Talk:Carchemish

Karkemish

As Dougweller suggested, the Talk section should be used to discuss the issue of the spelling of Karkemish, as even David Hawkins does in his authoritative Corpus of Luwian Hieroglyphic Inscriptions. Actually, the article heading should be Karkemish rather than Carchemish, because that is a transcription from an ancient name written in cuneiform and other ancient Semitic sources, and the standard international transcription is with K and not with C any more. So, the old British Museum reports of course are titled "Carchemish", but the correct entry should now be Karkemish, in order to conform to standard international practice for this ancient toponym. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaziantep2012 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The recently proposed merge with Charchamesh is also fine, but this a hectic transcription from the Hebrew, a very minor variant deserving a passing mention at most — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaziantep2012 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The stub entry Charchamesh should then cancelled and redirected to Karkemish — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaziantep2012 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I hadn't seen these comments until now. I think going with the rules of using the most common name in English literature, we'd have to go with Carchemish, analogous to having an article at Sennacherib rather than Sîn-ahhī-erība. Of course Karkemish is not incorrect, it's just not the most common, as of yet. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The standard transcription of the toponoym KARKAMISH from cuneiform and hieroglyphic Luwian sources is constantly with K and not with C in the scholarly world so it is the most common nowadays. Woolley's transcription Carchemish was soon outdated although it has remained in some anglophone world for reasons of simple inertia (but the most influential Corpus by David Hawkins writes it with K and not with C!). Have a look at the most recent publication by the expedition digging at the site: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5615/neareastarch.75.issue-3 The main entry of Wikipedia should thus be Karkemish and not Carchemish (which of course remains as a cross reference) Gaziantep2012 —Preceding undated comment added 21:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Wooley didn't come up with the spelling Carchemish; that was the standard spelling of the place long before him, as may be seen for instance in the King James Bible, in Jeremiah. Much like 'Sennacherib'. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

The WWW sources are not clear about the identification of Carchemish with

• Hierapolis of the ancient greek.
• Europus of the Romans
• Jerablus in Syria

Would someone clarify the matter? Thanks...
Jorge Stolfi 00:13, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

These matters have now been discussed in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaziantep2012 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Sapazata

newly found King name. Böri (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually to be read Sapaziti, cf. the rulers table in the article

BCE/CE instead of BC/AD

I am of the opinion the dates in the article should refect the more current common usage found in academics and scientific writings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.C.E. Bubbecraft (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose It's been established time and again that BC is perfectly acceptable, and that BCE is not the "more current common usage" everywhere, it has a long way to go. It is still widely considered an unnecessary distraction and it ultimately means the same as the shorter BC, but without the "special" flag of putting an E on it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Tell Jerablus Tahtani

I added the small tell next to Carchemish. Not sure if the town of the same name is there or not. Maybe someone more familiar with the area will know. In any case, the new section probably could use a couple more lines on the dig. Ploversegg (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)