|WikiProject Ancient Near East||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
I know I have read about this in an article somewhere but cannot remember which review it was in. Sorry Zestauferov 04:58, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Ok before anyone asks I reverted the massive re-write becaues as it is now te article is perfectly NPOV and true to the only papers the info has been published in. Regardless of whatever speculations the internet might publish. The facts are, though the Habiru may have been the Hebrews, it seriously brings into question the religious belief that the modern Canaanite Hebrew language is the original language of the Hebrews. Along with other evidence it also suggests that the Habiru were originally a Hurrian ethnic group but became the first of the documented Nonexclusive ethnicgroups. Zestauferov 03:27, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Please check again and tell me whether you find the rewrite adequate. (At least it has links and better formatting, and the header is a bit less centered on the Habiru and more centered on the artifact, which in the long run seems better to me.) The additional info (date, akadian language, etc.) I got from apparently serious sources in the WWW which cited the Salvini's paper, so I believe they are reliable too.
- Also, your sentence "The prism also brought into question the suggestion that the Habiru might never have been an ethnic group." needs to be clarified. I understood it to mean "the prism seems to contradict the theory that Habiru was an ethnic group". But from your comments it seems I misunderstood.
Jorge Stolfi 06:16, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Its ok it just seems like it has lost quite a bit of weight. Ideally we should be trying to make articles fleshier not stubbier. This is beccause some people like to delete stubs. Dates are always less reliable than the names of contemporaries because of the unsettled nature of ancient chronologies. Where did you find your "the prism seems to contradict the theory that Habiru was an ethnic group" quote? That used to be the view but the prism suggests that they were non-exclusive but with a Hurrian origin. Lets see what can be worked out. Zestauferov 06:34, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- My rewording was based only on my (mis)understanding of your sentence. I thought I was saying the same thing you said, but obviously I wasn't. Perhaps you can clarify that sentence further? Jorge Stolfi 06:49, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)