Wikipedia:Peer review/Palmyra/archive1

Palmyra

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to FA. It was recently copy-edited by the Guild of Copy Editors and I would appreciate any notes.

Thanks, --07:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Attar-Aram syria (talk)

Comments by Dudley

• "Dating to the Neolithic, it was first documented in the early second millennium BC " This seems to says that the Neolithic was the 2nd millennium BC. Perhaps "Archaeological finds date back to the Neolithic, and it was first documented..."
• "with an army capable of defeating the Sasanian Empire in 260 under Odaenathus" I took this at first to mean that Odaenathus was the Sasanian commander. Also it would be helpful to explain that the Sasanians were Persians. The phrase "capable of defeating" seems misleading according to the account given in Vagi - i.e. Valerian defeated, Callistus then defeats the Sasanians and Odaenathus inflicts a further defeat on the retreating army.
• "succeeded by his young sons under the regency of Queen Zenobia" Is "sons" correct? The article on Zenobia says one son. I suggest "succeeded by his young son under the regency of his mother, Queen Zenobia"
• "who began invading Rome's eastern provinces in 270" This is confusing. In the previous paragraph you have said that Palmyra was part of the Roman Empire and now it is apparently invading itself. A bit more background is needed, although I realise that this is not easy as the situation was confused.
• "The Palmyrenes were primarily a mix of Arameans, Amorites and Arabs,[2] with a Jewish minority. The city's social structure was tribal, and its inhabitants spoke Palmyrene (a dialect of Aramaic). Greek was used for commercial and diplomatic purposes." You need to give a date when this applied - Roman and Byzantine periods?
• " after the Arab conquest in 634. Palmyra's culture, influenced by those of the Greco-Roman world and Persia, produced distinctive art and architecture." This is confusing. The Roman influence must pre-date the Arab conquest.
• The last paragraph of the lead appears to describe the pre-Roman system without saying so. Also you say Palmyra adopted a monarchical system in 260 - but this is not supported below where you say Odaenathus was given the title of governor in 260.
• The whole arrangement of the lead is confusing and needs review.
• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, very helpful. I applied all the changes. I explained that Odaenathus was a Palmyrene who defeated the Persian Sassanian empire. In 260 Odaenathus inflicted a defeat on the retreating Shapur, but in 262, Odaenathus led a full scale invasion and reclaimed the Roman Mesopotamia besieging the Persian capital itself. So it was a long war.

Odaenathus was indeed succeeded by two young sons which the low quality article of Zenobia fail to mention. I added the word "rebelled" to explain why Zenobia started the invasion. Palmyra wasn't a province by itself, it was more of an autonomous region in Syria province and I explained that in both the lead and the body. I specified that the ethnic composition and languages is Roman era.

I rearranged and reworded the sentence about the culture so it wouldn't sound as if Arab conquest preceded Roman influence. I also expanded a little to explain the political organization. Palmyra spent most of prominence era under the Roman empire so the splitting point is the elevation to colonia not the pre-Roman, post-Roman periods. Pre-colonia was more of a polis. Post-colonia was more Roman.

Odaenathus was given the title of a governor by the Romans but he himself was declared king of Palmyra following Valerian's defeat in 260. So the governor was his Roman position in the East to enable him of governing the Eastern provinces (and he received it in 261 after destroying Callistus) but in Palmyra's region, he was the King.

As for the arrangement of the lead, I tried to make the first two paragraphs about history. The third about people, culture and religion. The fourth about government and economy. But Leads are a weak spot for me, so any suggestion on a better arrangement would be appreciated.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Further comments

• I would prefer CE and BCE to AD and BC, particularly as Palmyra was only Christian for a short period, but this is a matter of personal preference.
• "Pliny the Elder described the town in the 70s AD as famous for its location" - location in what respect?

According to the source, Pliny was pointing to its location in the desert [1]

• "which made agriculture and herding possible" This sounds a bit odd as herding is a form of agriculture. Perhaps delete "and herding".

Done

• The comments on the origin of the name are confusing - first you suggest it was Semitic, then Greek. If these are alternative theories, this should be made clear.

The name Tadmor is Semitic. The name Palmyra is Greek but the debate is whether it is a translation of the Semitic name or an alternation of Tadmor. The process of translation and alternation are explained in notes 4 and 5. I split the paragraph so it would be obvious that each name have a different story.

• Perhaps worth mentioning that Palmyra is first recorded in the Bronze Age.

Done

• "During the Hellenistic period under the Seleucids" This could be more informative - e.g. "Between 312 and 64 BC Palmyra was part of the Hellenistic Seleucid Empire".

Done

• Battle of Raphia. You should say that this was a Seleucid defeat. Was Palmyra ruled by the Ptolemies for a short period afterwards?

Mentioned that it was a defeat but no source mention a Ptolemaic occupation for Palmyra and although coele-Syria was annexed, I cant connect it to Palmyra as it would be a synthesis

• "Palmyra became part of the Roman Empire when it paid tribute during Tiberius' early reign, around 14 AD." This sounds as if it was voluntary. Forced to pay tribute? Conquered?

The sources mention an annexation. I indicated that in the article

• "Palmyrene republic was ruled by a council" This is ungrammatical and was it called a republic even though it was part of the Roman Empire?

Republic is a suitable title for Palmyra's situation, its more of an anachronistic historical use. It is used in some sources [2][3] but was not an official title. Should this be changes ? I would appreciate your suggestions for a more suitable title. As for the "ungrammatical" part, that's embarrassing but I'm bad at grammar and I don't know how to make it right. So a help is needed and I know that you are generous.

• I would avoid the word "republic" as it may lead to misunderstanding. For "The Roman imperial period brought great prosperity to the city, which enjoyed a privileged status under the empire—retaining much of its internal autonomy,[35] and incorporating many Greek city-state (polis) institutions into its government.[note 7][44] Palmyrene republic was ruled by a council." I suggest "The Roman imperial period brought great prosperity to the city, which enjoyed a privileged status under the empire, retaining much of its internal autonomy.[35] Palmyra incorporated many Greek city-state (polis) institutions into its government,[note 7][44] such as rule by a council. - if this correctly reflects your meaning.

I changed the section title into : Autonomous Palmyrene city. The council wasn't part of the Greek institutions as it will be explained in the Culture section. So I rewrote the sentence as follow : The Roman imperial period brought great prosperity to the city, which enjoyed a privileged status under the empire—retaining much of its internal autonomy,[35] being ruled by a council,[44] and incorporating many Greek city-state (polis) institutions into its government

• Legio X Fretensis. I did not realize at first that this meant a Roman legion. Perhaps "the Roman legion Legio X Fretensis".

Done

• "Palmyra's articles of trade were different from Petra". "Articles of trade" sounds like a set of rules. Perhaps "Palmyra and Petra traded in different articles"

Done

• "Palmyrene trade reached its apex during the second century,[55] aided by two factors". Was not the second century the era of greatest prosperity for the whole empire, the time of the "good emperors", and would this not have been a factor?

No source connect the prosperity with the good emperors.

• " the Ala I Thracum Herculiana" Some words of explanation would be helpful - cavalry legion?

This Ala was a Milliaria [4]. And according to this [5], a Milliaria consisted of a thousand horsemen. So the Ala was a cavalry unit. I mentioned it in the article.

• "During the third century, Palmyra began a steady transition from a traditional Greek city-state to a monarchy" This is confusing. The rest of the paragraph is about the late second and early third centuries, and says nothing about a monarchy.

In the source used to support the sentence [6], the section title in page 512 is : From city to principality. So, its talking about Palmyra's transition into a monarchy. In the preceding pages, it speak about the Severan wars and the Sassanid's caused instabilities and then open in page 512 with a direct connection between those wars and Palmyra's transition when it say : In this less favorable economic climate, the political situation at Palmyra changed and then continues to describe the Palmyrene transition to a monarchy. So the Cambridge history is clearly connecting the wars and its effect on economy with Palmyra's transformation. I changed the beginning of the sentence from "During the third century" to "Toward the end of the second century- This source also connect the huge transition of the third century with the wars and economic instabilities [7]--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
• "Odaenathus remained loyal to Gallienus,[75] declaring himself king". I would leave out that he declared himself king at that point, as this is stated in a quote that the source describes as problematic, and seems incompatible with the title given him by Gallienus.

Well, this is always a problem when dealing with Odaenathus life since the Historia Augusta was the main source before the excavations in Palmyra. Since the excavations, an inscription written during the reign of Odaenathus calls him King so it is obvious that Gallienus didnt really had much of a choice. It is agreed in modern scholarly that Gallienus was a nominal sovereign to Odaenathus and had little power to do anything but to content himself with Odaenathus "declared" loyalty. Another inscription written during Odaenathus's reign (263 AD) confirm that he crowned his son King of Kings. So it is confirmed through archaeology that Odaenathus was a king regardless of any title Gallienus might have given him. I mentioned that according to the Historia Augusta, Odaenathus declared himself king prior to his first battle with Shapur.

• "he and Hairan were assassinated during their return" on their return?

Yes, he went to Anatolia with Hairan and both were assassinated while returning to Palmyra. According to Zosimus it happened near Homs. I mentioned that in the article

• "She escaped east to ask the Persians for help, but was captured; the city capitulated soon afterwards" Captured by the Romans?

Yes by the Romans, I clarified it

• "Palmyra was incorporated by the Zengid dynasty king Nur ad-Din Mahmud" Incorporated sounds wrong - ruled?

Done

• "Historian Ibn Fadlallah al-Omari" I would say "Contemporary historian Ibn Fadlallah al-Omari"

Done

• "The Fadl prince Nu'air escaped the battle with Timur " Escaped with Timur or from him?

He ran away to avoid fighting Timure. I clarified it

• " the center of a Salyane Sanjak" This will mean nothing to most readers. Maybe " the center of a an administrative district".

Done

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
• "By the Rashidun conquest in 634 AD, Palmyra was inhabited by Christian Arabs" This seems too absolute, and it is contradicted by the next sentence about the Jews. Had all other peoples than Arabs been expelled?

No explosion happened but after Aurelian we know so little about the city's inhabitants. But the current sentence is too absolute. I changed the sentence and wrote that it was mainly inhabited by those tribes.

• "not in a nomadic sense where tribes had a political role" I do not think this makes sense. If a community is divided tribally, the tribes will always have a political role whether the society is nomadic or not.

I wrote this according to a source : there is no evidence that the Palmyrene tribes were anything more than a group of people claiming shared ancestors. This is what the source claim[8]The source expand more when explaining that even clans disappeared in the early second century. By the time of Odaenathus Plamyrene "tribes" where just an old anecdote and lost any impotence [9]---Now, the tribe's role in Palmyra is debated. This source explain more,[10] (you were right ofcourse) because it seems that tribal chiefs did have some authority in the beginning but were sidelined in the second century. I deleted the sentence about a tribe role from the society section and expanded on that role in the government section

• "Palmyra declined, and was a village of 6,000 inhabitants at the beginning of the 20th century" This is confusing. How does it fit with the "small Arab village of thirty or forty families" two paragraphs above? I suggest you clarify and keep comments on population in one place.

The 40 families was the number during the time of Edward Gibbon[11]while the 6000 belong the early 20th century. I removed the 40 families figure.

• "Palmyra had a distinctive culture,[206] influenced by those of Greece and Rome.[207] However, beneath the foreign influences, a local Semitic tradition defined the city's culture" This might be better arranged as "Palmyra's culture was based on a local Semitic tradition, and influenced by Greece and Rome."

Done

• "In addition to the West, the culture of Persia influenced the Palmyrene upper-class fondness for hunting and the city's military tactics, dress and court ceremonies". I have edited this sentence and deleted the comment on hunting as this was universal, but restore it if you think it should stay in.

Its not that important. Plus, practically every upper class on earth liked to hunt. I dont think it had to come from Persia

• "bust reliefs which seal the openings of its burial compartments" Perhaps "burial chambers".

Done

• "Although from the beginning of its history to the first century AD Palmyra was a petty sheikhdom,[237] by the first century BC a Palmyrene identity began to develop" I do not understand this. "Although" seems to mean that a Palmyrene identity was not to be expected in a petty sheikhdom, but why not?

Make sense, I edited it and removed "Although". On another note although I didnt really had the chance to meet anyone from a tribe but they tend to identify with their lineage. They dont have the notion of citizenship. Whether they are living in Syria or Saudi, their loyalty is for the Sheikh. This is my original research which wont make it to the article ofcourse.

• " but the provincial rule was kept minimal as the empire sought to ensure the continuous success of Palmyrene trade most beneficial to Rome." "provincial interference in local government" might be clearer.

Done

• "He ruled during the regency of his mother, Zenobia" He cannot have ruled as he was a young child. As you head the table "Rulers", you should list Zenobia and state in the notes that she was regent.

Done

• "where a tax law dating to 137 was discovered" Presumably discovered by archaeologists.

Well, he wasnt exactly an archaeologist, just visitor named prince Abamelek Lazarew, an Armenian noble. I edited to mention him.

• Finished now. A very good article. Others will no doubt find points to query but it should pass FA. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, it really means a lot coming from you.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• See User talk:Ian Rose#FA criteria. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)