Talk:Thapsacus

This article requires considerable updating. Many of its sources are from a time before modern archaeological work in this area.

Joe Baker's rewrite

It seems unnecessary to replace the entire article with one that is full of unsupported claims, notably the lead, and appears to be pushing a minority POV re the location of Thapsacus. I have moved it to talk pending further discussion. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thapsacus. The Latin form of the name by which the former Syrian city of Carchemish on the Euphrates was known during the neo-Babylonian, Persian and Makedonian periods. Thapsakos was the Greek form of the name. The name means ford, passage and derives from psḫ meaning jump/pass over. Carchemish's name was changed to Thapsakos sometime after it was conquered by Nabu-kudurri-uṣur in 605 B.C. The neo-Babylonian form of the name was Tapsuḫu (Biblical Tpsḥ). It is first attested under this name in year 2 of Nabu-na'id. Later, around 300 B.C. the Macedonian Seleukos I Nikator re-founded the city under the name of Europos (after his birth place). This name stills persists today as Jerablus. The continued importance and prosperity of the city was due to its location at an easy crossing point on the Euphrates, which allowed east-west land traffic to pass over the river. However by the end of the Seleukid period, the lack of protection against Arab attack, saw traffic crossings decline. Traffic instead preferred to cross at Kommagene controlled Zeugma, a day's march north of Thapsakos/Europos.

Location

The city's identification with Carchemish is supported by its similar role. In neo-Assyrian times the city of Carchemish was the main crossing point on the Euphrates. For many centuries it had been the capital city of the major neo-Hittite kingdom in north-western Syria. Trade between east and west past through it and because of this its system of weights and measures became a standard that was later adopted by the Assyrians and referred to as the Carchemish standard. This standard in trade with Syria (known as Ebir-nari, "across the river", in cuneiform texts) continued into neo-Babylonian and Persian times as illustrated by a letter from year 9 of Kuraš/Cyrus where this standard was then known as the measure of Tapsuḫu. The continued importance of the city is the reason Eratosthenes choose Thapsakos as one of the reference points for his system of latitude and longitude.

Thapsakos' identification with Europos (the Hellenistic name of Carchemish) finds some support from a corrupt passage in Plinius' Naturalis Historia. In his description of places along the Euphrates, from source to mouth, he gives the following account of the right bank of the Euphrates between Zeugma and Sura. "And in Syria [it flows past the following] towns: Europus formerly Thapsacus, now Amphipolis, the Tent-Dwelling Arabs. Thus it continue to the place called Sura". The passage reads as if there should be a list of towns and we know from classical references that there were other towns along this strip. In addition it is known that Amphipolis was different from Europus as Stephanos of Byzantine says it was called Tourmeda by the locals. One solution is to read the town list as "Europus formerly Thapsacus, ..., [Tourmeda] now Amphipolis, ..." (where the remaining towns have fallen out of the passage).

A second classical source which supports the identification of Thapsakos with Carchemish is the 401 B.C. marching itinerary of Cyrus the Younger as given by Xenophon, in his Anabasis. Farrell has shown that the march rates support a crossing at Carchemish, then across to the Balikh and then down hat river to its junction with the Euphrates. It is the same road outlined in Isidoros of Kharax' "Parthian Stations", except that there the route started from Zeugma. This interpretation requires the two rivers Xenophon's encounter on the Euphrates march, the Araxes and the Maskas, to be respectively the Balikh and the Habur. This makes sense as these two major rivers are the only two rivers that flow into the Euphrates along this march. Those who identify the Araxes with the Habur have firstly, no candidate for the Maskas river and secondly, have to crossing point big enough to be identified with Thapsakos on or after the bend of the Euphrates.

DEspite this early European explorers and 19th and 20th century scholars sought to locate Thapsakos on the Euphrates bend or even lower down the river. These places included Balis (classical Barbalissos), Dibse Faraj (Byzantine Neokaikareia), El Hamman (classical Soura) and even as far as the left bank city of Deir az-Zor (classical Kirkēsion).

References to Thapsacus

• 554 B.C. Mentioned in two letter dated to the year 2 of Nabu-naid.
• 530 B.C. Mentioned in a letter written in year 9 of Cyrus which refers to the rate (mahir) of Tapsuḫu in trade with Ebir-nari.
• 1 Kings 4:21 names it as the extreme (northern) border city of the kingdom of Solomon. The passage is an early Persian period insert and essentially makes the extent of Solomon's kingdom coincide with the then contemporary Persian province of Ebir-nari.
• 404 B.C. Xenophon, in his Anabasis 1.4.11, records that Thapsakos was a "large and prosperous city" where Cyrus the Younger's armies stayed five days and where Cyrus revealed to his generals that they would be marching on Babylon.
• 395 B.C. Diodorus Siculus, in his Bibliotheca historica 14.81.4, records that Konon, came through Kilikia, to Thapsakos where he bordered a ship to sail down the Euphrates.
• 333 B.C. Arrianus, in his Anabasis Alexandri 2.13, reports that Darius and his army crossed the Euphrates after being defeated at Issos by Alexander.
• 331 B.C. Arrianus, in his Anabasis Alexandri 3.6 and 7, records that Alexander crossed the Euphrates at Thapsakos and marched east across Mesopotamia.
• 324 B.C. Arrianus, in his Anabasis Alexandri 7.19, and other Greek historians, quoting from Aristoboulos, records how Alexander, on his return to Babylonia, ordered ships to be built in Phoenicia, disassembled and carried overland to Thapsakos, reconstructed and sailed to a harbour in Babylonia in preparation for an Arabian campaign.
• c. 250 B.C. Strabo in his Geographika records that Eratosthenes choose Thapsakos as one of his major reference points for his system of latitude and longitudes.

Notes and references

ca:Thapsacos es:Tapsaco he:תפסח ru:Тапсак fi:Thapsakos

I have now merged the original article with Joe Baker's, minus the unsourced claims. Proper link to the Graslin and Lemaire study added. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

On the location of Thapsacus

(Copied from MeteorMaker's User Talk page on Jun 2 -08)

Hi MeteorMaker.

Regarding you pushing my article to the talk page. Well it was my first attempt at a major updating of a Wikipedia article. I observed that the original article was so out of date that it needed major reforms. I tried to update this page with information that was more up to date. I notice you have kept some of my points but have restored most of the passages I tried to update. I observe that you say I am pushing "a minority POV re the location of Thapsacus" and that you have merged my points "minus the unsourced claims". Well let's compare these two statements alongside a passage your restored. Take the first paragraph under Location, bit by bit.

Its exact location is unknown but is said to be 100 miles north-east of Tadmor. This is most commonly associated with the modern town of Deir; however the only ford in the region is at Suriyeh where the town is now assumed to have been.

Where does this material come from? It's not referenced. Who said it was 100 miles north-east of Tadmor? Name one ancient source that can verify this statement. Who said it is the modern town of Deir? (I suppose they mean modern Dayr az Zawr). Anyone with geographic sense would immediately see the impossibility of it being anywhere near ancient Thapsacus. Name one modern historian who would even support such a claim. And who "now assumed" it to be at Suriyah? Where is the reference?

Another possible location described by Conder in Easton's Bible Dictionary of 1897, however, identifies this place with Khurbet Tafsah, some 6 miles west of Shechem; this however is unlikely.

What does some town near Shechem have to do with a town on the Euphrates? Why is this article even quoting a 1897 source which is saying something totally unrelated to the Euphrates' Thapsacus? And who says it is unlikely? Is not this the author of the article giving his own unverified comment.

There is further suggestion that the town may be associated with Carchemish [1] however this may be unlikely as the towns referenced as Europus and Amphipolis are separate and there is no other indication that the cities could be the same as Thapsacus

At last a reference to a location, even if only a tertiary source. And guess what, they get it right. But does this satisfy the author of the article? No, his bias will not allow him to accept this. So he adds his own un-referenced opinion, totally going against the plain reading of Pliny 5.21 (a reference you removed) who says of Carchemish, under its later name of Europus, "Europus formerly Thapsacus".

Another reference does suggest that the town was near "Jarablos", another name for Carchemish [2]

Well a second reference and surprise it gets it almost correct (when it says "near Carchemish"). But why is this source being quoted at all? It has nothing to do with the location of Thapsacus. It only mentions it, in passing, as a place through which Alexander marched on his way to Gaugamela.

So, on your criticism.

Am I "pushing a minority POV re the location of Thapsacus"? Maybe I am when compared to the 100+ year old sources the article likes to quote, but not amongst modern scholars who have the benefit of a 100 years of new archaeological discoveries. Again look at the references in the above paragraph that you restored - even these say or hint at Carchemish. I am not the one who is pushing a minority view. It is clearly the author of the article who is pushing his POV.

Do I make "unsourced claims"? Are you are trying to compare me with the numerous unsourced claims in your restored paragraph? Have another look at the mass of references I gave. All the ancient sources were quoted and citied. Most of the modern citations were from academic journals in the field of ancient history.

Joe Baker (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Joe, congratulations on an ambitious rewrite, and far be it from me to try to stifle your enthusiam. As you know, everything on Wikipedia needs to conform to Wkikpedia verifiability rules. Rather than disgrace your text with a bunch of ugly tags, I just parked the unsourced parts on the talk page pending presentation of verifiable sources, notably of the claims made in the lead. There are also some conclusions in the last paragraph of the Location section that give the impression of being original research, hence the quarantine until you can find reliable sources.

I should add that your rewrite was used as ammunition in defense of an earlier (and pretty fringe-science) version of the map that is now included in the article, and I admit I may have become a little less lenient than usual as a consequence. Your rewrite of the References section was in many ways an improvement, though it should be noted that it did not add new information to the existing section, deleted some useful information, and contained the unsourced claim "1 Kings 4:21 names it as the extreme (northern) border city of the kingdom of Solomon. The passage is an early Persian period insert and essentially makes the extent of Solomon's kingdom coincide with the then contemporary Persian province of Ebir-nari." (there is a ref, but it doesn't say that).

You are correct that the article had several flaws, and my partial revert should not be seen as endorsement of them. Now for your objections:

• "Its exact location is unknown but is said to be 100 miles north-east of Tadmor. [...]" Where does this material come from? It's not referenced. Who said it was 100 miles north-east of Tadmor?

It's from Easton's Bible Dictionary: "Thapsacus, a great and wealthy town on the western bank of the Euphrates," about 100 miles north-east of Tadmor." The original version of the article had a footnote reference that apparently got lost later on when the article grew. It should be restored, since Easton is the source in several places in the article.

• Who said it is the modern town of Deir? [...] And who "now assumed" it to be at Suriyah? Where is the reference?

Correct, it did lack some sources originally, and that should be remedied. I checked all original claims before I performed the partial revert and found them legit (in the Wikipedia sense of having been made by several reliable sources), but didn't think of adding the refs to the article. Here is one source of the Deir claim anyway (there are better ones, but I don't have time for a deep search right now): [1] and two of the Suriyah: [2], [3]. As a bonus, one for Dibsi Faraj [4] and one for nearby Meskene. [5]

• "Another possible location described by Conder in Easton's Bible Dictionary of 1897, however, identifies this place with Khurbet Tafsah, some 6 miles west of Shechem; this however is unlikely." What does some town near Shechem have to do with a town on the Euphrates? Why is this article even quoting a 1897 source which is saying something totally unrelated to the Euphrates' Thapsacus? And who says it is unlikely? Is not this the author of the article giving his own unverified comment.

I left it in because it's properly cited and conforms to Wikipedia standards, but a place near Shechem (in the modern West Bank) does seem unlikely, as one editor (somewhat OR-like) has pointed out. I'm not an expert though, so I can't judge how much merit the hypothesis has that identifies "the great river" of the Bible with Jordan. Perhaps there should be a separate section on the identification Tiphsah - Thapsacus, since this hypothesis clearly concerns Tiphsah rather than Thapsacus.

• "There is further suggestion that the town may be associated with Carchemish [1] however this may be unlikely as the towns referenced as Europus and Amphipolis are separate and there is no other indication that the cities could be the same as Thapsacus." [The author] adds his own un-referenced opinion, totally going against the plain reading of Pliny 5.21 (a reference you removed) who says of Carchemish, under its later name of Europus, "Europus formerly Thapsacus".

That is not a plain reading of Pliny, as you note the actual text says "Europus formerly Thapsacus, now Amphipolis". You point to a hypothesis that a word got lost in the middle, but I haven't seen any indication that that view is more accepted in is mainstream science than the original one, so there are no grounds to remove all mention of it.

• "Another reference does suggest that the town was near "Jarablos", another name for Carchemish. [2]"Well a second reference and surprise it gets it almost correct (when it says "near Carchemish"). But why is this source being quoted at all? It has nothing to do with the location of Thapsacus.

The sentence "Alexander crossed the Euphrates at Thapsacus (near Jarâblos)" [6] seems to have a lot to do with the location of Thapsacus, since we know where Jarâblos was. A few miles from what you have determined to be the "correct" location, admittedly.

• Am I "pushing a minority POV re the location of Thapsacus"? Maybe I am when compared to the 100+ year old sources the article likes to quote, but not amongst modern scholars who have the benefit of a 100 years of new archaeological discoveries. Again look at the references in the above paragraph that you restored - even these say or hint at Carchemish. I am not the one who is pushing a minority view. It is clearly the author of the article who is pushing his POV.

I base my "Minority" assertion on nothing more sophisticated than a cursory web search, so I may be wrong and the current mainstream history view may indeed be that Thapsacus = Carchemish, and all other hypotheses may consequently have been discarded. Such a statement would have to be supported with rather good sources, naturally. Unless you can provide that, other editors may decide your article gives undue weight to one hypothesis among many.

Incidentally, the Graslin and Lemaire hypothesis, on which you base most of your argument that Thapsacus = Carchemish, struck me as pretty flimsy - it merely conjectures that Carchemish may have been Tapsuhu because Carchemish used a unit of weight that was called the "Carchemish standard" and Tapsuhu one called the "Tapsuhu measure", plus an Aramaic name was found in a text that was redacted in Tapsuhu, and that Tapsuhu may have been Thapsacus because Tapsuhu and Thapsacus sound similar. It then states as bald fact that the biblical Tiphsah = Thapsacus, which to my knowledge is far from proven. It does acknowledge that the exact location of Thapsacus was and is unknown though. Still, it's a proper cite, so I left it in.

If it's OK with you, I would like to move this conversation to the Thapsacus talk page. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi MeteorMaker. Yes, okay on placing these on the Thapsacus talk page. And I still have problems with the present article, especially those sources which are some 100 to 100+ years old. The Easton references should all be removed. They are so old that they do not even know the location of Carchemish or of its 1000+ year history prior to its Biblical appearance. It claims Menachem actually capture Thapsacus on the Euphrates - It may have been an educated guess back then, but try and find anyone today who would agree with their old interpretation.

And why bring in a reference to the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica (even more so why make it the sole entry in a section headed "Modern References")? It refers to Peters' 1889 identification with Dibsai. Can't you get a more update reference?. As for the other identifications you list above - most are based on generic biblical references who are renowned for using old sources (and never updating these sources). But the Dibsai one is good. Why? Because it's from an academic journal in the field of ancient history. In fact it was one of the references I deliberately used (note 8 - and all the information in that note was from the article) - but you removed it. Only the first page is available on the web. Go to a university library and read the whole article - they reject the identification of Dibsai with Thapsacus.

Also get rid of note 10. It leads to a defunct site and if you try and search there for Thapsacus, it's only hit is this page. Joe Baker (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I've been away. You make many good points, and I'm confident the article will be much improved with your input. I agree it may potentially be a problem that the bulk of the present article is taken from century-old sources, but I have not seen much evidence that the hypotheses presented have been conclusively superseded by never ones. Your main source, Graslin and Lemaire, acknowledge that (as of 2004), "la location de Thapsacus reste discutée", ie no particular hypothesis is yet settled on. They (and you) make a case for Carchemish, but that is not what a Wikipedia article ideally should be - all hypotheses should be given space, as long as they cannot be shown to be permanently discarded by modern science. Sources such as your note 8 of course help, if it indeed disproves one of the hypotheses (Dibsai) conclusively.

Easton does (albeit tentatively) place Carchemish in the spot where we know today it was, so I don't think the argument that it's "too old" and therefore necessarily wrong holds much water. He identifies the "other" biblical Tiphsah (the one Menahem captured, in the present-day West Bank) with Thapsacus, but he also gives space to an opposing hypothesis, one that you held up as proof of the original WP article's inaccuracy. Much confusion could be avoided by creating a separate section on the identification Thapsacus = Tiphsah, as I have suggested. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Thapsacus

Cyberbot II has detected links on Thapsacus which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.bible-history.com/smiths/T/Tiphsah/

  Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Thapsacus

Cyberbot II has detected links on Thapsacus which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.bible-history.com/smiths/T/Tiphsah/

  Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)