Talk:Nabataean Kingdom

Merge?

Hy there, currently this article is way smaller than other articles (like Petra, Nabataean, etc). However I think that we should keep all current articles (no merge). My main reason is the following: every article is about a proper subject. Petra is mainly about the city (capital of the kingdom). Nabataean is about the people/culture. Nabatean kingdom is about the kingdom (state). All are certainly connected to each other, but we don't need to join them together. We have also a small number of articles about the individual kings of Nabatea, and most of these articles are quite small. This doesn't mean that we truly need to merge all the small articles into a single large article (Kings of the Nabatean kingdom/Nabatea). What we should do is transfer the proper material from one article towards the proper one (e.g.: Information about the counrty inside the Petra-article should be transferred into the Nabatean kingdom-article).

A second point is the spelling: "Nabatean" or "Nabataean"? Google seems to give both spellings in an equal proportion. To be honest I'm in favour the first spelling because in my ears the second simply sounds "wrong". I mean: I know more or less to pronounce the first one. But the second spelling? "Nabataean"? I'm not claiming that the first one is more accurate (both seem to be equally accepted) but merely that the first one sounds better. Flamarande (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok I went to the site of Encyclopedia Britanica and I used "Aretas III" in the search field. The articles gave "Nabataean". I clicked on 'Petra' and "Nabataean" appeared again. In my opinion this settles the issue. Nabataean wins. Flamarande (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a great deal of misinformation in this article as can be seen by comparing it with the article Nabataean Kingdom which authoritatively contradicts much of what it says (eg regarding the Biblical name Nabaioth and the relationship between the Aramaean and Arabian inhabitants of the Syrian (not Arabian) Desert. It greatly inflates the extent and importance of the Nabataean Kingdom. It also conflates the Edomites and the Nabataeans. Though they probably became admixed late in their respective histories they were never one and the same even when "Edomite" became "Idumean"under Greek/Roman influence. Edomite history goes back almost a thousand years before the Nabateans.

It seems to have more to do with current affairs than the ancient history of the region. 82.1.16.152 (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

BC/AD

Hy there there seems to be a problem with the the 'former country infobox'. It doesn't seem to recognize and to accept the AD, linking to a non-existing category.

To cut things short. That isn't the fault or problem of this article. The article needs both temporal denominators as this country existed before and after the "year zero". To remove the AD will mislead users in the belief that this country only existed before 1 AD.

The article Roman Empire clearly shows that factual accuracy of the subject of the article wins over template correctness. The template serves the article, and not the other way around. If you know how to then you might improve the template into recognizing and using AD, or request such an improvement at the talkpage of the template. Flamarande (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Nabataean are Ancient Arabs

Why is Wikipedia extremely biased against Arabs? Nabataeans are one of the groups the form ancient arabs... even the names of the kings are still used among Arabs and have an Arabic meaning.... They spoke Aramic but this slowly started speaking Arabic213.210.238.186 (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Aretas حارثة malichus مالك Obodas عبادة Gamilath جميلة

It is funny how the www.Jewishvirtuallibrary.com has a monopoly over editing or writing anything about the Arabs.... Jews are by their very nature anti-arabs, and should not be allowed to play and mess with our history.... we have a lot of sources in Arabic that most people in Wikipedia consider un-reliable simply for the fact that they come from Arabs.... I can believe how a small group of people from the middle east decide and revise the history of this part of the world.....

213.210.238.186 (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC) 213.210.238.186 (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You may and should improve the article Nabataeans with proper sources. Flamarande (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. This article links to the Nabataeans article, which describes them as "ancient Arabs of North Arabia" in its very first line. Does the complainant want "Arab" to appear in this article? If so, where would be appropriate? GeorgeTSLC (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Error on Palmyrene Empire dates?

Under the "Roman_annexation" heading in the "Nabataean kingdom" section of this article, we have "Palmyrene Empire (fl. 130–270)". The article linked to shows 260-273. This is pretty clearly not a mere typo, as I at first expected. Since I have no convenient access to the source cited, let alone to whatever source(s) IT cites, I hesitate to edit. E.g., I can imagine a flourishing quasi-separate entity over a longer period than the more formal rebellion.

Hence this notice to anyone consulting this article that further inquiry may be fruitful. GeorgeTSLC (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

GA

Planning to promote this to GA, any assistance is appreciated. @Monochrome Monitor: If you are interested, you can contribute to the Jewish-Nabataean relations.

And to anyone who knows about technicality of languages can help us in figuring out how to write key Nabataean terms in Nabataean language. (probably Aramaic characters?) Makeandtoss (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Check this out Nabataean (Unicode block). Anything in particular that the article needs?--Monochrome_Monitor 16:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I saw that article, I don't know what to make of it lol. Till now I guess we just need "Nabataean Kingdom" and "Nabataea" translated/transliterated. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

"Kingdom" section highly problematic

The section "Kingdom" is very badly written, to the point of being in parts incoherent. It makes no reference to either primary sources or academic secondary sources and includes affirmations (e.g. sex slave anecdote) which are extremely implausible.

Consideration of even an introductory synopsis on the Nabataean kingdom would be helpful, e.g. Millar, Fergus, The Roman Near East, 31 B.C.-A.D. 337, Harvard University Press, 1993, p. 400-8. 79.212.149.147 (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The sex slaves story is sourced by an academic secondary source. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Whatever the secondary source may be, here is the primary one, a letter from the Zenon archive: PSI 4 406 (http://papyri.info/ddbdp/psi;4;406).

What happened between Dionysios and the Nabataeans remains rather vague in the letter, and no explanation as to why the Nabataeans did what they did (whatever it was) is given. It also rather seems that Dionysios was imprisoned after his return from the Nabataeans...

Here is Burnet's translation of the papyrus (sorry, Rowlandson's English translation remained elusive in a purely electronic search):

UNE DÉNONCIATION À ZÉNON

PSI 406 - Philadelphie - 260-250 av. J.-C.

Mémoire à Zénon de la part d'Héraclide le roulier, au sujet des menées de Drimylos et Dionysios. Après avoir utilisé [sic !] sa petite esclave, ce dernier l'a louée à l'orophylax [garde du désert]. Ils lui ont fourni le nécessaire si par hasard elle se parait pour sortir. Elle vit aux Sources, chez l'orophylax. Ils en ont enlevé une autre chez les Ammonites et l'ont vendue à Ptolémaïs. C'est déjà la quatrième prostituée sacrée qu'il fait descendre jusqu'à Joppé. Il est parti ensuite pour le Hauran en emmenant une femme esclave [mot à mot « un corps femelle »] et il en a reçu 150 dr. Puis, en revenant de là-bas, il a frayé avec les Nabatéens. Le bruit en ayant couru, on l'a jeté sept jours en prison les fers aux pieds. Quant à Drimylos, il a acheté une petite esclave pour 300 dr. Ils partaient tous les jours en promenade et s'en félicitaient ouvertement. Pendant qu'ils étaient ainsi occupés, non seulement ils n'avaient plus les bêtes à l'esprit, mais en plus Drimylos faisait chauffer deux chaudrons d'eau par jour pour son amante. Enfin il a vendu l’ânesse et l’âne sauvage. De ces choses, il y a des témoins. Et sur tout le reste, si tu m’intérroges, tu découvriras l’entière vérité.

Anyway, the original point was rather whether this tiny and obscure episode is relevant to a brief history of the Nabataean kingdom.

79.212.151.113 (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nabataean Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410181214/http://www.tourism.jo/PastandPresent/PetraI.asp to http://www.tourism.jo/PastandPresent/PetraI.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)