Talk:Sargon II

message: are we sure the image is "Sargon and a dignitary"? I would consider the possibility that it is actually Sargon and a god. dab (ᛏ) 21:05, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard the "Sargon and a god" thing too, associated with this particular image, but the new description came with the commons image, so I assumed that knowledge has improved since I read Near Eastern archaeology. It would be good to get the original source, or a paper addressing the possibilities. Stan 09:02, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to 'Une archéologie des peuples du Proche-Orient'by Huot, it is Sargon and a dignitary. Hope that helps. I think a god is unlikely, one would expect it to wear a horned crown. Djaser 15:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most Assyriologists agree that it's Sargon and the crowned prince, Sennacherib. Assyrian gods and other divine beings were depicted with specific features, i.e. horns, wings, etc. Note the long cloth hanging from his headdress, which is similar to that of Sargon. This was only worn by members of the royal family. --Šarukinu 06:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: OMG!! Someone needs to deal with the red links! Either create the pages for the links, or take out the links
--BatzMonkey 18:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red links 

message: I've removed the refimprove tag from the top of the article.  It's been there three years.  It is much easier to find some citations if other editors add "citation needed" tags instead to specific statements that need support than to try and guess where others think support is needed.ANE.Scholar (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refimprove -> citation needed 

message: Hi!
I find the quoted block below, from the "Military Campaigns" chapter a bit confusing.
:
# 1
First of all, the chapter runs chronologically, but this block is almost in the end, though refers to events in the begining of Sargon's rule. So it could be attached to the begining.
# 2
I would refer to the three years siege of Samaria differently. It should be more unambigous, that he did his part in the end of that three years (inasmuch as it was really so).  Perhaps sources would be also good to show.
# 3
The Bible - 2 Kings 18:9-11. - does not say anything about the resettlement of Samaria by Assyrian ethnics. It speaks only about the fact of the deportation of the Israelites. (Read it!) The resettling of Samaria is described e.g. in ch. 17. Furthermore, concerning the deportation the text is formulated a bit ambigiously. (verse 11.) The "King of Assyria" is not so exact definition. It could be also Salmaneser's successor Sargon I.
The current form of the block to which I refer:
"Under his rule, the Assyrians completed the defeat of the Kingdom of Israel, capturing Samaria after a siege of three years and exiling the inhabitants. This became the basis of the legends of the Lost Ten Tribes. According to the Bible, other people were brought to Samaria, the Samaritans, under his predecessor Shalmaneser V (2 Kings 18). Sargon's name actually appears in the Bible only once, at Isaiah 20:1, which records the Assyrian capture of Ashdod in 711 BC."
Radsek (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military campaigns  - some alteration proposals 

message: I don't want to edit into the text of the headline, but I doubt, that the translation is right. 
Propably someone, who is responsible somehow for it, should change it. But, I think it is more simple : 
šarru  means "king", kânu : means "to be firm". The adjective is kīnu. The king's name means : "legal king", and nothing more.
(Of course, it REALLY means more, for e.g., that propably he wasn't the legal king, but it doesn't belongs here) 
The "Šarru-ukin = he [= the god] made firm the king" can't be OK, first of all, because of the "spelling" and writing of the name in the historical texts is different, secondly, because it's grammar is not acceptable, as the "šarru" is still in nominative, and not in accusative.
Additionally, refering the Akkadian Sargon as "who had founded the first Semitic Empire" is a bit misleading, because even the ruler dynasty was Semitic (as Akkadian is a Semitic language indeed), it would be better to say the first empire in the region, mentioned, that united under Semitic rule (if it matters, because at the time it does not).
Because of the definition of "empire", it contains not only more countries (or city states too, at this time) but different people as well (at this time akkadian and sumerian - mainly). I am not too familiar about the editing of Wikipedia, so this, propably bit indifferent sentence wouldn't really matter, and the discussion maybe better belongs to the "Akkadian Empire" page.
In this case, it is just an additional opinion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.63.47.11 (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of the name of the king 

message: In the section on the death of Sargon, it says that "Sargon fell while driving the Cimmerians from Ancient Iran".  I know of no source that says that that was how Sargon ended his days - not ARAB, not Olmstead, not Roux.  The footnote for the statement is apparently to an old British Museum page.  The British Museum has redesigned its website and the link is no longer appropriate. Please provide a proper citation or correct this statement.  Miriam.2109 (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death of Sargon challenged; fn [1] directs to a page not found 

message: Dear both! You know how greatly I appreciate all your fantastic contributions, but it seems our Neo-Assyrian pages have ended up using Akkadian cuneiform rather than Neo-Assyrian cuneiform for original names, an anachronism of more than a thousand years. It is especially disturbing when seeing the descriptive "Neo-Assyrian cuneiform:" followed by Akkadian cuneiform in the very first lines of these articles. I myself like to use Akkadian in notes to provide etymology, but I find it very confusing to let a script appear as what it is not in major pages. Now I am aware that it is probably a matter of installing supplementary fonts (namely Neo-Assyrian) in our operating systems, but I am pretty sure that 99.9999% of our readers don't, and will never do so... Would you agree to 1) revert to jpeg renderings of proper Neo-Assyrian when possible, until Microsoft finds a way to provide Neo-Assyrian unicode as a standard? 2) Keep the Akkadian rendering when appropriate for notes? Should Antiquistik be so inclined, since he seems to have the proper fonts, he could even do some excellent jpeg or svg renderings of the Neo-Assyrian script, and replace some of my clumsy scans... पाटलिपुत्र Pat  (talk) 10:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I am ok with this arrangement. Antiquistik (talk) 10:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

text: I'm also okay with this - the correct contemporary rendition should be presented and it's unfortunate that the unicode implementation of Akkadian fails to cover the often quite different versions. I don't think a majority of readers are likely to install supplementary fonts. Hopefully a proper unicode implementation is added in the future for both Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Akkadian cuneiform in place of Neo-Assyrian cuneiform?