Talk:Hanilgalbat

Aramaization

this a terminus technicus coined by H. Tadmor, It describes the increased importance of bearers of Aramaic names in the upper echelons of the Neo-Assyrian administration and army, and even in the Royal house, as in the case of the mother of Assurhaddon. Neo-Assyrian reliefs show Assyrian scribes writing on clay tablets accompanied by scribes writing on scrolls, presumably in Aramaic. But this was not the result of conquest, that is, not of any kind of Aramaic conquest. It is thought that the continuous warfare and deportations spread speakers of Aramaic all over Western Asia, and especially the new Assyrian administrative centres, and slowly the Aramaic language began to replace Babylonian, as it certainly had in Persian and Hellenistic times.

Tadmor H 1982 The Aramaization of Assyria: aspects of Western impact Nissen, Hans-Jörg/Renger, Johannes Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn. Politische und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen im Alten Orient vom 4. bis 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 1 Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient Berlin Reimer 449-470 --Yak 17:47, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, the term is not in my dictionary, & I assumed it was a word coining in manner of similar terms -- e.g., "Americanize", "Russianize" (more familiar as "Russify"), "Germanize" -- all of which mean to make changes to a place, people, or thing so it conforms to the culture or nation refered to. For example, if we say that the Japanese cusine of sushi is Americanized, then we mean to say that it was modified to conform to an American palate.

My problem with this term is that I don't know what it means to "Aramaize" something. From your explanation above, it would appear to imply that Aramaic speakers gradually displaced Hurrian speakers -- which is what I was trying to do in revising your explanation in the article. (There are a number of places -- & I hope you agree -- where your English is not fluent, & needs some revision.) And I would be far more accepting of this term if you could cite some more familiar English examples of its use; German word formations do not always migrate happily into English (as well as vice versa). And if this concept of Aramaic acculturization cannot be expressed in any other way except thru this specific technical term, then perhaps you should add an article explaining it. -- llywrch 19:29, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I do agree that the term is not well defined - as with a lot of terms used in Ancient history. But the point is that it does not neccessarily mean a displacement of a people - it can be a displacement of some people, or simply linguistic change. The author is Israeli, by the way, not German. Could not agree more with your corrections of my attempts at English, but I strongly resist simplistic ethnic interpretations. What do you call what happens to Japanese when they become integrated into American society, if there is any? --Yak 21:31, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Whenever anyone is integrated to American society, they are "Americanized". (I apologize that my explanation above did not explain this point clearly enough.) As for the author above (H. Tadmor -- I'm not about to compound my insensitivity by guessing to the sex of this scholar), I was focussing more on the editors who accepted & considered the paper, rather than the author: by the title, I am assuming the publisher's native language is German, & they might not see that the word "Aramaization" will sound odd & fail to convey a useful idea.

As for ethnic assuptions, I making the assumption that your native language is German based on the observations that you have quoted mostly German authorities for this article, confusion about capitalizing words, & the occasional use of "und" for "and". If this is not the case, I apologize again for my ethnic interpretations. I do not want to discourage you from contributing to Wikipedia in the area of ancient Middle Eastern history -- nor any other area. (However, we badly need more contributions in this area to Wikipedia, & even this article, without any copy editting, is an important addition.) I am simply trying to gently shape what you have written so that it will not only resist hostile criticism, but also prove useful to anyone who is interested in this subject. Please accept any comments I make in that spirit. -- llywrch 00:16, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I just googled Hispanicized, which for the US comes approaches a tiny wee bit what happened in Assyria: 524 hits. I agree that 'Aramaization' probably should get an entry to explain it. --Yak 10:51, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Proposal to Merge with Mitanni

An editor has attached a merge tag to this article; however, the Hanilgalbat, Mitanni/Maitani and Hurri section of this article argues that the 2 articles are different topics, & should be kept separate. Until this the points in this article are at least discussed, wouldn't it be wiser to delay this merge? -- llywrch 16:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm open to any discussion on this. The problem as I see it is that the two articles contain a lot of duplicative information. It seems to me that the bulk of the information about Hurrian civilization should be under Mitanni, and that Hanilgalbat, if maintained as a separate article, should be limited to the Assyrian sources that refer to the country by that name. I personally think it would be better to have one article but I'm not opposed to keeping them separate. I just think that duplication should be avoided. I note also that the article refers to Hurrian language as Indo-European; this and other inaccuracies should be corrected. --Briangotts 02:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, the name Mitanni for this entity was only picked up by the Egyptians around 1480, and by the Assyrians somewhat later. Before then, the Egyptians had called it Naharaim (Aram) and the Assyrian name for it was "Hanigalbat". "Mitanni" seems to have been the native term. Of course, the neighboring Hittites still called them "Hurri" after the indigenous population of Hurrians. We may assume an Hurrian population with an Indo-European aristocracy; after Assyria took control, these same people became known more generally as Aramaeans and began speaking a dialect of Assyrian Akkadian that developed into Aramaic.

I think the articles Mitanni, Hanigalbat, Hurrian, and Aramaeans all need to be clearly interlinked at least, and the above information needs to be reflected consistently throughout. I can also see a strong case for merging Mitanni and Hanigalbat since they are the native, and Assyrian names for the same entity. How do we do this? Codex Sinaiticus 20:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have just created a place to work on a draft merge on my Talk page. I will be working on this tonight when I get some time, but feel free to stop over there and hack away, if you're so inclined...! So far all I have done is paste the code for the two articles, one after the other.

--Codex Sinaiticus 21:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE

I have now worked out a draft merge of the two articles; it will be available on my userpage for a while awaiting any comment and/or edits, and if there is no objection heard, the final copy should replace both entries after say, a week. Codex Sinaiticus 04:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

- Well, it will be a week tomorrow, and so far the only feedback I have heard of any kind, concerns what userpage the draft ought to appear on. Meanwhile, I think I have developed a very good article on the Mitanni including some new info, that will still be available for open editing at Codex Sinaiticus for only a short time longer, before I move it to Mitanni and redirect this page, probably sometime tomorrow. Codex Sinaiticus 16:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only person I know who might have a strong opinion about merging this article would be Yak, who wrote this article in the first place. Since there's been no word from him . . . I guess you're home free.

However, it's always a good idea to provide a week for feedback when making a change like this: speaking from experience, one never knows who will complain -- & why -- over major changes like this. At least now, if someone later comes to Wikiepdia & complains of this action, there's a record why it was done. -- llywrch 18:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]