbox"-style. It was wrong to post it in the article as it was; it's only correct to move it over here for discussion, then either rework or final removal. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Moved over paragraph: ref copied & pasted, poorly understood & edited, questionable relevance

"Underlying Hamama's Late Ottoman and British Mandate toponymy, is a limited stratum of pre-Ottoman village names. To this pre-existing stratum, residents added new place names referring in cases to families living in or around the village. The great importance of land as the main means of production in Hamama's agrarian society, is reflected by many place names relating to the soil and its characteristics."

1. Copied almost word by word (totally insufficient paraphrasing effort).
2. It was picked up from the abstract, w/o any input from the actual paper.
3. Makes no sense in parts: it refers to "village names", and here we have just one village. I guess the paragraph means to say that there are places in & around Hamama called by the name of the families living there or by the agric. characteristics of those places. But then say so!
4. It's an utter commonplace, I know of no village anywhere in the world where that's not precisely the case. Might feel good for activists ("roots in the soil of the motherland"), but so what.
5. Wikilinks to the most common of common nouns, maybe to mask lack of paraphrasing & pretend wikification (family, village, arguably soil).

If it is to be put back in, then only after proving relevance (the actual paper might offer valid arguments) and thoroughly reworking it. One interesting question: see paragraph here-above - maybe toponyms offer clues re. the habitation gap (missing Early Muslim through Crusader/Ayyubid periods), and even more likely for the reasons or context for reestabl. during Mamluk period. Then we'd be going somewhere.

References

Arminden (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I seem to have missed this section. It's indeed a very close paraphrase. Here's a suggested revise. What do you think?

Scholarly research on Hamama’s toponymy notes that, like many villages in Palestine, its place names reflect multiple historical layers. While the village itself is of later foundation, some of the surrounding localities preserve older, pre-Ottoman names. Over time, additional names developed, often connected either to prominent families living in or near Hamama or to distinctive features of the soil and terrain. These naming practices reflect both the agrarian character of the settlement and the importance of land in its social organization

רמרום (talk) 08:38, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Not really.

• Did you read the paper? If not, we're back at square 1. Pls mind all 5 issues I have raised.
• Mostly commonplace (can be said about ANY OLD VILLAGE) or unsupported ("like many villages in Palestine, its place names reflect multiple historical layers" - not just there, universal; "village itself is of later foundation" - is it proven?; "some of the...": abstract made clear they're few, a limited "substrate", and that's a notable fact; "Over time, additional names developed..." etc. till the end - commonplace, universal).

Again: either the paper (not its very brief abstract) is offering useful info, or it belongs at best under "External links". Cheers, Arminden (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

To make very clear: I'm not "anti-Palestinian" or of any other bias, but I am anti-WP activism and against lowering the editing requirements for "nostalgia articles". There's a real need for that, but it's for Remember Palestine and arguably Khalidi to cover, not for Wiki. I'm dying to learn about any well-researched facts, no matter where they're pointing to. Thanks. Arminden (talk) 09:08, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I've read the full paper, it's a historical toponymic analysis of the Palestinian Arabic placenames within the pre-1948 village territory of Hamama. According to Marom, the area contains place names of previously inhabited villages attested in the 16th century Ottoman defters. This point is also raised by Marom and Taxel 's 2023 peer-reivewed paper published in the Journal of Historical Geography, a highly prestigious and trusted academic source. What I meant by "the village *name* itself is of later foundation" (more properly) than the pre-Islamic toponyms themselves. The section "Over time, additional names developed, often connected either to prominent families living in or near Hamama or to distinctive features of the soil and terrain. These naming practices reflect both the agrarian character of the settlement and the importance of land in its social organization" is wp-quality and relevance.

On a separate note, this is not WP-activism, and all statements are based on verifiable sources. It's surely not a nostalgia article more than any study of a Celtic site, a Jewish Second Temple ruin, or an Indian tribe.רמרום (talk) 09:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

רמרום, sorry, I'm happy to apologise if I got something wrong or carried away. I didn't check who has introduced the etymology, now I see it was you, and I had no intention to get personal.

The facts which remain are that

• the main/first paragraph there is unsourced and
• it states that the Arabic name is a direct translation and continuation of the Greek Peleia, but the "History" section (this time sourced) clearly states that it's far from sure that Hamama stood at the same site as Peleia. The unsourced "Etymology" paragraph presents it as fact.
• The now expanded version of the sourced, 2nd paragraph isn't giving any of the actually relevant info (names of former villages in the area still found in place and taxed by the Ottomans), instead offers, w/o any concrete data, a commonplace statement about peasants relating to their land and places around a village being named after families living there and farming-related characteristics, which remain unnamed. That's totally unnecessary, as it's completely unspecific, virtually all names around any village anywhere are of that exact nature. Unless, of course, Marom has interesting unusual examples worth quoting.

I'd be as unhappy about unspecific sentences if relating to any village anywhere, but Palestinian ones tend to attract more than their fair share of it, and for a very understandable reason; but Wiki isn't the right place for that. Real, substantive info I'm devouring when I come across it, and I'm actually very reluctant when others remove material with even a small bit of good info. But good it must be, and never editorialising or being left unsourced.

Thanks for your effort and for giving me such a comprehensive reply. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understood: Does Marom deal with the reëstablishment of a village there? If he does, that might be worth adding to the history section. The disappearance of other villages in the area during the Ottoman period is also worth quoting. The khirba phenomenon and the devastation by, say, the Egyptian invasion and maybe the repression of a local rebellion having such consequences is highly relevant and interesting, as are internal migrations, Bedouin-to-fellaheen processes and vice versa, and Mamluk or any other settlement efforts - if mentioned in a good source. Arminden (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi User:Arminden, I've read your critique several times, and here is a suggested revised paragraph with citations etc. to include the abandoned village names, and express the tentative link with Peleia:

== Etymology and toponymy ==

The site of Ḥamāma has been inhabited since at least the Hellenistic period, with remains from the Roman and Byzantine eras, and it has sometimes been identified with the settlement of *Peleia/Palaia* (Greek for "dove"), though this identification is not conclusive and may have been closer to Ascalon. The Arabic name *Ḥamāma* likewise means "dove," and may preserve this association, though alternative explanations exist, including traditions linking the name to a military encampment at the site (*Wādī al-Ḥima*).

Ottoman fiscal registers and later surveys show that by the seventeenth century many villages in the Gaza district were abandoned due to nomadic pressure and over-taxation, with their territories absorbed into surviving settlements such as Ḥamāma. Among the localities whose lands were annexed to Ḥamāma’s territory were Ṣandaḥanna (صندحنة) and Miʿṣaba (مصعبة), both of which appear in earlier records but were deserted by the eighteenth century. רמרום (talk) 08:28, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thank you so much! I've really learned something from it, thanks for doing the work of summarising all those sources.

One observation if I may: Two bits clearly fit much better in the history section; I would move them myself, but the first one has 3 sources indicated, and I wouldn't know which of them correspond to it:

• "The site of Ḥamāma has been inhabited since at least the Hellenistic period, with remains from the Roman and Byzantine eras,"
• The entire second part, from "Ottoman fiscal registers" to "by the eighteenth century."

For the etymology section, this would fully suffice:

The site of Ḥamāma has sometimes been identified with that of Peleia/Palaia (Greek for "dove"), a city mentioned in ancient sources, though this identification is not conclusive and Peleia may have been closer to Ascalon.[source a, b, c]

Thanks again! Arminden (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

PS: If you write "has been inhabited since at least the Hellenistic period" it will be easily confused with "continuously inhabited", which apparenty it was not: habitation gap from the end of the Byz. period to the establishment of Hamama under the Mamluks. Wording... Arminden (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Pls. note that part of what I suggested should be moved to the history section is already mentioned there. The identif. w. Peleia is already both there and in the lead section, but that's OK, we should just coordinate and harmonise those bits & their sources (choose different wording, sometimes point to the other section). Arminden (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Arminden, each source corresponds exactly to the statements preceding it. Fill free to make your suggested edits (fully agreed to) in the main text. I would go through them later . רמרום (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Identification as ancient Peleia

It is clearly NOT clearcut or consensual, but "Etymology" section fails to take this into consideration.

Btw: Is Marom the source for the entire "Etymology" section? So far it's unsourced (paragraph sourced on Marom re. various local secondary toponyms was set apart from main etymological discussion re. the village name). Arminden (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The Peleia identification is also mentioned in Khalidi's all that Remains, the Marom and Taxel paper, and other sources.רמרום (talk) 09:47, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The possibility that Hamama=Peleia is in multiple sources, though it is not unanimous. Zero^talk 11:38, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

So this should be stated as a contested possibility. רמרום (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi all, see reply in the section above רמרום (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 7 July 2026 Structural NPOV concerns regarding chronology and 1948 section sourcing

I have some concerns regarding the structural neutrality (WP:NPOV) and chronological balance of the article in its current state. There are a few areas where the article's framing presents a lack of due weight or incomplete historical context:

Chronological Gap in History Section: The "History" section currently jumps directly from the Byzantine city subsection to the Crusader period. The pivotal historical transition of the area becoming Arab and Muslim during the 7th-century Islamic conquests is omitted from the main historical timeline, appearing only as a brief aside under the "Etymology" section. For historical continuity, this transition should be explicitly detailed chronologically under its own subsection in History.

One-Sided Sourcing in the 1948 Section: The paragraph detailing the January/February 1948 skirmishes between Hamama and Nitzanim relies entirely on a single contemporary partisan source: the newspaper Felesteen. Presenting detailed casualty counts and specific operational narratives from a single-perspective press source—without cross-referencing parallel British Mandatory police reports or Haganah archival records from the period—creates a balance issue (WP:WEIGHT). It portrays the local communal escalation in a vacuum.

Lead Paragraph Framing: The lead currently frames the geographic subject entirely around its 1945 pre-depopulation statistics, while pushing its modern geographic reality (that the site has been absorbed as a neighborhood of the Israeli city of Ashkelon) to the final sentence of the introduction. While the pre-1948 history is vital to document, the lead sentence should more neutrally balance what the geographic site is today alongside what it was historically.

I welcome thoughts from regular editors on how we can improve the article's neutrality and completeness by addressing these structural gaps. MDMLXXVI (talk) 07:32, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Sources from the early Islamic period are sparse. Do you know of any? Zero^talk 08:53, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Zerotalk. You are entirely correct that standalone primary textual sources specifically naming the village during the Umayyad or Abbasid periods are scarce. However, modern archaeological and historical-geographical surveys do address this continuity directly.

In fact, the primary source already heavily cited in this article—Marom & Taxel (2023), "Ḥamāma: The historical geography of settlement continuity and change in Majdal 'Asqalan's hinterland, 1270–1750 CE" in the Journal of Historical Geography—specifically addresses this. They note that archaeological rescue digs and regional surveys show a transition of the Byzantine settlement (Peleia) into the Early Islamic period, marked by the introduction of Islamic-era ceramics alongside the eventual language shift/translation of the name from the Greek Peleia (dove) to the Arabic Ḥamāma (dove).

To fix the current chronological gap without overstating the sparse primary texts, we could simply adjust the structural headers to reflect standard timeline practices. For example:

1. Change the heading "Byzantine city" to "Byzantine and Early Islamic periods".
2. Move the sentence currently buried in the Etymology section ("when the Arabs conquered it through the Rashidun Caliphate in the seventh century, the town received its Arabic name Hamama...") into this newly combined history subsection, supported by the archaeological context of continuity from Marom & Taxel (2023).

This resolves the jarring jump from the 5th century straight to the 11th-century Crusaders while remaining strictly accurate to the available academic literature. What are your thoughts on framing it this way? ~~~~ MDMLXXVI (talk) 09:34, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I think some Arab village books mention the Muslim conquests of the area, but they - too - provide very little information specific to Hamama. These are-non academic works written by non-historians, and focus primarily on the Ottoman / British periods. should they be treated here as reliable sources? If so, I could cite them. רמרום (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks רמרום. I agree that village-specific Early Islamic sources are limited, and I would not suggest relying on non-academic village histories as the main source for a detailed account.

My point is not that Hamama needs a detailed Early Islamic history section, but that the current wording creates a chronological problem. The sentence “During the Mamluk period, the area passed into Muslim hands” implies that Muslim rule began at that point, which is incorrect.

A short bridging statement based on archaeological evidence would be sufficient. The Israel Antiquities Authority excavation report notes that after the Muslim conquest in the seventh century CE the settlement was significantly reduced in size, and that settlement activity increased again in later medieval periods. This is not based on a village book but on archaeological interpretation.

Similarly, the general transition from Byzantine to Early Islamic Palestine is well covered in academic literature (for example Taxel’s work on Early Islamic settlement patterns), even if Hamama itself is poorly documented in written sources.

Therefore I suggest a minimal change rather than adding a new narrative:

Replace:

“During the Mamluk period, the area passed into Muslim hands”

with:

“Following the Muslim conquest in the seventh century CE, the settlement underwent changes in size and character. Hamama is more clearly documented as an inhabited village from the Mamluk period onward.”

This avoids making claims beyond the evidence while fixing the misleading chronology. MDMLXXVI (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2026 (UTC)