# Talk:Ebla

Now almost every noun is linked. Why create a link to a name that has no other existence besides its appearance in an inscription at Ebla? Links are meant to be followed for more detailed information. They have no other purpose.Wetman 01:42, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, if nothing else is known except the name, ãgreed -- the link is indeed superfluous.  But if something else is known, it is not unlikely that someone will write an article about the guy (Think of all those obscure Tolkien characters...), in which case the link will be useful.  I suppose that a really good wikipedia should eventually have an article
"Rabbit-Tim was a king of Ebla in the 3rd millenium BC.  Its name is known from only one inscription found in that city's site.This article is a stub...
In any case the link does not seem to cost much. All the best,Jorge Stolfi 22:05, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
As a general rule, not just here, if the entry is littered with dead end "links" and every date is linked, etc then meaningful links, like Sargon of Akkad in this entry, become invisible.Wetman 23:13, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Wetman, myself I would never have thought of making dates into links; but that is the custom, and I cannot think of a good criterion for linking some dates while leaving others unlinked. So...
As for person names, I thought of two other excuses for creating such "dead" links:
To signal to other wikipedians "here is an article that ought to be written".
To provide a surrogate of a subject index, through the "what links here" button.
Please note that Google searching is not a good substitute for subject index, because it often provides too many irrelevant hits, and will miss pages that refer to the concept by an abbreviated or non-standard name. E.g. searching for "John Smith" will not find "two Smiths, Joe and Jack"; but reverse-linking will, if they are linked "two [[Smith family|Smith]]s, [[Joseph Smith|Joe]] and [[John Smith|Jack]]".
Anyway, I agree that moderation, here as everywhere, is a good idea. All the best,Jorge Stolfi 05:48, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

"It is rumored that Giovanni Petinato, an epigrapher studying the texts, reported that the names of five famous Biblical cities near the Dead Sea (Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim, and Bela/Zoar) were mentioned in the Ebla archives (tablet 1860) in the same order as in Genesis 14."  It isn't reassuring to see Giovanni Pettinato's name misspelled, but the publication of such "information" must be more encyclopedic than a "rumor." Can anyone confirm this? Is it meaningful? --Wetman 14:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Someone needs to write an article on the Ebla Tablets. 
I'm not sure there is anything conclusive about mention of Sodom and Gomorrah. Here's a quote from a website (itself quoting Biblical Archaeology Review):
When the archives at ancient Ebla (in present day northern Syria) were first discovered in 1975, the translator, Giovanni Pettinato, reported he had found the names of the 5 cities of the plain were not only listed, but in the same order as in Genesis. However, the Syrian government was "angered at the emphasis placed in the West on the tablets' alleged Biblical significance". (BAR, May/June 1980, p. 48) A rather large controversy then began over these tablets, which the Syrians felt were being used to link the Biblical Patriarchs with Syrian history, something they would not stand for. This finally resulted in Pettinato's resignation and letter of recantation as to many of the translations. The later appointed director of the Italian mission excavating at Ebla issued a statement which shows why Pettinato was forced to recant: "These allegations [linking the Ebla tablets with the Bible] were propagated by Zionist-American centres to be exploited for atrocious purposes aimed at proving the expansionist and colonialistic views of the Zionist leaders." (Ibid., p. 49). When Pattinato, the original translator of the texts, made his recantation, he still insisted that the 2 cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were correct.
- If the original translator of the texts, obviously a man who was considered highly qualified to lead the project until he fell afoul Syrian Judeophobia, says that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were mentioned in the texts, and were listed in the same way that the Scriptural text lists them, then this is not a "rumor" but as authoritative as one can ask for.  Treating it as a mere "rumor" because it is displeasing to rabid anti-Zionists (or worse, antisemites), and removing any reference to this highly relevant matter from the article itself, is not academically acceptable.  There is a further point to be made, showing to what a degree this Wikipedia article has capitulated to Syrian "anti-Zionism."  The Syrian view is that the language of the Ebla archival materials is "Eblaite."  This is to avoid admitting that it is in fact a very early form of Hebrew.  This can be verified objectively, and is not really a matter of political ideology and should not be distorted by ideology, it is a purely philological matter.  If one simply cannot bring oneself to say "Hebrew," for fear of suggesting that Israel and Jews really do have authentic deep historical roots in the region and the Biblical account is substantially correct about Abraham, etc., then at the least one must admit that the language spoken and written in the Ebla empire was "Proto-Canaanitic."  But "Eblaite"?  Come on. -
-I don't know whether Eblaite is an early form of Hebrew, but you can just forget the Abraham bit, unless you have some tangible contemporary evidence in hand.  You can also forget about Jacob, Isaac, Moses, Samson and many others.  Maybe, just maybe, starting with David, you are dealing with real people.
Thomas Keyes
--Thomas Keyes - Fortunately, the archaeological and historical evidence is against you.  DRJ 00:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Returning to the subject at hand, the Ebla debate ocasioned by Pettinati's unprofessional character assassination of Alfonso Archi in the journal Pettinati  edits, Oriens Antiquus 19 (1980:49-72) and published in an English translation in The Biblical Archaeologist 43 (1980) pp 203-16, was crisply and unconditionally responded to in a joint letter supportive of Archi, dated 30 May 1980, signed by eight members of the International Committee for the Study of Ebla Texts and published in The Biblical Archaologist Summer 1981, p 137. The consensus has been summed up succinctly in a published letter of  Prof. A.F. Rainey, Tel Aviv University "The Ebla tablets will shed much light on the history of Syria and the Near East in general. Why prostitute them for false biblical 'parallels'?" (in B.A.R. VI 5 (1980)p. 13. Anyone with JSTOR access can confirm my facts. --Wetman 01:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
And what facts are those, Wetman? The fact that Pettinato was the one who deciphered the Eblaite language in the first place, and was the pioneer in interpreting the Eblaite cuneiform tablets, only the "Biblical interpretations" of which have ever been "rejected"? The fact that Pettinato was expelled from the team, due to an acrimonious personal dispute in no small measure provoked by the Syrian government's interference, after which the director of team Paolo Matthiae made statements to the Syrian media officially denouncing alleged Biblical parallels to Eblaite tablets as a Zionist-American conspiracy? The fact that Pettinato's replacement Archi was not a specialist in the field? The fact that further examinations of the cuneiform tablets have been effectively discontinued?
To be sure, some of Pettinato's claims were somewhat daring, but he never stated that any of the names he encountered at Ebla should be positively identified with the name of a specific Biblical character. Also, none of his readings which might be construed as having a Biblical parallel have been conclusively refuted.
This Wikipedia article seem to have surpassed even the Syrian government's efforts in diverting attention from scholarly research that seems to be causing discomfort in certain circles.
20:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The claims about what Pettinato did or did not say about Sodom and Gomorrah suffer from not reading Freedman, David Noel, “The Real Story of the Ebla Tablets: Ebla and the Cities of the Plain.” Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 143-164, December 1978 which makes clear that corrections have been made to the original claims.
108.45.122.74 (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

An articleEbla tablets was begun in March 2010.--Wetman (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

hey, this is one of the most important article for the history of Syria, and in its old form was filled with mistakes, it took me a week but i finally wrote the article as it should be, i thank every one of the former editor, their work helped me where to look, im giving you a summary of the edits i made to each section , i counted on the newest works by different professors, i neglected old sources that contradict newer findings, please read my work, fix the grammar , and tell me if you have any notes, and please dont delete anything without adding a reliable source and have a discussion since every single sentence i wrote is backed by a reference :

Ebla in the third millennium BC + Ebla in the second millennium BC
i butchered those sections, the first 7 lines of Ebla in the third millennium BC were good and i kept them and added more citations, while Ebla ::in the second millennium BC has been rewritten completely,,, as you can see i greatly expanded the newly created History section
Government
this section was completely rewritten
People, Language and Culture
i created this section and moved information's about the language of ebla from the discovery section to this section
Economy
i thank the editor of this section, he made my work much easier
Discovery and excavation
i didnt delete nor did anything except for moving some info to the language section
Religion
this section was disturbing, i thank the editor who countered all those claims, i dont understand why the discussion about old biblical theories that died is given more space than the actual :religion and history of ebla,, any way i dont have the will nor the time to fight angry Zionists so i didn't delete anything, i just expanded the :informations about ebla and reorganized the argument about the bible so its easier to read without deleting any thing except for the name :Jerusalem, the reason is found in a comment written by the editor who tagged the word with (unreliable source) : The author is described by :Creation wiki as a "Young Earth creationist" - hardly a neutral source — and the title is likewise sensationalistic. The first occurrence of :Jerusalem seems to be commonly dated to the Mitanni letter, five centuries later — see the Jerusalem article. The mention of Jerusalem is :explicitly denied in Ur and Jerusalem Not Mentioned in Ebla Tablets, Say Ebla Expedition Scholars, by James D. Muhly, Biblical Archeological :Review 9:06, Nov/Dec 1983
if any one want to put it back, he will need to provide newer more reliable sources --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ebla/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dudley Miles (talk · contribs) 13:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
If a work in the citations is not in the bibliography, its date should be shown. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 Done--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
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)


### Lead
"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)
"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)
"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)


### History
"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)
More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
" 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)
I would move the five archive kings to the archive period section. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 Done--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Many readers will not know what high dating means. You could show it as High (early) dating. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 Done--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
OK done. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
"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)
 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)
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)
"The period after Kun Damu saw a political weakness during the reign of Adub-Damu" What does this mean - civil war, defeat by Mari? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 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)
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)
"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)
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)
"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)
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)
"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)
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)
"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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
 Done --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
"The first identified King is Ibbit-Lim son of Igrish-Heba" So why is not Igrish-Heba the first known king? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
 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)
There is no reference for most of the third paragraph of 'Economy'. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 Done --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
No ref for first paragraph of Yahweh, or for the last parts of the two paragraphs of discovery. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 Done--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)

The map of "the first Ebla kingdom" is an original research. There is no evidence that Damascus existed in the 3rd millennium BC, and there is no evidence that Ebla's dominion reached that far to the south. The word "Halab" is not attested before the Yamhad era. The map must be corrected or removed, because these are grave mistakes.--HD86 (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

actually it is not original research an it is fully sourced . Just read the description in the summary section where all the sources exist. As for halab, it was "halam" back then, so there are no "grave" mistakes.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
This book [1] is not about Ebla but about Canaan. The author does not discuss the issue. He just throws a casual remark about Ebla's political control without pointing out any evidence. This is not a sufficient citation. The truth is that Damascus is not mentioned in the Ebla archive, nor in any other writings from the 3rd millennium BC. The earliest reference to Damascus was made in Egyptian writings from the reign of Tuthmosis III in the middle of the 2nd millennium BC. It was not an important town at that time. There is no justification for putting Damascus on the Ebla map. The southern border must be drawn up towards Qatna (even the inclusion of Qatna is uncertain, so I suggest making the southern border dashed). The word Halab must be corrected to Halam (I think there is one author who read this word "Halab," but this reading is unproven).--HD86 (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This book Eblaitica is about Ebla not Akkad and its stating that the northern regions of Ebla in the Amanus were not attached to Akkad. Should we delete this information because the book is not about Akkad ?
Another example would be Odaenathus. There is absolutely no source solely about him, its usually in books about the Roman empire. Should we delete the article of Odaenathus.?
Its not a criteria for a reliable source for it to be about the subject in its entirety. The criteria is the Author and the publisher. The author is Jonathan Tubb; renowned archaeologist with work centered in Syria and the Levant. The publisher is University of Oklahoma Press. The source is reliable and Im sure that an archaeologist in the british museum knows whats he is talking about. If you doubt the reliability or suitability of the source then you can take it to the reliable source portal.
As for Halam : No body knows what that is ! Im sure that Tell Munbateh didnt have that name in 2500 BC but that doesnt mean not to mention it. I can edit the map and put Halam under Halab like this (Halam) but Damascus is just an indication to the region not the city itself.
But regardless, Damascus being under the rule of Ebla can not be ruled out; John C. H. Laughlin refused that Damascus was mentioned in the tablets of Ebla because the report was not confirmed by further studies. But Jack Finegan in his book consider the report valid. So obviously you cant say with trust that Damascus didnt exist with that name (keep in mind the the name is older than the Semitic languages themselves !).
Tubb is obviously using the report of Damascus in Ebla's tablets to claim that Ebla controlled this region. This report is refused by some scholars and accepted by some. So who gets to decide ?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Another image issue, I noticed a licence problem with this[2] image and have nominated it for deletion. Perhaps something like this[3] can be used instead? FunkMonk (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I will replace the nominated image then.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
HD86 is wrong about the source, but the point that Ebla probably didn't control Damascus is valid. Tubb's assertion was made in the 90's and a lot of older claims about Ebla's size starting are misrepresenting its extent. Reconstructing the geography and placing toponyms is a very challenging, long process and it's often not entirely clear where everything is (look at Dugurasu and Armi which have both only been convincingly located in the past decade). 
I think it makes a lot of sense to try to update the map to align with what we know now about the surroundings of Ebla. In Bonechi 2016 there's a map from Archi 2011 and Bonechi's comments about interpreteing Ebla's borders. Both of these scholars have published a lot on Ebla and are probably more familiar with the sources than the authors currently used as a reference for the map. I think using either one of those as a basis for a map of Ebla would help bring the map a little more up-to-date with current knowledge. - Gulkishar 
(talk) 22:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

You are right Gulkishar.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Forgot about this for a while, but I quickly drew up this for an updated map. Hopefully it's a little more historically accurate, but let me know if I missed anything important. If it looks alright I might put it in, just wanted to see what you thought before replacing your map. Gulkishar (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Eblaitic language is Amorite Language
Kingdom of Armi 2290 BC in Halab (Aleppo) under name Yamshad (loanword from Yamhadite dynasty) 
1810 BC under Mari-Dynasty annexed by Babylonia 1761 BC, to ~ 1650 BC  Vasall by Mari (Amoriter)
Land of Apiru (egypt viewpoint, Thutmoses III) and 
Land of Mukish under Mitanni viewpoint (from Urkish=Urshu/Warsuwa=Waššukanni)
Than Ebla/Alalakh/Yamshad to 1517 BC, Begin of Mitanni-Time (Hani-Rabbat, Bit Balikh)
to Šattiwazza, King of Mitanni
annexed by Hittite Šuppiluliuma (renamed in Uris=Urkish), here is etablished a Luwian Dynasty. Now came a IE Aspect in her language.  Hittite contract between Tudhaliya II with luwian Sunassura II of Kizzuwatna (ŠunaŠŠura)
under Uratru a province Mukish (unsave reading) 
Arame (correct Arme - a loanname from Eblaitic King Armi for legitimation) Arame 858 BC–844 BC
to 810 BC under Menua, Son of Išpuini (biblic Minni)
Arme (hurritic i to e is move from hittitic to uratean language) is a mythical ancestry of Rusa-Dynasty in Uratru, 
Uratru is a rest from Mitanni population, and one of 8 Nairi-Countrys in Assyrian viewpoint (after the fall of Hittiti Kingdom 1190 BC)
destroyed from Salmanasser III. and Sargon II. (Rusa II.)
God: eblaitic "Hadda" in c. 2500 BCE, then Adad = under semitic influence Hadad and under Uratru Ḫaldi/chaldi and Teššup or Teshub. 
Mythical Epos: Kingdom of Heaven, tells from Anu, alalu (Alalakh) and others and Epos "Song of Release". This is the mythical base for Nairi in Uratru (assyrian loanname from Urkish) and Mannai by  Martianus (greek name for Mitanni)
It is the same region and same peoples with 2 Languages, Eblaitic (called Amoriter) in West and Hurritic in East)


### Kings of Yamhad
Dates are estimated and given by the Middle chronology.

The third para under Archive period mentions several places: Hazuwan, Burman, Emar, Halabitu and Salbatu. The location of Hazuwan is not known; Burman and Emar are on the map; but Halabitu and Salbatu aren't. It would be helpful if they were, if only so that the reader doesn't have to go to the link to each to find the locations. Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The given history spans more than four millennia (3500 BC to 700 AD). Would a visual timeline help? I've compiled one for your comments.

Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

This looks great. Where do you suggest to add it?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Maybe after the first paragraph under History, and before First kingdom? Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 06:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)