Talk:Short chronology

Sketchy Iron Age additions

Look, just because the Iron Age period is not subject to the short/long controversy does NOT mean that the chronology is solid. In fact, except for the Neo-Assyrians it distinctly is not solid. Not even close to solid. The period between 900-1150 is especially thin on actual facts. Even the Assyrian data for that period which people originally took as history is now thought to be suspect. The post kassite Babylonians dates up to Nabonassar are pretty weak or non-existant too.

Anyway, if speculation were appropriate for a timeline/chronogy, I would have just cargo culted the suspect king lists from existing articles and called it a day. Fortunely, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be about facts, not speculation. Whats next, adding the Biblical Patriarchs from Genesis? Ploversegg (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)ploversegg

Ages

First, some background.

1) the entire concept of bronze versus iron age in history has largely fallen into disuse

2) even when it WAS in heavy usage, the terminology was generally only applied to Anatolia and the Levant, not mesopotamia.

3) when it has been used in mesopotamia it is usually restricted to Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods.

4) the Neo-Assyrians (i.e. 911 BC and following) are considered to be in the Early Iron Age, if at all.

5) the assyrian kings between Ashur-Dan I and Adad-nirari II are not in fact "chronology here is well established" though yes, they are less subject to the long/short distortion. The rulers are sketchily defined by conflicting king lists and chronicles.

While it would be nice to strip out the Age thing entirely, I understand that this would cause some people here heartburn, to my intention is to a)move the Assyrian kings mentioned in 5 to the Bronze Age where they belong, b) add the Neo-Babylons properly to the Iron Age, c) try and add what real chronological information is available the recent stuff, and d) try and make some better sense of the post-kassite Babylonians (some of whom belong in the bronze age too btw).Ploversegg (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)ploversegg

New Chronology

We must adopt the new chronolgy based on Boris Banjevič: Ancient Eclipses an dating the fall of Babylon to year 1547 BC. http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2006POBeo..80..251B --Bynk33 (talk) 09:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Guti

Imta or Nibia 2138–2135 BC I hawe searched but those kings of Guti dynasty not exist. Imta or Nibia is only mismatchet read for: There where no king for 3 or 5 years, some have that read as There where king Nibia for 3 or 5 years. English transcription from Sumerian King List tablet: 308-334In the army (ms. Su3+Su4 has instead: land) of Gutium, at first no king was famous; they were their own kings and ruled thus for 3 years (ms. L1+N1 has instead: they had no king; they ruled themselves for 5 years). Then Inkicuc (ms. Su3+Su4 has instead: ......) ruled for 6 (ms. L1+Ni1 has instead: 7) years. Zarlagab ruled for 6 years.  Original: 308ugnim (ms. Su3+Su4 has instead: [ma]-/da\) gu-tu-umki 309lugal mu nu-tuku (hier is the famous Imta :-) 310ni2-ta-a lugal-am3 mu 3 i3-ak (instead of ll. 309-310, ms. L1+N1 has: Alugal nu-ub-tuku (hier is the famous Nibia :-) Bni2-bi-a mu 5 i3-ak) 311in-ki-cuc (ms. Su3+Su4 has instead: [...]-/ga\-ba) mu 6 (ms. L1+Ni1 has instead: 7) i3-ak 312zar2-lagabla-gab mu 6 i3-ak — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.91.20.84 (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Phrasing of the introduction

This edit (which completely inverted the crucial statement about the acceptance of the chronology) and this edit have resulted in an introduction which frankly reads awkward. First, why "still commonly encountered"? Also, why "this short chronology"? I can figure out the reason for this phrasing, but a lay reader lacking the context is going to find it jarring. In order to understand the presence of the words "still" and "this" here, you need to be already familiar with the subject. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Redundant page name

'Chronology' and 'timeline' are synonyms, hence the name "Short chronology timeline" is redundant. I suggest renaming to "Short chronology". Texas Dervish (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 21 October 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

---

Short chronology timeline → Short chronology – Redundant. "Chronology" and "timeline" mean the same. Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. It would actually be feasible to have an article at Short chronology timeline (a timeline of the short chronology), but only if we had a huge main article at Short chronology and a WP:SUMMARY need to split off a timeline of the short chronology to a new spinoff article. So, the nom's rationale is actually not quite right; "chronology" and "timeline" do not actually mean the same thing in this narrow context. The problem, rather, is unnecessary and overly specific wording in the title (i.e., it would be the same problem as having this article be at any other unnecessarily precise name that over-limited the scope for no reason and didn't reflect the total content, e.g. "History of the short chronology" or "List of short-chronology rulers", etc., etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Unnecessary Material

The list of rulers and their corresponding short chronology dates is not needed - at least not for all dates beyond the Middle Bronze Age. The chronological debate between Middle, Low, and High (Which at this point should not exist) only applies to Early Bronze Age Mesopotamia.

Ur-Pabilsag (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Realistically, the epigraphic gap between the late bronze age and the early iron age is still pretty much there and the chronology beyond say 900BC is still "floating" as they say. So, yes, the ones after that like the neo-assyrians are fixed dates. That's such a small part of the list why not just have them for completeness?

I agree completely that the high vs middle vs low chronology split is no longer supportable. In a perfect world we could just put up a nice single floating relative chronology and say "+/- 75 years". Practically, its become a "religious" issue where people are attached to what they are used to.Ploversegg (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

All these articles would definitely benefit from some clean-up, so as far as I am concerned, go ahead... Zoeperkoe (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Over the years, beside the original chronology lists a slew of other duplicative lists has grown up like weeds. Like you have List of Assyrian kings, List of Hittite kings, List of kings of Babylon, List of Mesopotamian dynasties, etc, and etc. Probably more I've missed. Be nice if someone could do some consolidation and cleaning across the board.Ploversegg (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you think it would be more useful to keep all the dynastic lists separate or include all under one "List of Mesopotamian Dynasties"?

Ur-Pabilsag (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ur-Pabilsag: I would not invest any time in trying to delete these separate lists - I can tell you right away that there's going to be quite some resistance. The better solution is probably to make List of Mesopotamian dynasties into some sort of summary article, where you don't list every single king, but rather summarize dynasties and from there link to the main articles on separate dynasties. These separate dynasty articles can then be updated when it comes to dates and other info on individual reigns. In this way you're not duplicating information. Best Zoeperkoe (talk) 07:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a political can of worms messing with the individual lists. And you could chase this issue down a rabbit hole easily. Consider List_of_state_leaders_in_the_19th_century_BC for how far the tendrils go. Really, this may be all my fault. Back in the day I rewote Chronology of the ancient Near East from scratch and included a list of rulers using the SC. Then the pedants of wikipedia decided that it was improper to have a article and list together and the rulers got split into the SC article that stands before you. So blame me. :-) Ploversegg (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Ha, I wasn't aware that we nowadays even have lists like that. This stuff is better handled by Wikidata, but oh well. As for Chronology of the ancient Near East, I have argued some years ago that it should be quite a different article, but maybe we shouldn't go there again... On the other hand, some editors with strong points of view don't seem to be around anymore, so maybe now is the right time... ;) Zoeperkoe (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)