Jump to content

Talk:Ebla/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dudley Miles (talk · contribs) 13:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will take this one. A couple of initial comments.

Thank you for taking the time to review the article, I much appreciate your involvement and will work through your guidance since this is my first attempt writing a good article--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bibliography should be in the order of the author's surname.
Done My problem was when the book is written by more than one writer, so I decided to order the writers in the same order that is presented in Google books where most of the citations links.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I have copy edited extensively. Revert anything you are not happy with.
Thank you, Nothing to be reverted--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • "Starting as a small settlement in the early Bronze Age" I would add an approximate date.
Done--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The second Ebla was a continuation to the first Ebla" Continuation in what sense - the same dynasty of rulers.
Done it was the same civilization and the transition was marked only by the burning of the royal palace, although archaeologists still cant give a precise description of what happened as no written records survived the second kingdom era. I have removed the sentence : new culture in second Ebla as the newest works released by the archaeologists who worked on the site didn't reveal what kind of new culture appeared and only declared that a new dynasty ruled, I explained about the similarities between the first and the second kingdoms in The second kingdom section.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the pantheon was mainly north Semitic and included deities exclusive to Ebla." The "pantheon of gods" would be clearer.
Done--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]
  • "the early habitation period is designated (Mardikh I) and ended in 3000 BC, the city continued to grow" This is unclear. Do you mean that the city continued to grow after 3000 BC? Until when?
Done I clarified the meaning, I meant that the city grew during the Mardikh I--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The dates for the earliest kings known through the lists of Eblaites kings, implies that the first royal dynasty began with the building of G2 which was apparently a royal palace built c. 2700 BC" I do not understand this. How can a list of kings imply that a dynasty started with a particular building.
Done the palace G2 is estimated to have been built in the 28th century BC, while the chronological construction of the reign of Eblaite kings give the date of the first king also to the 28th century BC, hence according to prof Hamblin Hamblin Dynasty Ebla it seems that the first dynasty and the palace G2 coincided with each others, and the building of the palace indicate the start of a monarchy, I have changed the sentence to the next formula : the first royal dynasty started at the same period that building G2 was constructed.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are the dates of the archive period?
between 2400 bc until the first destruction, the date of the destruction is highly debated, I cant (with trust) write a certain one as the scientists are still quarreling over the precise date, but in any case I'll add Mattie date (2300BC) as he is the one who worked on the site --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the first destruction end the archive period or occur during it? This is not made clear.
Done the destruction ended the archives along with the first kingdom, sadly different historians have different estimations, some consider the archive period as ending in 2200 bc while Mattie ends it in 2300 bc, since Mattie is the discoverer of ebla and his work is the newest (2013) I added his dates, now the first kingdom and the archives ends at c. 2300 bc, I changed the dates in the article accordingly--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the destruction just of the palace or of the city?
the destruction was mainly on the acropolis and specially the palace, I added this sentence : The first destruction is mainly characterized with the burning of Palace G and not the whole city--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have revised the first paragraph of the archive period based on your comments. Does it look OK?
yes, sound good, but wouldn't be better to note that building G is built over G2 ?? so that readers wouldn't mistake G2 for G, because the construction of G is one of the major characters of the archive period--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is attested that Ebla defeated Mari in the 25th century BC, king Kun-Damu was mentioned in the archive two generations before Igrish-Halam, which suggest that he was a contemporary of king Ishtup-Ishtar of Mari (who is also mentioned in the tablets) and therefor, Kun-Damu can be placed in the middle of the 25th century BC and was probably the king who defeated Mari." I think this goes into too much detail and is difficult to follow. How about: "In the middle of the 25th century BC, King Ishtup-Ishtar of Mari was defeated by Ebla, perhaps by King Kun-Damu, whose reign over Ebla can probably be dated to this period."
yes the simplification of this phrase is a good thing, but the problem is : we don't know for sure who is the defeated king of Mari, Ishtup-Ishtar ruled in the 25th century BC and, and is attested in Ebla, and by estimating the reigns of eblaite kings we will have Kun-damu in the 25th century BC also --- but the attestation of monarchs and the defeating of mari are two different things ---- Mari was defeated but we dont know which Eblaite king won and which Mariote King was defeated, maybe it was Kun-damu predecessor who won , or Ishtup-Ishtar successor who was defeated, the only thing we know is that both kun-damu, Ishtup-Ishtar, and the eblaite victory happened in the middle of the 25th century BC, Prof rita dolce believe Kun-damu to be the king who defeated Mari but there is no base to claim that Ishtup-Ishtar was the defeated king Ishtup-Kun--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it can be like that : In the middle of the 25th century BC, Mari was defeated by Ebla, perhaps by King Kun-Damu, whose reign over Ebla can probably be dated to this period. we dont need to mention Ishtup-Ishtar and that takes the confusion away--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kun-Damu is shown 3 different ways - also as Kun Damu and in the king list at Kum-Damu. You need to make them consistent.
Done--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kun-damu is mentioned only as a name, his reign seems to be very short, prof Dolce believe that since Ebla was strong during Kun-Dmu and after the short reign of Adub-Damu it paid tribute,, then the reign of Adub-Damu was the beginning of a temporary weakness, there was no war attested, just that Ebla got weak (probably bad administration) or that mari got military stronger ?? we cant tell what happened exactly, the only thing for sure, is that Adub-Damu brought weakness, we can write that Ebla started to get weak during Adub-Damu reign, I dont know how to shape that phrase ??--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ibrium redirects to Ebla. You need to either replace the redirect with a stub article about ibrium or delete the redirect in the Ebla article.
Done--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ibrium is attested campaigning against Abarsal during the time of Arrukum" Does this mean that Ibrium campaigned while his father Arrukum was vizier? Who was Arrukum or was it a town? Armi and Abarsal and ibal are also not explained. Were Nagar and Kish vassal states?Dudley Miles (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Arrukum was just a vizier, he wasn't connected to Ibrium, but he is famous enough to be mentioned. Ibrium was a state official and general, he campaigned during the term of vizier Arrukum and then was appointed as vizier after Arrukum, I fixed the phrase to clarify it, Armi is a state and have its own article, Ibal was a city south of Ebla, and Abarsal was a vassal kingdom east of Ebla, Abarsal is very important because the treaty between Abarsal and Ebla is considered one of the first peace treaties in history if not the first indeed. Nagar and Kish were allies with Ebla not vassals, I'll fix the ambiguity--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Akkadian hypothesis: although the identification of Ebla with the Ibla mentioned by Sargon of Akkad has been challenged,[30] Prof. Trevor R. Bryce attributed the act to king Sargon or his grandson Naram-Sin.[31] Giovanni Pettinato at first supported the Naram-Sin theory,[32] then proposed the high dating theory, while the discoverer of Ebla Paolo Matthiae supported the Naram-Sin theory then shifted to the Sargon theory as more probable.[33] Sargon claimed that Dagon gave him Ebla while Naram-Sin denied his grandfather ever controlling Ebla, he wrote that No king whosoever had destroyed Ebla before him." I cannot understand this paragraph. Can you make it clearer? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yes ofcourse, just one note, Eannatum boasted of taking tribute from Mari , but Lugalzagesi is another Mesopotamian king who claimed reaching the Mediterranean, so the phrase should be : he attacker was a Mesopotamian ruler like Eannatum, who boasted of taking tribute from Mari. Or king Lugalzagesi, who claimed to have reached the Mediterranean
as for the akkadian hypothesis : this theory can be split, 1- king Sargon of Akkad conquered Ebla OR 2-his grandson Naram-Sin of Akkad conquered Ebla ------- both monarchs claimed conquering an Ebla, BUT we dont know for sure which Ebla, prof Astour notes a city in northern iraq with a similar name Ibla, so it might not be the syrian Ebla that got destroyed by Akkad --- The sargon theory is the most widely accepted while the possibility of Naram-sin conquering Ebla is weak, the flaws of the akkadian theory is discussed in Natural catastrophe theory section ---- note : Dagon was the head of the akkadian pantheon--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Astour, the high dating offer a problem that there is a gap of more than a hundred years between Eannatum and Pettinato next candidate Lugalzagesi." I do not understand this sentence.
yes, its important to tackle all the flaws of the other theories to understand astour theory, as for the High dating theory : Eannatum died a hundred years before Lugalzagesi, but according to the high chronology ennatum died in 2480 bc, even by the middle chronology ennatum would die in 2425, he cant destroy ebla in 2400. as for lugalzagezi his reign would have just started (according to high dating) at the time of ebla destruction in supposedly 2400 bc,, he cant possibly have destroyed the city at his first years on the throne ---- a hundred years gap between ennatum and lugalzagezi and to claim that both of them could be the attacker is just a just a very broad chronological margin aimed to prove a point at any cost even if the theory is weak ------ actually the Mari theory seems most likely (but Im not an archaeologist my opinion isn't important --- Pettinato deciphered the ebla tablets, so his opinion is very important and should be mentioned, ill edit the article to explain more about the flaws of this high dating theory )--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
it would it be better if I put the Criticism of every theory in that theory section--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Astour points that the geopolitical map presented in the archives of Ebla does not correspond to the political situation during the time of Naram-Sin, and regarding the Sargon theory, difficulties arise due to the fact that Sargon mentions that his campaign in the north happened after his conquest of Sumer, while the geopolitical map presented in the tablets of Ebla indicate an era that precede Lugalzagesi (pre-Sargonic) sack of Kish." I am confused how these comments relate to the destruction - the political situation presented in the Ebla tablets at the time of the destruction was different from that in Naram-Sin's time? And similarly that the Ebla tablers indicate that the destruction took place before the sack of Kush? Also there is no reference. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yes, this criticism prove that it cant be naram-sin who destroyed ebla because the tablets stopped at the moment of the destruction and they describe a time that is 75 years prior to naram-sin reign hence he cant be the destroyer,,, 2- the tablets describe a situation where kish is independent in the month of the ebla destruction and its known that Lugalzagesi sacked kish and that sargon killed Lugalzagesi before going north (to syria), so sargon cant have attacked ebla while kish and Lugalzagesi still existed, I added the citations--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a text that date to the seventh year of Amar-Sin mentions a messenger of the Ensí (Megum/Mekim) of Ebla" The date given for the destruction is 2050-1950, but the article on Amar-Sin dates him 1981–1973, which is incompatible with destruction before 2000. Do you know whether there is any explanation for this apparent contradiction? Could the incident date to the third kingdom? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yes, In this article and all the articles I make , I use the Middle Chronology, the Amar-Sin article use the short chronology which is 64 years shorter than the mostly used middle chronology, if the destruction of Babylon by the hittites happened in 1595 BC middle chronology, the date will be 1531 BC short chronology ..... the middle chronology is still the most used between archaeologists .... any way the second destruction happened anytime between 2050 AND 1950 so it wont be a problem ... using the middle chronology Amar-Sin will rule between 2045-2037 BC--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you need to explain that you use the middle chronology - perhaps by a footnote to "he site is most famous for the Ebla tablets, an archive of about 20,000 cuneiform tablets found there,[2] dated to around 2350 BC." in the lead. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ibbit-Lim doesn't describe his father as Mekim or Malik (King), it is normal for middle eastern kings to name their fathers, like pharaoh Ramses I whose father wasn't a pharaoh yet he is named as the father of Ramses I, yet the mentioning of Igrish-Heba is important because the name is Amorite and it support the theory of the Amorite characters of the third kingdom--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
maybe Igrish-Heba was a king but since he is not mentioned by his son as such and since nothing that belong to Igrish-Heba was discovered, then we cant claim he was a king--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first identified King is Ibbit-Lim son of Igrish-Heba, a basalt votive statue of his bearing his inscription was discovered and helped identifying Tell-Mardikh with Ebla in 1968,[60] Ibbit-Lim designated himself as the Mekim of Ebla,[54] this led Astour, David I. Owen and Ron Veenker to identify Ibbit-Lim with the pre-Amorite Megum of the Third Ur era,[61] however the names of the king and his father are Amorite, therefor (according to Giovanni Pettinato) its assumed that the inhabitants of Ebla were predominantly Amorites which is consistence with the knowledge about most of the inhabitants of Syria during that time." 1. helped identifying Tell-Mardikh with Ebla in 1968 - this is not explained. 2. to identify Ibbit-Lim with the pre-Amorite Megum of the Third Ur era - why? 3. inhabitants of Ebla were predominantly Amorites which is consistence with the knowledge about most of the inhabitants of Syria during that time - why does this make him 3rd kingdom. Is it known that the Amorites were not in Syria during the 2nd kingdom period? 4. If several leading scholars identify ibbit-Lim as 2nd kingdom, then it is too definite to say he is 3rd - perhaps "The first known king may have been Ibbit-Lim." Dudley Miles (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1- before 1968 nobody knew that tell Mardikh is ebla, but ibbit-lim statue mentioned him as the Mekim of Ebla 2- when Ebla was first discovered the reading of the tablets was hard and uncertain because they were written in both akkadian and Eblaite and while Akkadian was known, Eblaite was new and needed to be deciphered, so there was a lot of wrong readings such as thinking that Ibrium was a king ... etc , So when they read Ibbit-lim Mekim of Ebla they thought he was the megum of the second kingdom because they thought Megum was a personal name ... 3- it is known that Amorites were nomadic people before 2000 BC and didn't control cities, the Amorites were mentioned in the tablets of the first kingdom as neighbors of the city not inhabitants of it .... 4- the leading scholars identified ibbit-Lim as the megum not as second kingdom because they didnt know back then that there is a second kingdom, today all scholars agrees that Ibbit-Lim is Amorite of the third kingdom, because they all agree that the second kingdom was the same as the first and that means that the population was native Eblaite not Amorite while Ibbit-lim is definitely Amorite ,the consensus between scholars today is that ibbit-lim is an amorite from the third ebla, its not a speculation anymore ....... in this entry by the discoverer of ebla paulo mattie he writes that Ibbit-Lim is responsible for the third ebla and that he introduce Ishatar as the supreme goddess while the non Amorite Eblaites had Ishara not Ishtar as their supreme goddess Mattie Ibbit-Lim Third Ebla--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will pass this now. I am particularly interested as I visited Ebla when I went to Syria on holiday in 2010. You are obviously good at research, but you need to get articles in a much more advanced state before submitting them for GA. It took far more work than I expected, and far more than a reviewer would normally undertake. If you have a friend who can work with you that would be best, but you can also try Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors and Wikipedia:Peer review. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I thank you and thank my luck that you reviewed the article and took the job of editing my poor style although you didnt have to, English isn't my native tongue, and while I was sure of the quality of the information, I wasn't sure about my writing style, I have one article (Yamhad) that I want to elevate into a GA but I think I'll copy-edit a lot before that. Thank you very much--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ebla/GA1&oldid=621633111"