Talk:Mitanni/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Regarding the Mitanni seal that was removed

User:Nareklm removed the Mitanni seal and put in "copyvio" in the image [1], when admin User:Jkelly, which handles the copyright images approved it. Nareklm was trying to justify his reasons by created this "false" info in order to remove a Mitanni "related" image. The Mitanni seal was put their and approved by admins and other users who work on Mitanni, otherwise they would have removed it right away as they do with other wrong edits Ararat arev 22:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The image has no verification at all therefore marking it was a duty. Nareklm 23:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

the image probably isn't copyrightable. If it is, we can easily argue fair use. Aa has uploaded a lot of dodgy images, but I don't think this particular one is a problem. dab (𒁳) 23:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That is the Mitanni seal. The king Sausattar is one of the kings of Mitanni. The name is spelled slightly different with the "Sh" being "S". This is a Mitanni "related" imagte, its the Mitanni seal. Ararat arev 18:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, Dbachmann removed the Urartu images, doesnt mean you remove the Mitanni seal. He didnt remove the Mitanni seal. Ararat arev 18:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Look in the kings link It says "Shaushtatar, also spelled Šauštatar," Ararat arev 18:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

By your own admission that picture is of Shaushatar's seal. That hardly is enough evidence to support the claim that it was the seal for all of mitanni. Thanatosimii 19:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason i removed the seal is because this is about Mitanni not a king putting it all the way in the top page does not seem necessary plus the only reason he puts it is because of the Armenian king Tigranes and his crown. Nareklm 19:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No where do I state its Tigranes crown or related to it. I will also remove that info about Tigranes crown I made the Hurrian/Aryan page. I will remove that, cause its showing the link in the Mitanni seal image. Ararat arev 19:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Why does a kings seal deserve to be all the way in the top? Nareklm 19:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Its a Mitanni seal. Just leave it there. Its the only Mitanni image we have so far. Ararat arev 19:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No its the kings seal "It is the royal seal of the King of Mitanni Sauššatar" on your image. Nareklm 19:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanatsimii, explain to Nareklm that other pages have their "kings" images on top of their pages too. Ararat arev 19:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You put it you explain. Nareklm 19:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Im explaining, I said other peoples and nations have their kings images on their pages to at the top. This isnt some unique different setting here Ararat arev 19:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanasimii always removes my edits if they are wrong right away. He didnt remove this Mitanni related seal. Thats another point also Ararat arev 19:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a king his seal shouldn't be on the mitanni article, it should be on his. Nareklm 19:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Check the edit history, Dbachman the admin added the info of the royal seal of the king. That means he left it there. Dbachmann the guy you messaged earlier. He put it there. Ararat arev 19:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats why I let Dbachmann know what you're trying to do. He left it on the top of the Mitanni page. Ararat arev 19:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What's your point? that doesn't mean its approved i can contest it. Nareklm 19:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Im going to find it right now hold on. And show you Ararat arev 19:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Here it is Dbachmann the admin put this [2] Ararat arev 19:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay that's the kings does he even have any revelance with Mitanni? any good hard contributions, that makes it so important to be on top of the page? Nareklm 19:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ararat Arev, another user's edits are usually irrelevant if there has been no discussion. What he does or does not do has little to no bearing on the ability of another editor to contest it. Thanatosimii 19:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We have not agreed on it. Nareklm removed something that I put on another page that wasnt agreed either. So he removed it and said "not agreed yet to put" or something like that. So if I dont agree with it. He cant just decide to remove it. Cause thats what he did when I put something another page, he removed it and said "wasnt agreed" or somewhere in those lines Ararat arev 19:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That was by the way in Talk pages were discussing . Ararat arev 19:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to discuss before you remove or add things you made alot of articles locked because you start edit wars without discussing or further adding references instead you want us to go and research thats not going to happen. Nareklm 19:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Another thing is I said earlier, these admins that handle specific pages like Mitanni which Thanasimii does. He didnt remove this Mitanni related seal, or else he would have removed it like other edits that he removed right away. Also, Dbachmann edits this page too and he didnt remove it either. Its a Mitanni relate image "seal" Ararat arev 19:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

And the main point is Wikipedia likes its pages to be filled with images too related to the articles. Wikipedia is not dull and boring. Ararat arev 20:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanasimmi you agree on that? That is why you guys left it here Thanasimii. Dbachmann also etc. Ararat arev 20:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed other content right away becuase it was fallacious. The current issue is not one of fact, but of style. Images are helpful on wikipedia, but not just for show; they have to be relevant. I believe Nareklm could argue as he has been arguing that this image is not relavent here. Thanatosimii 20:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah anyone can argue on anything in Talk pages. Its relevant cause its "related" to the Mitanni article. If Dbachmann touched up the info specially of the image of the seal, than what does that tell you? Its relevant and as you said images that are related to their articles, are helpful for Wikipedia. Ararat arev 20:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I also let another admin know about Wikipedia's cause and this issue. That the related images should be in related articles, and that it helps Wikipedia. The site is not boring and dull. Ararat arev 20:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann 1) does not wield omnipotent power, and 2) probably didn't intend what you think he intended. In a topic this broad, random mitannian artwork goes in a commonscat. Only specifically relevant images which have immediate contextual relationship to a certain part of the text goes in an article itself. Thanatosimii 21:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann would have done what you said he would have did, as you said the guy works really good and hard on Wikipedia. He edits a lot and does it fast. So this would have been removed by him long long long time ago. Dbachmann and Codex_Sinatrix have their word in this too. You are not the only one. Ararat arev 21:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Another thing Thanatosimii, what you just said you didnt do long long time ago. So what are you arguing about or stating here? Ararat arev 21:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

hm, what is the problem here? We assume, I believe, that this is really the seal we think it is. So, it belongs on Šauštatar's page already. Now, this article isn't exacly overburdened with images. First and foremost, we need a map, and images of a few artefacts. We can show that seal somewhere on the page, but we don't have to if we have enough other good images. I would show it somewhere further down where we discuss the kings. Not that I think this is a very controversial point either way. dab (𒁳) 21:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

So its fine here right? It can stay how you guys let it stay there then. Ararat arev 21:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The guy is making a small issue a big deal here. He's trying to make some reason to remove it. I told him its a Mitanni related image 'seal'. Also helps Wikipedia with images related to articles. Ararat arev 22:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to start anything, I am simply objecting to the amount of certainty which you have about your opinions. As it stands, it seems wiser to me to put images which have no direct function enlightening the reader on any specific line in the text into a "wikipeida commons has media related to mitanni..." tag instead of randomly dispersing it on the page itself. Until some discussion takes place, I object to the amount of certainty you have in who believes what should stay where. Perhaps consensus will fall for my position or against it, however as of yet there has been no discussion, except this discussion, which you are trying to conclude before it begins. Thanatosimii 22:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanatosimii, I wasnt referring to you when I said "the guy is making a smal...." Ararat arev 22:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Look also at what attempts were made to remove the image. The admin who handles copyright images User:Jkelly approved the image, and Nareklm comes and puts a "copyvio" instead, which violating what the "admin" approved there. Ararat arev 22:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

So basically you are on the side of random editors , or editing that is done without verifying admin approved material?? Ararat arev 22:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Cause this discussion started with Nareklm, who wanted to remove the Mitanni seal image from Mitanni. Another point Urartu page has random Urartu images (which I just let Dbachmann know and he didnt remove) also in random places. So does almost every other page. I'll find you like 30 or even more pages on Wikipedia that has this same kind of related image on the page. Now why would I waste time doing that. If it is that case I will Ararat arev 22:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This does not change the fact that the ideal article does not have random images; images are supposed to fit the text. Thanatosimii 22:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you read what I wrote carefully here. I mean it. Ararat arev 22:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You want me to mark your images? Tell me whats going to happen? am i going to get banned? NO i have the right there all from Armenianhighland.com the images have no information about the copyright some don't even have a link to the website and if its approved you must have the wikipedia ticket confirmation which i checked with administrators and they said i can mark it indeed. Nareklm 22:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You want me to be the example of what Nareklm did? I'll go pick any page in Wikipedia, approved images from admin's who handle copyright images. Then, I will go and remove the image from the article and say its "copyvio" and put the "copyvio" Yeah? Is this what is right?? Of course not. Ararat arev 22:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Armenianhighland.com is that what you said Nareklm? The admin Dbachmann was the one I just stated approved and he even put "direct source armenianhighland.com" in the Urartu images. Ararat arev 22:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann just approved the image, and you want me to show you here. [3] Ararat arev 23:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

THAT IS NOT APPROVING! Nareklm 23:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Listen man Im going to let User:Jkelly admin who handles copyright images know about this. I'll make sure he explains to you. Ararat arev 23:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

And if you continue shouting like that, Im going to reporst to you of "personal attack" as Ive seen reported in Wikipedia. Ararat arev 23:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL that is not a personal attack i will report you for calling me stupid in Armenian if you continue with your silly accusations a matter of fact ill find it now just in case. Nareklm 23:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I never called you stupid. In fact Ive always said good things about you. Being 16 doing a good job with studying history and wanting to be a historian. Ararat arev 23:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

16? Sign okay buddy. And yes you did attack me in Armenian want me to show you? Nareklm 23:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I didnt attack you (as you put "LOL") and Talk:Mitanni isnt the place for this convesation. Ararat arev 23:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Your telling me? your the one who started with the copyvio issues. Nareklm 23:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ararat Arev, I really don't think you gather what I'm trying to say here. I have no problem with the copyright; I merely object to the inclusion of an image in the article itself which has no direct contextual connexion to the text of the article. Look at the article Tutankhamun. It has near the bottom of the page a link to a whole lot of images related to him personally, but do not fit well in the article. I suggest connecting your seal and any other images that don't directly pertain to some text in this article in the same manner. If the text of the article mentioned the seal of Shaushatar, the article could use a picture of it. As it stands, however, the image fits better in a commons catagory. Thanatosimii 23:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann agrees with what Im about to say, and you should too. Im saying Wikipedia doesnt want to put images in dark corners of its site. Put the images that are related in articles that "show" to the audiance, not places that hide. Ararat arev 23:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess putting a kings royal seal on top of a whole page where there is no relevant specific detail anywhere seems acceptable? and Ararat may i ask why you want to put it so badly? Nareklm 23:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You dont read what I wrote earlier, I said I'll find you 30 or more pages on Wikipedia that have the same issue, random images that are related in their articles. Another thing you want me to do what you did by removing approved copyright of those 30 or so pages and remove the images? Is that what Wikipedia does ? No. Ararat arev 23:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay your point? im talking about this article other articles have nothing to do with this one. Nareklm 23:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does and the admins can answer that for you. Ask Dbachmann or should I let him respond to you on that ? Ararat arev 23:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even going to bother your going off topic. Nareklm 23:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I said Dbachmann and other admins will answer that for you. I will Talk to him now, and show you what Im saying. Ararat arev 23:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You really need to stop messaging people it gets annoying. Nareklm 23:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you didnt understand what I meant. I said articles that are "similar" to this one. This is what I meant to say. Articles that are similar to this one have random images on their page related to the article. There is over 30 of them. Way more than 30. Ararat arev 23:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Show me an article please. Nareklm 23:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Better, show us a featured article with random images. Thanatosimii 23:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We should move the seal to the bottom entries one "Shaushtatar" its more appropriate don't you think? and ill add a map soon. Nareklm 23:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Urartu image random in page. Ararat arev 23:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Kurds random image. You want me to list ther is 1000's of sites actually. Ararat arev 23:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Those are revelant. Nareklm 23:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I cant just find all of them right away. Can you? No. Ararat arev 23:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't need too your the one who is putting the image in the wrong place. Nareklm 23:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way I responded to Khoikhoi. Ararat arev 23:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay man please focus on the topic. Nareklm 23:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow this is getting too long in Talk:Mitanni. Hmm. (thinking what to do) Ararat arev 23:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann, this is spam like previous Talk:Armenia spams right? Ararat arev 23:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Ararat Arev, it's not spam because it's content related and relates to edits to be made. And I doubt that Dbachmann is going to come flying to answer your every appeal... Make sure an editor is part of the discussion before appealing to him. Thanatosimii 23:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Btw, a current discussion should not be archived. Thanatosimii 23:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

My mistake sorry. Nareklm 23:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I let him know. We'll see what he says. Ararat arev 00:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I let Khoikhoi know this isnt the case of the 3RR, since nothing was agreed and you reverting my edits. You are doing that in this case. Dbachmann has not responded yet, so you cant change it, when he hasnt responded to it. Compare the Urartu page with Mitanni. The 2 map and image setting. Ararat arev 19:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You reverted 3 times on Mitanni one more its a block. Nareklm 19:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The first one was not a revert. I was discussing with Dbachmann. He hasnt responded to that yet. Ararat arev 19:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That was a revert! already 4 So what if Dbachman is an admin you discuss changes here not with admins there not any different from us. Nareklm 20:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am dsiscussing here. And I let admin Khoikhoi know that im discussing in Talk:Mitanni and Talk pages. With "admins" Ararat arev 20:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The admin is not here,he's busy he's out of the internet now. You understand? He hasnt got a chance to respond and you revferting ~ Ararat arev 20:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have a wrong impression of what an admin's job is, and just to warn you, if you continue to bother them asking for their official stamp of approval, you're going to irritate them very quickly. Thanatosimii 20:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Further, [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] These are all counted as reverts. You've broken the 3rr twice over. Furthermore, read the vandalism page, and do not accuse another editor of it without knowing what it is and is not. I will be restoring the original version once more, but I will not personally report you to the 3rr noticebord right now. I do not advize that you revert a sixth time, however. Thanatosimii 20:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

this page needs more *good* images

right, so we have a hastily hacked together map, and a sketch of a royal seal ripped off some webpage. This page really needs more encyclopedic images, compare the image distribution at, say, Troy, Assyria, Elam or Hittite Empire. I emphasize that we need encyclopedic images, of which we know exactly what they depict, not more random tidbits found on armenianhighlands.com. dab (𒁳) 20:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

So can we just put that Mitanni up there cmpare Urartu and Mitanni, I think its better this way. Whats the big deal also as you said? These guys are making it a big deal cause it was already there. Ararat arev 20:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Just giving my advice, you can take it or leave it. I think it looks really good, and its not just based on looks, since Thanasimii thinks Im just focusing on looks Ararat arev 21:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The image in that position is not beneficial to the state of this article, and ideally every edit should be made with the goal of improving any article to FA status.
As for good images, we may have a problem there. Syria is not exactly well excavated, and when it is, the stuff isn't published. The best I can think of off the top of my head are some generic karnak images that we used over at Thutmose III to illustrate Egypt's war against Mitanni, but even that's been stretching it... If a picture of the tell where wasshu(k/g)ani is supposed to be found could be dug up, that would be helpful, and I wonder if a releif could be located from Amenhotep III's time depicting (more or less) the mitannian king at the time presenting some sort of tribute. Does anyone know of any hittite based sources for images? Thanatosimii 21:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Also Ararat stop reverting your just going to get yourself in more trouble. Nareklm 21:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Respect the man's opinion already. What kind of discussions is this? You guys are making this a big deal. This was already there, so you are making it a big deal. This isnt reverting actually, you are the ones reverting this. Ararat arev 21:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"Since you said wanst a big a deal, they are the ones that made it a big deal, it was already there in the first place. I also think it looks better up there comparing Urartu page. What you think?" Ararat arev 21:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that a senior editor is to be respected does not mean you should go around soliciting his input on trivial matters such as this. This is a small matter, but the guidelines are the guidelines. Images should be relevant, and we're not about to bend on that. Thanatosimii 21:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You guys are like children making this a big deal. The images were "there already" and that is not a big deal as they said. If we have to bring more admins in this we will, to get their opinions Ararat arev 21:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Administrators and please tell me where you come to this conslusion that admins wield that kind of power or where it says you should go soliciting them in such a manner. You'll have a lot of time to read coming up, becuase with seven reverts to this page a block is inevetable. Thanatosimii 21:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Its not just admins. You're making this a big deal cause of this 16 year old putting "copyvio" on the image to remove it. Then you started making it a big deal also following this vandalism. The image was approved by handlers of copyright,for the last time already man. Ararat arev 21:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

See what I mean by understanding the entire situations. Ararat arev 21:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am in disagreement because and only because a only loosely related image does not belong at the top of a page; not here, not anywhere. If this went through a peer review you could bet ten people would ask what the picture is doing there. Thanatosimii 21:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No they wont say "what its doing there" , and we havent got their opinions yet. Im asking a few peoples opinions now actually. Ararat arev 22:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I assure you, inasmuch as random images are against the rules, they would ask why it's there. Stop bothering people with your solicitations and obey the stated rules. Thanatosimii 22:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

the map

Image:Neareastna.gif would be a nice map, but, copyright concerns aside, its resolution is too low, you can't read the labels, and it's scope is too large. It needs to be redrawn. It also lumps together Mitanni and Assyria in a single red blob. Image:Mitanni map.png isn't a masterpiece, I hacked it together in 20 minutes, but at least it is taylored for this article and shows what we need shown here. dab (𒁳) 09:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, Mitanni and Armenia are shown as separate entities... Some suggest that Mitanni and Armenia are one and the same, while others refute the existence of Armenia prior to the 600s BC. Both sides would agree logically to have the map removed and to put that other map. -- Davo88 06:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there isn't even an Urartu in 1400 BC, let alone an "Armenia". Urartu is a successor state of Mitanni. At best, the Armenian highland could be labelled "Nairi tribes", but we are not doing a comprehensive map of the ANE here, just a location sketch for Mitanni. dab (𒁳) 10:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Indo-Iranian more accurate

The second paraghraph states: The Mitanni kingdom is thought to have been a feudal state led by a warrior nobility of Indo-Aryan descent, invading the region at some point during the 17th century BC in the course of the Indo-Aryan migration that separated the Middle Bronze Age.. But Mitanni is also considered as Indo-Iranian not necessarily Indo-Arian. I suggest to change the statement in second paraghragh to Indo-Iranian, since it even includes the Indo-Arians too. Arianfire 12:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you entierly sure about that? Indo-Aryan encompasses Indo-Iranian, not the other way around, I thought... Thanatosimii 14:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Indo-Iranian has two major branchs: one is Indo-Aryans who reside in southern Asia in India; the other is Iranians who live in southwest Asia including uper Mesopotamia. Arianfire 16:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. I guess they taught me wrong in school... go figure. Very well, if this is so you're probably right that it should be changed. Thanatosimii 16:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that many resarchers think that Mittani may have been closer to Indo-aryan branch of Indo-Iranians, but this is just speculation because our knowledge of Mittani is very small, and there are many ancient Iranian groups (themselves a branch of Indo-Iranians) who still are poorly known to us. Note that, even uper Mesopotamia has been historically inside Iranian domonation not Indo-Arian.

I think speculations about to which branch of Indo-Iranians, they belonged should not be discussed at the begining. I will also add some references. Arianfire 17:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the current anon IP edits are being clearly done by the person who used to edit under User:Ararat arev. They can be deleted on sight without any justification necesarry other than "he's banned," but I'm not keen on 3rr violations, even if this is an exception... Thanatosimii 01:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

no, Indo-Aryan is correct, and more accurate. Detailed discusison of this goes on Indo-Aryan superstrate in Mitanni. dab (𒁳) 16:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"often associated"

"Mitanni is often associated with the modern Armenians and Kurds" -- why is this in the intro? what is the context? "often associated" where and by whom? In popular culture? In Kurdish and Armenian nationalism? In archaeology? The citation is "Royal Scottish Geographical Society - 1999, Published 1999, p:12". Royal Scottish Geographical Society is a society. I presume we mean its journal, the 1999 edition of the Scottish Geographical Journal. So somebody said something about Kurds and Armenians on page 12 there. Can we get the author, the title of the article, and the context please? And some justification why this is intro-worthy? dab (𒁳) 16:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Why does "Arta", which means "righteous" in Armenian, persist in Armenian to this day, but not in Persian or Indian? Also, Persians have the names Armin and Arman, obviously you know where that comes from, not to mention Armin'a, was the form the Persians recorded for the land of 'Ar'menia. 216.175.79.103 16:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

how is this at all related to my question? I was asking for the "Scottish Geographical" publication, not for the later fate of the "Arta" element in personal names. dab (𒁳) 18:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Naharin

The assertation that Raymond Faulkner implies that nhrn refers to the Nairi is wrong. I own that book, I have read that page time and time again when people bring up the assertation that nhrn is the Egyptian word for Nairi. No expert says any such thing. Thus the current "cited" claim is nothing of the kind, and is misleading. Thanatosimii 21:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The cited claims are not just based on whether Nairi and Naharin are the same, or more than cognates, it is based on all the other points which I made on the Naharin articles for deletion page. Do not just ignore those, and try to base this issue on the Nairi and Naharin not being related, which they certainly are.--Moosh88 00:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Which they certainly aren't. Thanatosimii 03:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Armenia

here is an interesting title: Сабир Асадов, Миф о “Великой” Армении (1999)[9]. Quite apparently a pro-Azerbaijan propagandist, attempting to prove that there was no "Ancient" Armenia. This sort of explains the zeal of our Armenian trolls to establish in-your-face that Armenia is more ancient than your mother-in-law. Without being aware of such counter-propaganda it is somewhat difficult to understand what they are even on about... dab (𒁳) 10:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Dab. You obviously have problems with Armenian historiography. If you think that Armenians have to stretch our history to counter pseudo-Asadov's work, you are no better than Asadov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.134.166 (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes

1) Indo Aryan is a subset of Indo European. Just because they're the latter doesn't mean they're not the former. It is correct to say that the rulers of Mitanni were Indo-Aryan. 2) Nahrin and nairi are still not the same. It is wrong to assert by linking the former to the latter and citing it that Faulkner believes this. 3) The citation I replaced with a citationneeded, quite frankly, doesn't cite one word of that sentance. It's a false citation. Thanatosimii 05:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason Indo-European was used, is due to the fact that Armenians, another Indo-European group, helped establish the kingdom of Mitanni with the Indo-Aryans. I already expalined all the reasons on the [deletion page]. This is just a repeat of what I showed earlier.

Also, I saw in the edit history, that you were the one who said that the Mitanni deities were mainly of Indo-Aryan origin. This is correct because the kings names had the Arta prefix, which is Armenian (used to this day by Armenians), the Indo-Aryan is Rta.

And since it has been shown that the kings were mainly of Armenian origin, Indo-European makes more sense. Plus, you even said that Nairi was east of the Tigris river, which is where the Hurrians (Indo-Europeans)read here came from, and all the other historical/lingustic/cultural evidence.

BTW: Every major linguist has grouped Armenian, along with Greek and Persian, into a Graeco-Armeno-Aryan sub branch.--Moosh88 06:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

this is fringy nonsense of the sort found on http://armenianhighland.com. Characterizing the superstrate in Mitanni as Indo-Aryan is correct. See Indo-Aryan superstrate in Mitanni. "Armenians, another Indo-European group, helped establish the kingdom of Mitanni with the Indo-Aryans" is bullshit. The earliest evidence of the Armenian language dates to the 5th century, fully 19 centuries (!) after the establishment of Mitanni. You are victim to the usual antiquity frenzy fallacy in Armenian nationalism. The Hurrians were not Indo-European, your "see here" references to geocities.com pages notwithstanding. dab (𒁳) 06:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not nationalism at all. Are ancient records and ALL the linguists who place Armenian in a larger Graeco-Armeno-Aryan (dating to the 3rd mil. BC) sub branch Armenian nationalists? If it was nationalism, there would be no records to provide evidence. Records of Arman and Ermenen, and clearly we see Indo-Europeans in Armenian Highland from archeology (Kura-Arax culture with Mitanni) this is "not" Nationalism. What is "bullshit" to borrow a term from dbachmann, is saying that the earliest evidence of the Armenian language dates to the 5th century, therefore he is suggesting that Armenians were not around 1000 or more years before then, he bases this all on that one point, it is absurd.

So the geocities site is not good enough for you, ok here is another one. [10]

And another one [11] it says:

Armenia, a scion of the "Aryan" stock, has for "four millenniums and more" (that means over 4000 years, 2000 BC and older), through two or three revivals and through some of the most devastating misfortunes that ever beset a people, been an advanced post of civilization. It is one of the most ancient of nations.

You may find some objections with certain websites, but are you not "ok" with a major scholar like Colin Renfrew? And he is just one of many who share a similar view on the Indo-European homeland and languages.

Also, you took out the Thutmose III record on Ermenin, he mentions Ermenin twice during his reign. These records identify the link, which shows the Armenian and overall Indo-European presence from Mitanni and the earlier Kura-Araxes culture. These scholars are not Armenian nationalists, another example of scholarly work being called nationalism by you.

Why don’t you guys consider and look over all these sources, before making such edits. To tell you the truth, I don’t even care about nationalism, I care about the Truth (or the closest we can come to it), and the search for it is what concerns me. I am showing you these records, most of which is not done by Armenian scholars/historians, but by non Armenian scholars/historians. You are ignoring a lot of scholarly info, and opting instead to use outdated sources.--Moosh88 20:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: THE ABOVE POST IS IN REFERENCE TO ALL THE REVERTS DONE BY dab ON MY RECENT EDITS.--Moosh88 20:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The goal of Wikipedia is to write a solid encyclopedia, for which we need mainline peer reviewed academic sources. Now, I've seached the Cambride Ancient History, a number of the big journals for ancient history, and the standard text for the subject of Ancient Near Eastern history. I can't find anything you're talking about, but I can find work that would be incompatable with it. You need to present equally heavy sources. You haven't.
And you can't use that touregypt site either. It's better than Geocities, but the problem isn't the quality of the site, it's the fact that the site doesn't say the kinds of things you want to attribute to it.
There are a plethora of good sources to read on Mitanni and the Hurrians if you care to learn somthing about them. But they don't say what you want to see... Thanatosimii 22:05, 25 September 2007

(UTC)

Yes, that is the stated goal of wikipedia, but there are many people with a POV to push, we don't see the stated goal happen as often as it should. Touregypt was used to show the edit from Indo-Aryan to Indo-European, nothing else. I have reviewed mainline material too, just because it is not the ones which you are used to, does not mean they do not carry equal weight. I have done my best to show many sources, not just Armenian, and these sources have been in English, if you really want to get technical, we can bring in French, Russian, German, Armenian, and Georgian sources in their original. Also, it is becoming obvious to me that you are the one who is not seeing what you want, i.e. that Armenians didn't have anything to do with Mitanni, when not only ancient records from the time attest to it, but even modern scholars and linguists, such as Colin Renfrew, show that Armenians were in the region, our language is related to Hurrian, we are one of the oldest Indo-European ethnic groups, and that Kura-Araxes culture pottery works have been found in the region.

Here is another source for you.

James P. Mallory, "Kuro-Araxes Culture", Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, Fitzroy Dearborn, 1997.

In this work Mallory shows that the Kura-Araxes culture is Indo-European and supports the touregypt, which says that the Mitanni were Indo-European (Hurrian).

Finally, what is with this misconception of www.armenianhighland.com? I'd like to cover two things with this. A. the site was not used as a reference to any of the pieces which I had added to the above mentioned articles, and B. the site has all of it's info cited/sourced, it is not nationalistic in the sense which dab has been trying to convince everyone that it is. He misrepresented the site, and tries to link it with the banned user ararat arev, who if I may say, was/is not involved with the making or running of armenianhighland.com Also, that site was made by a couple of people working together, if you only take the time to read it and give the site a fair chance, you will see that it is not some made up, fantasy, nationalistic webpage, it has serious academic work. The interesting thing is that the above sources (Mallory and Renfrew) are also found on armenianhighland.com in the Indo-European homeland section.--Moosh88 23:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that if a source says "Mitanni was ruled by Indo Europeans," that doesn't necesarraly mean mitanni wasn't ruled by Indo-Aryans. An Indo-Aryan is a subsection of Indo-European. The only way to justify changing to Indo-European is to find a reputable source that says explicitly "Indo-European and not Indo-Aryan." And as for ArmenianHighland, that site is not heavy academia. Not at all. Thanatosimii 00:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and it is an unquestionable fact that Hurrian is not Indo-european. The mitannian rulers, yes, but not hurrians. Thanatosimii 00:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It is sad how you cite what wikipedia stands for, yet you have your mind made up and can not see any other point of view, even if so many acadamec sources are saying the same thing.

I just showed you a "reputable" link, which is James P. Mallory, "Kura-Araxes Culture", Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, Fitzroy Dearborn, 1997.

The Kura-Araxes culture was NOT Indo-Aryan, but they were Indo-European, as we see the links with later Mitanni showing the Indo-European links; The spread to Syria of a distinct pottery type associated with the Kura-Araxes culture has been connected with this movement. Do the research, it is not up to me to teach you this stuff, only to show you where I got it. You also must have not even bothered to look through armenianhighland.com otherwise you would not be making such statements.

As for Hurrians, they have links with Armenians, and many scholars think they may be Indo-European, the info you are basing your opinion, which is exactly what it is, are outdated and really need to be revised.--Moosh88 00:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Reading Armenian Highland is precicely why I think it's insane. I know pseudohistory when I read it. Thanatosimii 00:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, I highly doubt that you even bothered to read, not even a few sentences. But there seems to be some confusion on your part, if you think I am using armenianhighland.com as a source, I am not. I am basing on MAJOR scholars such as Colin Renfrew, Mallory Ivanov, Gamkrelidze, etc. As well as the ancient records, most importanly, Thutmose the III's mention of Ermenin. I have already explained this before, I just wanted to clarify again, so do not assume I am using armenianhighland.com as my source, this is not true.--Moosh88 02:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that last one's been bothering me too. Tell me precicely where it is that Thut III mentions "Eremnen." Cite an Urkunden reference if that's where I'd find it. It's OR one way or another, but I want to see where the semivowels are, because Hieroglyphics aren't well suited to producing such a transliteration.
I read a signifiant amount of the avalable text (not much currently, as far as I can find. Lots of "coming soon"s) on Armenian Highland. It's insane. Totally absurd. It's good you don't cite it, because it is indeed a terrible source. The problem with your other sources is that they're in conflict with whatever else I can find wherever I look. All sources indicate an Indo-Aryan ruling class conquered a Hurrian (neither indo-european nor semitic) native population, which you're contradicting. And regardles, to say that has a connexion with Armenia is just anachronistic. Thanatosimii 03:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have Colin Renfrew's book right in front of me, and it clearly says "Indo-Aryan for righteous is "Rta" and Armenian for righteous is "Arta". He mentions that even to this day Armenians use "Arta", but not Indians or Persians. Mitanni kings names start with Arta, not Rta.

As far as Thutmose III's mention here is the source, Eric H. Cline and David O'Connor (eds.) Thutmose III, University of Michigan, 2006, Cline and O'Conner are Egyptologists that read hieroglyphs and they point out that Thutmose III mentioned Ermenen twice during his reign. (To this day, Turks, Kurds, and Azeri's call Armenia Ermenin).

And I also found in Colin Renfrew's book that the gods specifically were of Indo-Aryan origin, so I agree with that. And on another page he mentions the Graeco-Armeno-Aryan sub branch of Indo-European dating to the 3rd Mil. BC.

You respond only to one point of only my latest posts, and do not look at any thing else, you have been ignoring all of my other posts. Please read all of my other posts, I linked you to many sources, carefully look over them. If you are going to ignore all of my other posts, and respond to only to the latest, then I will not take the rest of your posts seriously.--Moosh88 04:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

so you found an Iranian loanword in Armenian. what is your point? It is you who are ignoring a long history of debate in trying to make us swallow the stuff on armenianhighland.com. It is perfectly obvious that you have no background knowledge of the questions involved. As long as you keep repeating that the Hurrians were Indo-Europeans, you are just wasting our time and talk space. --dab (𒁳) 07:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop this "read carefully" nonsense. I have read, and it is because I have read that I find your arguments exceedingly weak. Thanatosimii 16:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you attack either me, or just one point which I make, rather than the Whole of what I say and source. It is infact your arguments which are "exceedingly weak", and you have shown again that you are not familiar with the history of Armenia or the time period, you can make all the claims that you want, I am finished with you since I have seen no change in your behavior towards me. Bring in a more civil and unbaised user, i.e. an administrator.--Moosh88 21:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

this is tedious. If you have a point to make, make it, without all the ranting. --dab (𒁳) 09:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Is James Mallory not a reliable source dab?--Moosh88 21:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to answer, or have you realized that you are wrong?--Moosh88 00:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Your sources do not say what you think they say, nor imply what you say they imply. Thanatosimii 00:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A. You have no idea what your talking about, and B. at least I provide sources, what have you done either then state your opinion? Show me some references and stop attacking me, rather than my argument.--Moosh88 23:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Moosh88, you have no case. You are merely rehashing material that was already discussed ad nauseam. Unsurprisingly, you find that nobody is disposed to go along with you in this. dab (𒁳) 14:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been reading a great deal of Ancient Armenian History articles on Wikipedia, and I was astonished to see that this guy dab and Dacy69 were on every single one, and were on all of the talk boards trying to justify their removal or edit reverts. These guys/gals love to start an edit war. They just state their opinion as Moosh said, and leave you with nothing, no cited sources, no facts to back up their argument, nothing. They started to annoy me so much because every single article on Armenian history is now protected because of them, and there is a ton of confusion as to the origination of Armenians and all the other branches of ancient Armenian history. Dab and Dacy69 continuously bleet out the same old thing, senselessly rambling on and on about Armenian Nationalism (even creating an article on it) and making it seem like every Armenian editor with a different POV than theirs is an Armenian nationalist. They slip in their own opinions, and pro-Azeri/Turkish material in all the small cracks and crevices they find. They try to make it seem like Armenians have no history or culture, and label everything that is pro-Armenian or contrary to their own beliefs, as nationalism and refuse to even glance at the material. Also, talking about the quality of the articles that they have been involved in, it is just horrible, half of the article tries to force the reader to think that what he is reading is Armenian Nationalist propoganda, and the other half is just junk, lack of details, a huge POV problem with the Turkish editors, and not enough information on the article itself (it rather seems like the article is a continuation of the argument going on in the Talk/Discussion Board.) Also, in many articles I see "a minority Armenian nationalist view says this...," we should put "a small fraction of the academic community, mainly nationalist Turks and Azeris say this..." So instead of writing things like this garbage...

Urartu article - "A minority view, advocated primarily by the official historiography of Armenia, suggests that Urartian was solely the formal written language of the state, while its inhabitants, including the royal family, spoke Armenian."

Urartu article - "A competing view suggested by Thomas Gamkrelidze and Vyacheslav V. Ivanov in 1984 places the Proto-Indo-European homeland in the Armenian Highland, see Armenian hypothesis, which would entail the presence of (pre-)Proto-Armenians in the area during the entire lifetime of the Urartian state."

Nairi article - "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. It has been suggested that this section be split into a new article entitled Armenian nationalism."

Nationalism and Ancient History or Historiography and Nationalism article - "ancient times, ethnicities often derived their or their rulers' origin from divine or semi-divine founders of a mythical past (for example, the Anglo-Saxons deriving their dynasties from Woden; see also Euhemerism). In modern times, such mythical aetiologies in nationalist constructions of history were replaced by the frequent attempt to link one's own ethnic group to a source as ancient as possible, often known not from tradition but only from archaeology or philology, such as Armenians claiming as their origin the Urartians"

Mittani article - "Eusebius, writing in the early 4th century, quoted fragments of Eupolemus, a now-lost Jewish historian of the 2nd century BC, as saying that "around the time of Abraham, the Armenians invaded the Syrians". This may correspond approximately to the arrival of the Mitanni, since Abraham is traditionally assumed at around the 17th century BC. The association of Mitanni with Urartu, and of Urartu with Armenia plays a certain role in Armenian nationalist historiography."

...we should so something similar to what I proposed.

Section

==In later historiographies== needs to be replaced with ==Later historiographies==.70.74.35.144 (talk) 08:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

People

Since I cannot edit the page, I will point out that the assertion that the Hurrian language is Indo-European is false, as may be seen by checking the article on that language. Its only certain relative is Urartian. Talan Gwynek (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

this was rather recent vandalism article attrition, it has only been online for two days[12]. thanks for drawing attention to the problem. --dab (𒁳) 17:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

ok, I was assuming good faith on the part of Torahjerus14 and was prepared to believe he was just fooled by the geocities stuff he quoted. But now it has become clear that this is just the next iteration of the Armenian nationalist nonsense that we've come to know and be bored by. Torahjerus14, it is true that Urartu (900 to 600 BC) is "often associated" with ancient Armenia (from 600 BC), and it is also true that Mitanni (1500 to 1200 BC) is often associated with Urartu. That's no excuse to spam this article with irrelevant observations about Armenians. There is an entire article on the "Armenian hypothesis" if you like to throw around citations of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov. This discussion is 100% {{offtopic}} here. I will consider another revert to the patently false "geocities" claim that "Hurrian was Indo-European" blockable as vandalism. dab (𒁳) 10:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

note that Mitanni is duly mentioned in a factor in the wider areal prehistory of Armenian ethnogenesis, at Armenians#Origins where it is actually on topic. dab (𒁳) 16:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of Renfrew handy, but it looks like he may have mis-cited Diakonov. A correct summary of Diakonov (basically, JIES 1985) can be found in Mallory's In Search of the Indo-Europeans, p.35-36. Diakonov links Armenians with Urartu (as their successors in the area), not with the Hurrians, let alone Mitanni, who were long gone by then. At any rate, Diakonov's views are not an accurate reflection of the mainstream, and so WP:UNDUE also applies. rudra (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not researched Renfrew at all and have no opinion on him, but suppressing even the mention of it from the discussion page (twice) seem to be taking things to a whole new level. What is going on here? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

this has nothing to do with Renfrew, but with a returning banned user (User:Ararat arev) who has no business editing Wikipedia, being banned. Since you are not banned, feel free to discuss Renfrew or anything you like as much as you like. Note that the posting could also have been removed on grounds of WP:TALK alone, seeing that they were completely offtopic. There is an article on the Greco-Armenian hypothesis. Discuss that topic at Talk:Graeco-Armenian language please. The Mitanni have nothing whatsoever to do with it. dab (𒁳) 16:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• "that he was the king of Naharin whom Thutmose III fought against in the fifteenth century BC can only be deduced from assumptions."

...and that's all it says. Who ever wrote this is sending the article up, I expect. --Wetman (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Renfrew might not be the best source on the Mitanni. Hurrian is unclassified and thus not IE Renfrew thinks IE was spread by farming whereas the IE influences on the Hurrian speaking Mitanni probably come from the association of trading states starting with Elam whose lands stretch as far east as Tepe Yahya and the Indus and northwest up to the Dyala thence along the Euphrates up to Mari and on to Kanesh on the Orontes and up the Habur.

Those ships of Meluhha, Makkan and Dilmun that make their way up to the quays of Agade in the time of Sargon. On the other hand Mallory and Diakonov make a lot of assumptions about wide ranging empires and territories that before the time of Rim SinI would have been hard to organize communication and control over. Its really the technological advances of sailing ships and horses that make that possible and that doesn't get started until after c 2000 BC

Thutmosis I might have come up against the Naharin on the Orontes rather than the Euphrates; its not certain that the two rivers were as the Greeks assumed the Tigris and Euphrates, they could just as easily have been the Orontes and Litani. Thutmosis III never got much farther north than Megiddo.

Why doesn't the map of the Mitanni territory here agree with other maps of Mitanni territory which include the lands of the Naharin or Niya. Lets allow their holdings are not well known, the texts that have been found come mostly from the fringes of the empire, the heartland of their empire probably originated on the upper reaches of the Habur around Washukanni at Tell el-Fakhariyeh, there should still be some explanation for the interaction with Egypt and the vassal status with the Hittites.

The maps from the "Cambridge Atlas of Mesopotamia" Michael Roaf ed. pp 134-135 show the Mittani controlling territory on the Orantes river as far south as Aram's northern bound of Hammath and bordering on Kadesh and Damascus to include the towns of Tunip, Qatna and Labwe the headwaters of the Orontes. Rktect (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed Armenians

I removed Armenians as Mitannis were an Indo-Iranian people and Indo-Iranians do not include Armenians. Ellipi (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There is Hurrian also in Mitanni, and Hurrian is not Indo-Iranian. Also, if you look in the Indo-European (Aryan) language family tree, you see how Armenian and Indo-Iranian, Armeno-Aryan that is, branched in the same branch, which Indo-Iranian then seperates later on. I cited sources that show Indo-European, not just Indo-Iranian, that means they were together with Armenians.

You also need to do more researching, if you check google "News" about Mitanni, you see that "many historians see Mitanni as the ancestors of modern Armenians" 99.163.222.178 (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Your cited website touregypt is not an academic (reliable) source; look how errornously says Hurrians were Indo-European! Ellipi (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I gave you info beyond TourEgypt, and somebody here corrected the TourEgypt info, stating that its Indo-European 'and' Hurrian Also, if you search more you see that is one of the top sites also, where Indo-European is mentioned for Mitanni, rather than just Indo-Iranian branched. 99.163.222.178 (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Before getting involved in the discussion of reliability and verifiability (see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources) of the tourism website of Touregypt, do you know that strong majority of sources consider Mitanni as Indo-Iranian?

Moreover you gave no sourced info. Ellipi (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you know that I kept Indo-Iranian there? Where is it? Is it removed? No. So this argument is useless. I already explained to you majority historians regard Mitanni as ancestors of Armenians. I am not denying that Kurds ancestors were there also. Finally, Aram is one of the Armenian ancestors, which is here, entered the region of Aram Nahrin, which is also most common Armenian names to this day. Nahr also is sang in Armenian cultural songs and dances, meaning the rivers linked with Mitanni here, Tigris-Euphrate4s. 99.163.222.178 (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all the discussion is about removing Armenian not keeping Indo-Iranian. Secondly, I don't care about Kurds. Thirdly, so by your arguments Armenians are of Semitic origins? Ellipi (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You obviously dont know much about Armenian history, Aram is one of the most common Armenian names, go search Aram. Also, there were many different peoples living there in that region, like Semitics, and so there are names that were shared. We dont need to go on explaining more and more about the Armenian names of the Mitanni kings (Artash-umara, Artash-es, later Armenians kings, Artash-esian dynasty of Armenians, Vartan, Vartana etc..), which Indo-Iranian names also have some of them. 99.163.222.178 (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

But Armenian has heavily borrowed from Indo-Iranian and these Aram Vartan prove nothing. In short you have no sources to back your claims apart from your personal theories. Ellipi (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I already showed you the google Mitanni "News", if you go there you can find out the new developments and findings. It says clearly there "many historians regard Mitanni as the ancestors of modern Armenians". Go read it is there, and it will soon be here in the cited sources. You also have not seen the link of the Armenian, showing the Indo-European homeland locations in Anatolia or the other name Armenian Highlands. 99.163.222.178 (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I added all the sources needed to prove that Armenians were also there together with Indo-Iranians. Please check them carefully, they even prove the homeland of Indo-Europeans (Aryans) is in the Armenian Highlands, or using the other name Anatolia. 99.163.222.178 (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You added no sources, you still have not been able to prove that Armenians are Indo-Iranians. Also your allwebsnews website is another random website like Touregypt. Ellipi (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is the link Indo-European family tree, showing Indo-European languages and sub branches showing Armeno-Aryan branch (that is Armenian-Indo-Iranian=Aryan), which Indo-Iranian later seperates. That seperation takes place when Indo-Iranian's leave after Mitanni. Do your research more carefully, these sources I provided are the linguists that place the homeland of Indo-European languages in Anatolia and Armenian Highlands, which in the family tree I provided here shows the grouping of Indo-Iranian with Armenian before Mitanni before 2000 BC. Later it shows the seperation which takes place after Mitanni, when Indo-Iranians leave to Iran-Persia, and India. 99.163.222.178 (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The link does not show Armenian as Indo-Iranian. Ellipi (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You obviously dont understand, it is the same grouping, the same branch. When it says Aryan, it is referring to Indo-Iranian. It is grouped together as Armeno-Aryan (that is Armenian and Indo-Iranian group), which Indo-Iranian leaves after Mitanni, and Armenian then becomes its seperate branch. 99.163.222.178 (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

When did this separation take place? Ellipi (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Why must I do your research? Do your own research and find out. The seperation takes place after Mitanni when Indo-Iranians leave to Persia-Iran and India, that is after Mitanni. The grouping together however is before Mitanni, before 2000 BC. 99.163.222.178 (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Because no academic source say that! So by your conclusion Armenians are Indo-Iranians? Ellipi (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You still dont understand what it means to be grouped together as same branch then seperate? All these linguists explain the grouping, I didnt say Armenians are Indo-Iranians today, I said we were together for that specific time which is taking place in Mitanni's time and even before, than later they seperate from the group they were together I already showed you the academic sources I provided, the linguists family tree. 99.163.222.178 (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

But Indo-Iranian separation from Armenian must have taken place much earlier than Mitannis time. Look at their numbers for instance! Ellipi (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The timing of seperation has nothing to do with their numbers. It should be clear for you to understand that Indo-Iranians didnt stay around that region after Mitanni when Assyrians took over that region after Mitanni. They left to India and Persia-Iran after Mitanni, and Armenians moved north when Assyrians took over that region. 99.163.222.178 (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You have interesting hypothesis, but according to Wikipedia:No original research they do not belong in Wikipedia; therefore I leave you for admins. Ellipi (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not original research, I gave you the cited academic sources, and put them in the page. Also, I showed the recent new findings in google Mitanni "News" where they mentioned "many historians regard Mitanni as the ancestors of Armenians". 99.163.222.178 (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the anon asked on my talkpage for me to comment here. His university linguistic chart that he posted above does indeed show Armenian and Indo-Irani branching off from "Armeno-Aryan". This is indeed a scholarly view [13] So we cannot pretend it is his own research.

Scholars recognise that apart from the Indo-Aryan sounding names, the Mitanni population were Hurrian speakers. These Hurrians are also recognised as formative of the Urartean language which has much in common with Hurrian. Urartean in turn was culturally formative on later Armenian culture, although Armenian is grouped as Indo-European, usually closer to Greek, sometimes Phrygian too. Of course, what language groups were imposed on populations does not always reflect their genetic or cultural ancestry, as the quote from Heyerdahl on my userpage suggests. It's fair to say all these population groups were in the same general area at successive times, though their languages may be grouped differently. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well this has nothing to do with Indo-Iranian aristocracy over Hurrians, since Mitanni were Indo-Iranian, while Armenian is not; and the rest of story is original research.Ellipi (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You still seem to be missing his point. Some scholars definitely think there was an "Armeno-Aryan" linguistic group that was ancestral to both: That is not original research, and it is relevant. There are also scholarly books discussing the cultural links between Mitanni, Hurrians, Urartu, and Armenians. "Original research" does not seem like a valid objection. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not missing the point. Let's even assume that there was a so-called Armeno-Aryan proto-group. But the fact is that they separated to two groups of Armenian and Indo-iranian before Mitannis existed. that's why Mitannis are are classified under Indo-Iranian not Armeno-Aryan. Ellipi (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If there are sources talking about "Armeno-Aryan", thus it can't be the anon's original research. On the other hand, that rebuttal you just gave is your own unsourced opinion. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope, that's not my original research. Read Indo-Iranians! They separated from other Indo-Europeans about 2000BC if not earlier. Mitannis existed AFTER that date; And thus Much longer AFTER an earlier supposed Armeno-Aryan separation! Ellipi (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that anyone here is disputing that... so what is the problem then? The sourced scholarship is still relevant to this article. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The dispute is that Armenian is not Indo-Iranian, thus irrelevant to the Indo-ranian Mitanni. Ellipi (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought the dispute was a claim of 'original research', now it's 'irrelevant'. The number of sources that discuss cultural links from "Armenian" and "Mitanni" together with the other groups, suggests to me that it is relevant, and a significant view that has been often debated and discussed, so why shouldn't our article discuss it? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, claims of legacy is different than the universally accpeted fact that Mitanni were not Armenian. Claiming Mitanni spoke Armenian is both OR and IR. Ellipi (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's why we should be careful not to claim that the Mitanni spoke Armenian, because Armenian as such did not even exist yet. Clearly they spoke Hurrian. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

But the Mitanni aristocracy were non-Armenian! Ellipi (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, I think we're talking about the ethnogenesis of Armenians before they existed. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but Armenians ethnogenesis is not name of the language Mitanni aristocracy spoke. Ellipi (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That's completely a red herring, or a strawman, since nobody added information to the article suggesting that it was. The relevant topic being discussed is ethnogenesis. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it what the language spoken by Indo-Iranian Mitannis has to do with Hiaq people (nowadays known in English as Armenians)? Ellipi (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There are even records from Akkadians and Egyptians mentioning of Armenians in the same location of Mitanni, not to mention Aram, one of the main ancestors of Armenians. Also, many linguists are placing the Indo-European homeland in Anatolia, or by its other name Armenian Highlands, which prove the Armenians were native to the region all this time of Mitanni and even before Mitanni. I provided the cited academic sources of these linguists like Russel Gray and Quinten Atkinson, Colin Renfrew, Ivanov and Gamkreldze etc. Here is also the other link of the family tree Indo-European family tree, showing Indo-European languages and sub branches 99.163.222.178 (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Because of the edit-warring here, together with the poor quality of the sources motivating it, I have requested semi-protection for this article. If it is granted, I will revert back to a version that does not include the poorly sourced claims. Looie496 (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"Poorly sourced claims"? If it's a question of "Do the sources verify that the view exists in scholarship?", the answer is "yes, they do", and WP:RS/N will surely settle that question once and for all. Since the view certainly exists in scholarship, there is no justification for excluding it, only your desire to keep readers from seeing it, for who knows what reason. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I came here late and find it not so easy to follow all the argumentation -- could you please clarify what sources you are talking about? The edits the IP is making seem to refer only to news sites and personal web pages. Looie496 (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The main point of contention is this sentence: "The Mitanni are regarded by many historians as the ancestors of the modern day Armenians." I did my own research on scholarly books written about the rthnogenesis of Armenians and verified that this is a correct statement. However, it is more complicated than that. There were several population groups back then, thousands of years ago, and they were all basically ancestral to several of the population groups living in the same area today. Aside from Armenians, modern Kurds, Azerbaijanis, and still others also claim descent from Mitanni, and probably not without reason. In addition, there are other ancient groups beside Mitanni that were also part of all these modern groups' ethnogeneses. Therefore it would be safer to add "among" in front of "the ancestors" to reflect this. And the other sentence being edit-warred needs to be corrected too, because it sounds like the Mitanni were descended from Armenians, when it should be the other way around. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

As long as you can actually specify at least one of those sources, that seems fine to me. Not being an expert on this topic, I don't want to claim that the statement is wrong, just that the IP editor's approach is wrong. I feel that as a matter of principle we can't allow people who operate that way to take control of articles, and since this editor has blithely violated 3RR today, I don't see any other way of doing it. Looie496 (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

theres a difference between 'a mitanni component might have influenced the armenians who might have not even been there as early as 1500 bc but perhaps much later' and the linguistic claims made here that the mitanni were of 'armeno-aryan' origin, that also confuse a possible armenian or even anatolian urheimat with the much later mittani. no one has even brought proper sources here, the ones that are used are misunderstood as i explained above. this is all linguistics also, not wether the mittani are physical ancestors or provided any material culture to the armenians. the page has seen historically much vandalism by a particular armenian editor as everyne can see above so i dont know why this is still being 'discused' 85.72.90.42 (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

can we get some editors with knowledge on the subject here or will this page remain vandal funhouse forever 85.72.90.42 (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again: If you have an issue with the sources, or of you want to allege that not a single one of them is a "reliable source" for purpose of establishing that this view actually exists in published scholarship (and therefore NOT "vandalism") then WP:RS/N is the way to go to get a definitive answer on this. For my part, the sources look good to me, so in lieue of that, we don't seem to have any consensus regarding reliability of the sources. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder which one of those sources claims Mitannis were Armeno-Aryan. Can you please cite some direct quotes from those sources? Ellipi (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

please see the archive -- this article has been the target of Armenian ethnic nationalism before. The anon may be a returning banned user, or a bona fide new user -- it doesn't really matter. The article should remain semiprotected and edits relating to the "Armenian hypothesis" should be subject to consensus. Details on Armenian ethnic nationalism go to Armenian nationalism and should not be allowed to spill over to articles dealing with ancient history. The question of substrate influence to Armenian ethnogenesis should be discussed at Urartu. Urartu is a successor state to Mitanni, and the first Armenian kingdom was a successor state to Urartu. It is pointless to discuss this in the article of the predecessor's predecessor. --dab (𒁳) 23:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Til, the key statement is referenced to "The Mitanni Kingdom was a powerful force around 15-1300 BC and are regarded by many historians as the ancestors of the modern day Armenians.". That's a blog site, not a good source. Some of the recent edits have invoked better sources, but they don't directly relate to the purported Armenian relationship. Looie496 (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Where is the "Armenian nationalism" in the cited academic sources?? All I saw were "none-Armenian professors/linguists" scholarly sources listed, in more than a handful of those cited. You are also being biased and one-sided, as you see there are others who agree with "Armeno-Aryan" origins in Mitanni, not to mention the strong support of the Anatolia (its other name Armenian Highlands) theory of Indo-European origins (homeland), which shows that Armenian "ancestors", were in the region the entire time even before Mitanni. 99.163.220.91 (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Whenever I see "nationalism" being invoked, it is invariably to make an argument that all nations are not equal, some do not deserved to be mentioned on relevant wikipedia articles no matter how many sources there are, and sadly, Armenian is one of the main nations that is "less equal" than the others. It's, of course, a total point-of view reflecting the racial bias of certain prominent admins, not the world at large outside of wikipedia. Anyone looking up practically any scholarly book written about the Armenian ethnogenesis will of course find mention of Mitanni. But the admins' biases apparently trump all the sources, despite any reasonable standard for inclusion that WP:RS might set. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

the important word here is relevant. The article relevant to the Armenians is Armenians. Or how many other modern nations do you see mentioned in this article on a Bronze Age state? Yes, you may find mention of the Mitanni in books on the Armenians. This means that Mitanni may be linked from Armenians, not vice versa. Incidentially, Armenians remains linked from this article, within WP:DUE, under "In later historiographies" where the link belongs. So maybe you want to stop the oblique personal attacks and the bs poltical noise and go do something productive. According to Til, the Swiss are also "one of the main nations that is 'less equal'" on Wikipedia, because we do not state in the WP:LEAD of Helvetii that "scholars think that the Helvetii are the ancestors of the Swiss people^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]}. I think you should slap a few tags on the Helvetii article Til, to protest this appalling discrimination against the Swiss here on Wikipedia! After all, The Helvetii lived less than 600 years before the establishment of the first Alemannic kingdom in the region, while there are at least 700 years between the Mitanni kingdom and the first Armenian kingdom. --dab (𒁳) 10:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Not "according to Til", I have never said a word about the Swiss and the Helvetii; please don't make false allegations. Because of the abundance of RSS that trace the Armenians to Mitanni -- and because who these people's modern descendants claim to be, is obviously of significant relevance to the article -- and because the RSS seem to be getting denied without even one source rebutting them, based only on the circular opinion that the editors citing these views are "trolls", I have brought the source question up at WP:RS/N as I previously suggested would be the correct way to handle this. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

utter nonsense, thre is no "abundance of RSS that trace the Armenians to Mitanni". There are recurring four or five references, half of which by Armenian crackpot nationalists, the other half by Soviet scholars discussing Indo-Europeans, which are contorted into "tracing Armenians to Mitanni" by blatant misrepresentation. This has been debunked years ago, see the archives.

If you would review the archives, you wouldn't insist on bringing up stuff that has been discussed to death several times over. And no, we aren't forced to rehash the discussion just because you feel like having an argument just now. If you are just here for the name-calling, the libel and the vitriol, pray find your entertainment on usenet or facebook. --dab (𒁳) 14:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This was a calm discussion until you showed up yelling about "trolls" and "nationalism". Before that, the discussion was over usual allegations that the editor bringing these sources was engaging in "Original research'. If I have read the same sources in print, how is it "original research"? So now it's not "Original research" anymore, it's some other pretext. You often take a very condescending attitude toward editors you disagree with, as if I were somehow too lowly and unworthy to be entitled to dispute with your pre-eminent opinion. ("we aren't forced to rehash the discussion just because you feel like"). Is there some real reason why you would just as soon the discussion not be opened? Or is your personal opinion good enough to "debunk" all the sources? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

As I research more, it appears that after the Indo-Aryan character of some Mitanni names became known in the late 19th century, several scholars wrote on this, and it is still considered by linguists as evidence for an Armeno-Aryan proto-group. Henry Hall (Egyptologist) was one of of several to suggest this, see Ancient History of the Near East from the earliest Times to the Battle of Salamis p. 475 - was he an Armenian crackpot, or a Soviet? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It's funny how you can utter "namecalling" and "crackpots" in the same breath... "Crackpots" is name-calling. If they are all "crackpots", it's funny how they all agree on something, I would not expect that from crackpots. Maybe it's just the published idea you are fighting against being mentioned, by calling it names. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"Armeno-Aryan" isn't even a term. You may be referring to the historical discovery that Armenian was IE at all. See also Proto-Armenian. It is completely mysterious how you are trying to argue that this has any relevance whatsoever to this article here. The Indo-Aryan (not "Aryan", not Armenian) superstrate in Mitanni is also undisputed, see Indo-Aryan superstrate in Mitanni. --dab (𒁳) 06:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Another scholar and historian from the 19th century is George_Rawlinson. His chief publications are his translation of the History of Herodotus (in collaboration with Sir Henry Rawlinson and Sir John Gardiner Wilkinson), 1858-60. He mentions in here [14] "The Indo-European colonization went westward from Armenia to Phrygia, and from Phrygia to Europe", when he was making note on Herodotus's statement about Armenians. This was the view of the ethnologists in the 19th century, as you see when he makes further mention of it in his notes. Also, he mentions that, "the Armenians are the most ancient of the Arian peoples". The ethnologists of his time inverted the theory of Herodotus, the Phrygians seperated from the Armenians from Armenia, and not the other way around. 99.163.220.91 (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

In the 19th century and before that time, "Arian race" was another way of saying Indo-Europeans (Aryans). He mentions in here [15] "The Indo-European colonization went westward from Armenia to Phrygia, and from Phrygia to Europe", when he was making note on Herodotus's statement about Armenians. The Indo-European homeland is located in Anatolia (Armenian Highlands). 85.74.194.92, you didnt understand my points here I made above you in my message? Armenians are "native" to the Armenian Highlands, the land of Ararat. Mitanni was Armeno-Aryan. 99.163.220.91 (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

There are recent falsifiers distorting Armenian history because of their own views of Herodotus's statements, which they say Armenians are "not" native in the Armenian Highlands. This goes to show you after the Armenian Genocide, all these distortions took place, to give Turkey a strong foothold in Armenian historic lands etc etc...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6VrO2WBx4A&feature=related 99.163.220.91 (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

you are aware, I hope that this is the article on the Mitanni. Your comments seem to relate to the topics treated at Armenian hypothesis, Armenian history, Aryan race and scientific racism. If you have anything to add to those articles, kindly use the proper talkpage. --dab (𒁳) 06:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Read more carefully of my previous few comments, and you will see just how much it is related to Mitanni's Armeno-Aryan identity. 99.163.222.40 (talk) 07:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

it turns out that 99.163.222.40 is just another Ararat arev sock. Considering the history of this article, we were naive to assume anything else. It appears all of Aa's habitual haunts will need semiprotection for the next few weeks, this is one of the most tenacious Wikipedia trolls I have seen so far. --dab (𒁳) 08:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to correct myself, "Armeno-Aryan" is in fact a term: it is a term of the "Armenian Aryan Union", an ultra-nationalist party in Armenia which thinks that there are "50,000 disguised Jews in Armenia", and which tries to purge Aryan Armenia of these by vandalising holocaust memorials. The rallying calls of the "Armenian Aryan Union" goes: Armenian Highland the Homeland of Armenians, Cradle of Aryan Civilization. Aryans all over the world, liberate it, liberate yourself.[16]

This should be enough to make clear to anyone recently joining this where [http://armenianhighland.com our anon] is coming from, and how much any of this has got to do with a bona fide discussion of the Late Bronze Age kingdom of Mitanni. --dab (𒁳) 08:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

edit warring

So, there is once again a full-blown edit-war in progress. Let's see how the negotiations on talk are going. Oh, I see the last post is by myself, dating to more than a year ago. One would not think that Wikipedia has, like, rules and guidelines. Such as WP:BRD. --dab (𒁳) 22:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What else is there to say? I gave all the RS's, you can read in User:Aregakn's talk page. By the way, it use to not be there but now, if you search "Mitanni" in google.com and the images.google.com, you see Armenian pages and related searches showing up. That was not there before in Mitanni google searches.[17] These are WP:RS we are providing here, and there will be more to come as soon as we do further searches, this is not nationalism, and it has nothing to do with the above Union that you mentioned in March 2009. That is a linguistic term, you have been through this so many times, yhou already know. Forsts23 (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your 'if you search "Mitanni" in google.com and the images.google.com, you see Armenian pages and related searches showing up' does about sum up the quality of your research, sir. Enough said. --dab (𒁳) 08:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

look, it is very easy: you want to introduce a new section "Ancestors of Armenians" into a long-standing well-developed article, you got to seek WP:CONSENSUS first. I don't see you even trying. As long as you don't do that, I will just revert to the stable version. --dab (𒁳) 21:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Related Armeno-Aryan language, It's not a separately Armeno and Iran it is Armeno-Aryan or as widely known Graeco-Aryan. The statement that if its Indo-Iranian than it is also Armeno-Aryan is partly correct, but, it's written by scholars as Indo-Iranian just because the separation was already happen. This why Indo-Iranian can not be back graded to Graeco-Aryan. If you do so than someone can raplace every Indo-Iranian with Indo-European. For example: AB is ancestral to A and B and if there is something indicated as B you can not replace it with AB because descendant A is no more related to the descendant B. Because something happened with B may not be happened with A, this way they write it as B not AB. (This why scholars wrote it as B not AB, they knew it much better that B is descendant from AB)

Related Aram-Naharin and Aram-Naharaim, these two are the same things. See W Max Müller,"Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen denkmälern mit einem vorwort" p. 249, Kiepert, "Lehrbuch der Alten Geographie," p. 154, Meyer "Gesch. Ægyptens," p. 227. the little difference comes out from languages, Egyptian or other..

Related, Arams correspondence to Aram-Naharim, there is no information proving this. "The association of Mitanni with Urartu (Ararat), and of Urartu (Ararat) with Armenia" is a known issue in linguistic history. I dont know its english name. For example medieval Russians called everyone from west Nemec's, from Nemoy = speechless (Currently Nemec is used for German only). Because they didnt understand them all. That way Swedish, German, Teuton doesnt matter any foreigner was called Nemec. So if you take a sight on Russian history without understanding this you will be quite confused. Here is the same problem, ancient historians were calling any foreigner from that region same. Also naming Abraham as historical character is not so accurate. He is biblical and we are not sure on when was living or existed he at all. Hammurabi is believed to be the most close character to him, and Hammurabi lived 500-600 yrs before Mitanni state founded. Nakh 12:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You did not do your research as I predicted. I provided the [18] sources of the linguistic tree right here. It is the same as the Handbook [19] right here in this link. If you look and take time to find out, Greek splits early, and Armeno-Aryan (ancestors of Indo-Iranians and Armenians) remains toghether, with exclusion of Greek. This is in fact the very reason the scholars/linguists [20], [21] pg. 475 (The modern Armenian language may, however, rather be of Iranian origin and a relic of the Mitannian-Kassite invasions) [22] sources I provided have an Armeno-Aryan subgroup together with exclusion of Greek. In fact, the research of the Mitanni names and language, is where the Armeno-Aryan subgroup is with exclusion of Greek. Forsts23 (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The Biblical info at the bottom is supported by thousands of articles in Wikipedia, from the quotes of (or related info to) the Bible. So, that means every quote or info related to the Bible has to be removed from Wikipedia articles and pages? No. Same goes with Aram, there is no further proof needed, and there are the sources, like Moses of Khorene regarding Aram, and from his name, is where we most likely get Armenia's name itself. Forsts23 (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to take a step back and take your time to read WP:RS. You aren't even making any sense, what does Aram or Moses of Chorene, or even the Bible for that matter, have to do with the Mitanni? This is an article about the Bronze Age. --dab (𒁳) 19:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case, than what do all the other sources (specially the sources of Indo-Aryan only from the past 2 century's claim) you and others provided, that are from the last century mainly, have to do with the article that is from the Bronze Age? Hmm? As I mentioned from the sources I provided, [23], [24] pg. 475 (The modern Armenian language may, however, rather be of Iranian origin and a relic of the Mitannian-Kassite invasions) [25] are of Armeno-Aryan origin[26] (see Indo-European tree showing Armeno-Aryan linguist term with "exclusion of Greek"), the very reason that term is there from researching Mitanni names and language records, that were found in the 19th century. See above for the WP:RS I provided here and approved by you, like the Handbook of Formal Languages and Indo-European tree with same terms I added. Forsts23 (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't make head nor tail of your arguments. Armeno-Aryan is a - rather marginal - linguistic term. If we are to label the Indo-European elements in Mitanni texts we need the most precise term. There is simply no rationale for saying Armeno-Aryan when Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryan are more precise and useful categories. Paul B (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you look thoroughly at my sources that I provided here or? Armeno-Aryan or Indo-Iranian (Armenians and Indo-Iranians) is more correct than Indo-Aryan, since I mentioned that other sources, even on the Mitanni page mention certain names of the kings are not Indo-Aryan. Forsts23 (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes,I know there are arguments to prefer the category Indo-Iranian to Indo-Aryan, but that's an argument for Indo-Iranian, not "Armeno-Aryan", isn't it? Paul B (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again I'm asking you, did you look at the sources? I even quoted a little of one of them here, so you get a glimpse of what it says. Forsts23 (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I'm asking you to understand what role the category Armeno-Aryan performs. As for your sources, most of your links don't actually go anywhere, so it's not at all clear what sources you are trying use to support your claims for the use of a particular linguistic category. Paul B (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. Even if the sources dont specifically say "Mitanni is Armeno-Aryan", it does not mean that the sources I provided, are not related to Armenians, or Armenian ancestors. As far as the bottom section, "Ancestors of Armenians", I would like to use that title there, but User:Dbachmann recently edited here [27] with "In classical historiography". Forsts23 (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't have any problem with a section on claims that the Mitanni are ancestors to Armenians if there is some evidence that this link plays some significant role in Armenian historiography, but the current section is a bit of a mess. The linguistic evidence would seem to contradict the claim, and the rest seems to derive from a medieval historian, who could have had next to no reliable information about pre-classical ancient history. Paul B (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The classical and medieval historians knew of other sources related to the Armenian patriarch Aram. This is why they mention the "Armenians" who invaded Syria, corresponding to the Mitanni, at that time of the Armenian patriarch Aram. So, it is only after the Mitanni, that the name Aram becomes more widely used by the Semetics, for that region of Syria. Forsts23 (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ancient and medieval historians typically invent patriarchs for ethnic groups (like Brutus of Britain, patriarch of the Britons). We can't rely on these mytho-histories as evidence for real events in the Bronze age. If you have real historical and archaeolgical evidence regarding the use of the name "Aram" in the Bronze age and its relation to Armenians, that's fine, but I don't see any. I assume it derives from Aram, son of Shem the supposed ancestor of the Arameans. That's how medieval writers constructed historical narratives. They took Biblical genealogies and merged them with ethno-national traditions. The very linguistic models you quote imply that the ancestor of the Armenian language split off before the formation of Indo-Iranian, so if the Mitanni elite were Indo-Iranians, they can't have been proto-Armenians, at least not linguistically. Paul B (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The linguistic models are not the only sources I put here. Did you also check the [28], [29] pg. 475, [30] sources above too? Those are the ones that mention Armenians, or Armenian ancestors, are from (or linked to) Mitanni with (Indo)-Iranian origin. This is where we could see the Mitanni being Armeno-Aryan. Forsts23 (talk) 02:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Click on your own links. They don't go to anything other than titles of books - books that were published between 1906 and 1913. I'm sure that you are trying to link to actual pages, but I can't access them, so I've no idea what these authors say. In any case you are relying on hopelessly outdated scholarship. Why you and others want to believe that the Mitanni are ancestors of the Armenians is a complete mystery to me, but I see nothing more than vague and obsolete speculation. Paul B (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be referring to passages which quote Flinders Petrie, who seems to have claimed that Mitanni were in some sense "Armenian" ("It has been supposed by Prof. Petrie that Queen Tii, the mother of Akhunaten, was of Mitannian (Armenian) origin, and that she brought the Aten religion to Egypt from her native land, and taught it to her son."). Fine, explain Petrie's views and place them in historical context and point out their relation to modern scholarship. Do not conflate 100 year old speculation with medieval genealogies and a modern model of the IE family tree that is wholly inconsistent with them both. Paul B (talk) 09:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The term "Armenian Highlands

I've encountered this term in a number of loosely Armenia-related articles as well as totally unrelated ones like this as both a cultural and geographic term with no specific definition. While even its use in a relatively modern historical context to refer to Armenian inhabited regions of Anatolia beggars belief by assuming hegemony over them, it's the anachronistic applications such as this and the Urartu article that are most outrageous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZanLJackson (talk • contribs) 09:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Eupolemus reference

I see that User:Forst23 just referenced the Eupolemus bit to an 1968 Armenian book. This is very curious news to me that this book would mention it at all, and I could not find it in there. I was the editor responsible for first adding that info five years ago, in 2005, when I was younger and a rookie 'pedian. Wikipedia was a very different place five years ago; that was a bit before the Siegenthaler incident exploded and brought about some big changes in policy. In short, WP:SYNTH and OR were much more widely tolerated in those days compared to now, because it was literally everywhere. I would not add the reference to Eupolemus to this article today, because it is technically, borderline SYNTH - nobody had ever actually connected this quote directly with the subject "Mitanni" before in print, AFAIK. Surprisingly, it seems to have endured all this time under some sort of grandfather clause, but I wonder if I should feel guilty or pleased with myself, because judging from Google, my addition has taken on a life of its own, even appearing in 2008 editions of Webster's Quotations. If people really like it that much, I guess it should stay, but we can't cite it to Webster's 2008, because that would be circular reference. And I doubt we can really cite it to the 1968 book if it isn't in there. So maybe it's time to remove this part. It's already been copied into the Armeno-pedia and the Hurrian-pedia and everything else like that, so it's not like it will be lost for all time. But maybe we should wait for someone who can actually be referenced (beyond merely quoting WP) to publish research on this, before we put it on here again. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You might to read Philip M. Parker. What I'd like to know is if he's using the appropriate attributions to our articles. Dougweller (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

He is. [31]. Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The "Webster's Quotations" are trash, just a dump of Wikipedia text, full of nonsense. I am not sure what they are for other than contaminating google books searches.... I find the Eupolemus reference interesting, but I agree it is WP:SYNTH, especially as it now stands as the sole item in a h2 section. I am a little sorry to see it go, but if we're honest we need to agree that claims of Bronze Age refrences in Hellenistic historiography qualify as WP:REDFLAG and need solid attribution. --dab (𒁳) 09:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User Forst23, let me try to make the problem clearer. Your version cites this connection to a 1968 book by an Armenian scholar. If it really appeared in that book somewhere, I would have no problem with that as a reference. But I looked through the 1968 book, and found no mention of "Eupolemus" in it anywhere. Can you please paste the actual reference excerpt here, in case we missed it? Otherwise, it ought to go as OR, at least until some scholar has addressed this connection - since the only book reference connecting it with "Mitanni" we could find, is basically just a wikipedia mirror. Thanks. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on his editing pattern, I assume Forst23 is just trolling. It seems he is trying to make it appear that Doug's comment somehow addresses the problem raised by Til/Codex, while in fact Doug was just verifying that Parker is properly citing Wikipedia for the content he took from Wikipedia. How does the fact that Parker acknowledges the fact that the Eupolemus thing was taken by him from this article concern the problem that the passage is original research? That's right, not at all. Kurkjian's book is quotable, I suppose, although it is hardly a quality reference. We would need much better evidence to keep the section in place. But as it stands, the reference to Kurkjian is apparently phony anyway, and we don't even have a direct citation of the alleged passage in Eupolemus' primary text. --dab (𒁳) 16:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Just noting here: the new citation given isn't from a peer reviewed reliable source, it's from some guy's private website. Moreover, it doesn't even make the connection present in the article, that Eupolemus's reference to an Armenian invasion might mean Mitanni, so even if it were a reliable source, it doesn't establish relevance to this article. Thanatosimii (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Spurious references

There are three spurious references here that Forsts23 keeps restoring without justifying their inclusion.

• Eusebius, writing in the early 4th century, quoted fragments of Eupolemus, a now-lost Jewish historian of the 2nd century BC, as saying that "around the time of Abraham, the Armenians invaded the Syrians". This may correspond approximately to the arrival of the Mitanni, since Abraham is traditionally assumed at around the 17th century BC.

The reference in question does not say This may correspond approximately to the arrival of the Mitanni, since Abraham is traditionally assumed at around the 17th century BC or make even the slightest connection between the two, meaning this is in violation of SYNTH, and moreover, that's a self-published website that doesn't qualify as a Reliable Source to begin with.

• Under "sources" is E.P. Uphill, “A Bibliography of Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie (1853–1942)," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 1972 Vol. 31: 356–379; Prof. Petrie (19th century Egyptologist) "Mitannian (Armenian) origins"

This source is not referenced in the article, and moreover, does not contain a single reference to Mitanni.

• Under "external links" is Prof. Petrie (19th century Egyptologist) "Mitannian (Armenian) origins"

The source in question also isn't referenced in the article, nor would it qualify as current, since it was published in 1906. It seems Forsts23 is trying to include it merely because it juxtaposes "Mitannian" and "Armenian." You can find a lot of spurious juxtapositions like that in works written before the advent of modern Hurrian studies.

If these can't be justified, they have to go, and stay gone. Thanatosimii (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Petrie External Link

I dont see any reason to remove Petrie from external link. If others also agree, which already User:Paul_Barlow and User: Til agree to have Petrie in external link, than it is fine. Petrie counts as a WP:RS, there is no problem with the external link. I will agree with you on Eupolemus, and since you came here and removed following the comments about that, I agree with you on those. Forsts23 (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

One, the parenthetical (Armenian) is most likely not Petrie's own statement, but a gloss insterted by Hall. Two, we have no way of knowing what is meant by that gloss without context that hasn't been provided. Ethnicity? Geography? Language? Material Culture? A passing juxtaposition of words is rarely clear enough to act as a valid cite. Three, it's an obsolete reference that wasn't made with the benefit of any of the 20th century studies. However much authority they had in their day, their statements cannot be accepted as items of faith, any more than we can take Plato and Aristotle at their words about this whole geocentrism idea of theirs. Four, it has no connection to the prose of the article. Thanatosimii (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no agreement. How does that meet the criteria at WP:EL? Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Forsts23, was pointing out that User:Paul_Barlow saw the external link (above comments in Talk:Mitanni), and agreed that we can keep this one. Also, Forsts mentioned that your purpose in the beginning of the removal was the Eupolemus quote, which was what the discussion was about. Later on when he was reverting you, than you decided to remove the external link, which you didnt at first, only response was regarding the Eupolemus quote. Aryamahasattva (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Let users speak for themselves. I've put forward four reasons for the link to go. Address them clearly; don't just declare "User X agrees with me." Thanatosimii (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

So we have a link with a gloss that says Mitanni Armenian origins even though nothing on the link mentions that? I still don't see where Paul has said this link is ok. Even if he does, it makes no sense. Dougweller (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The link takes me to page 384 of the work, where the statement in question is at the beginning of the third paragraph. It sounds like it's not taking you to the same place for some reason. Paul Barlow had made the comment that this *might* be relevant in a discussion of historical understanding of Mitanni in a late 19th century context. As an external link at the end of an article, it's certainly not appropriate. Thanatosimii (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Google books overview being used as a link. Dougweller (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph clearly states "no proof whatever". Speculation doesn't belong, esp. when it's not used as an inline-ref. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I already explained about this, Eupolemus quote was the "issue", when user Thanatosimii came to remove the quote, he did not remove the EL of Petrie. This was done because of reverting back, and he goes and removes the other, which was not removed by him at first. I dont see any problem with the external link. Petrie and Henry Hall are RS's, there is no good reason to remove this. I repeat again, the removal was for Eupolemus which was the discussion, not this. Here is Paul_Barlow's quote:

You seem to be referring to passages which quote Flinders Petrie, who seems to have claimed that Mitanni were in some sense "Armenian" ("It has been supposed by Prof. Petrie that Queen Tii, the mother of Akhunaten, was of Mitannian (Armenian) origin, and that she brought the Aten religion to Egypt from her native land, and taught it to her son."). Fine, explain Petrie's views and place them in historical context and point out their relation to modern scholarship. June 14,2010

Forsts23 (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Yes, I removed a number of links and pieces of text, for several reasons which I laid out in the edit summaries, which you haven't given a coherent answer to. The problem in this particular case is not that the link is not a reliable source (even though they're getting to that age where they're obsolete), it's that the link has no especial relevance to the article or anything in the article. Thanatosimii (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No relevance to the article? Why dont you use Paul's comments to see the relevance if you dont understand what I'm saying here. Mitanni (or Mitannian) is the very relevance to the article which is what is mentioned in the EL of Petrie (and Henry Hall). Forsts23 (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

If you believe you can find am exposition by Petrie of some theory of his that the Mitannians are ethnically or culturally or linguistically Armenian, you're free to include it provided you also explain the relationship of his views to modern scholarship. If you are under the impression that anyone has ever told you that you may add a random link without context to the bottom of the page, I'd advise you to read what was said more closely. Also, WP:ELNO, especially 1 and 13. Thanatosimii (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

And how many times do I need to say that the link does NOT mention Mitanni, Armenian, or origins? Have you even tried to click on it once you've added it, Forest23? Not only that, but you are trying to actually use it as a source, not an external link. Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

(Note: User is now topic-banned for 4 months and won't be able to answer Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC))

He was warned in June, why he decided to edit-war here I can't understand. Dougweller (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Doug, I don't understand why you're not seeing what I'm seeing when I click on the link. Clicking on it takes me straight to page 384, where the text in question includes the gloss in the beginning of the third paragraph. I'm entirely agreed that the link is inappropriate given Wikipedia policies, but the material Forsts says is there is actually there. Thanatosimii (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That's odd. I'm using Chrome, I've tried IE - it actually takes you to the full page? Dougweller (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm using firefox and it takes me straight there. Thanatosimii (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't work either. I'm in the UK, maybe Google blocks some stuff in some countries, which is another issue. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is the link inappropriate? We have here H. Hübschmann in an 1874 publication. Karl Brugmann, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen (1897) Das Armenische (II), früher fälschlicherweise für iranisch ausgegeben, von H. Hübschmann KZ. 23, 5 ff. 400 ff. als ein selbständiges Glied der idg. Sprachfamilie erwiesen

This is in Wikipedia linguistic pages, and excepted and put by an admin as a RS. The linguist Hübschmann is from the 19th century, and still excepted as scholarship. The same linguistics based on Armenian and related Iranian languages. The comments made by Petrie and Henry Hall were worked together with Hübschmann. They were not unrelated to the topic of Mitanni. The modern linguistic studies still use Hübschmann's work and have not been changed related to Mitanni language, which is what Petrie and Henry Hall commented about in the EL. Aryamahasattva (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

External links are not meant to be used as sources. This is being used as a source. You are confused by the role of Administrators, but if you want to quote one, who is he? By the way, you mean "accepted", not "excepted", an easy mistake to make. I have no idea what "This is in Wikipedia linguistic pages" means. Dougweller (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

HOLD ON, what in the world is it doing as a source for "The kingdom of Mitanni was a feudal state led by a warrior nobility of Indo-Aryan origin" the same link with the same gloss about origins? I hadn't noticed that. I see Paul Barlow wrote "You seem to be referring to passages which quote Flinders Petrie, who seems to have claimed that Mitanni were in some sense "Armenian" ("It has been supposed by Prof. Petrie that Queen Tii, the mother of Akhunaten, was of Mitannian (Armenian) origin, and that she brought the Aten religion to Egypt from her native land, and taught it to her son."). Fine, explain Petrie's views and place them in historical context and point out their relation to modern scholarship. Do not conflate 100 year old speculation with medieval genealogies and a modern model of the IE family tree that is wholly inconsistent with them both." (and also had the same problem I'm having). So do that, explain his views, put them into historical context..

Cleanup

I don't think anyone's taken the time in quite a while to read through this entire article for quality and style. As I was doing so today, I noticed that it's really a lot worse than I remember it being. It looks like relics of past edit wars have been accruing to the point that some bits would be impenetrable to anyone without preexisting understanding of the subject matter. Moreover, even stuff AA added before he was banned is still around, without being noticed in three years. So, I began a bit of a cleanup, starting with the lead. It's my understanding that the lead should restrict itself to summarizing material in the rest of the article, and really shouldn't have inline citations itself, but should rather summarize material in the body which is appropriately sourced. Thanatosimii (talk) 03:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Petrie link used as a source

Which is what Paul Barlow was talking about. I've raised this at WP:RSN#Possible misuse of source. Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no block of this in the UK. User:Paul_Barlow himself that commented about the source [32] (here is the page number and highlighted, I fixed the previous link Doug provided), lives in the UK also. It must be something wrong with your system Dougweller I dont know. Also, if you notice in the Mitanni page, the seal [33] has been there since 2006, mentioning of Armenian-Mitanni and the source is from 'Genesis of Armenian People'. Also, excuse my grammer, but my point about the other 19th century scholars used as sources was by admin Dbachmann, mentioned in the Proto-Armenian language page as an RS. The comments Paul made were incorrect regarding the Petrie source with 'modern' linguistic studies. The works of those 19th century linguists which I mentioned here, are still used in the modern linguistics, and have not changed. The same sources and linguists are what Petrie and Henry Hall commented in the EL source I provided. Aryamahasattva (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Armenian language and Indo-Iranian (Indo-Aryan included), are grouped together as Armeno-Aryan, this is a scholarly view which Dbachmann and Paul Barlow added the additions of this in Indo-European related pages in Wikipedia recently. There are the IE tree's and other IE charts/graphs that show the Armeno-Aryan subgrouping, which later Armenian and Indo-Iranian branch out to their seperate branches. Armeno-Aryan is the ancestor of both Armenian and Indo-Iranian (Indo-Aryan included). The Armenian language would also be included under the label Aryano-Greco-Armenic, splitting into proto-Greek/Phrygian and "Armeno-Aryan" (ancestor of Armenian and Indo-Iranian) Handbook of Formal Languages (1997) p. 6.Indo-European tree with Armeno-Aryan, exclusion of Greek [34] In addition to this, the Mitanni pages in google mostly mention Indo-Iranian which is more near to Armeno-Aryan, than the later branched out Indo-Aryan group. The Petrie source I provided and the Mitanni seal I showed which says Armenian-Mitanni with the Genesis of Armenian People source back up what I'm saying about the 19th century linguists like Hubishmann, still used in the modern linguistics, such as the IE tree I provided here with the Armeno-Aryan grouping, which is based on the Mitanni IE names and language. Aryamahasattva (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see no page number displayed, just a book cover. Please provide the page number so i can verify.Slatersteven (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Slatersteven, the page number is 384. As I mentioned above another User:Paul_Barlow like Dougweller lives in the UK, and he was able to view it. Aryamahasattva (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:EL is WP:EL and it's not going to change because you want it to. That book has no broad relevance to Mitanni such as is necessary to satisfy WP:EL. Let's be honest: the only reason it's being fought for is because it glosses Mitanni with Armenia, and you want the reader to come away from this page believing those two terms are interchangeable, despite the fact that such an identification has been rejected here as WP:FRINGE since User:Ararat_arev started advocating that position over three years ago. The long and the short of it is that no one here is going to allow the inclusion of an obsolete theory in any context that could mislead the reader into believing such a theory has merit in modern academia. Thanatosimii (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

"It has been supposed by Prof. Petrie that Queen Tii, the mother of Akhunaten, was of Mitannian (Armenian) origin, and that she brought the Aten religion to Egypt from her native land, and taught it to her son. Certainly it seems as though the new doctrine had made some headway before the death of Amenhetep III, but we have no reason to attribute it to Tii, or to suppose that she brought it with her from abroad. There is no proof whatever that she was not a native Egyptian, and the mummies of her parents, Iuaa and Tuaa, are purely Egyptian in facial type. It seems undoubted that the Aten cult was a development of pure Egyptian religious thought." This is the only passage in the book that mentions the Mittani, I can find no rerferance to any Aryan connection. Is ther an explanation of this apparetn discerpancy (are there in fact two books with this title?)Slatersteven (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That Paul could see it before doesn't mean he can see it now. Other editors are having problems, see WP:Help desk#What do editors in the Uk and the US see when they click on this link?. Dougweller (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note that if a source does not expcliitly say something we cannot say it does. Also as I have now provided the only passage in one of the sources that referances the Mittani and it clealy does not support the text any re-insertion woudl be knowingly forcifying sources. them language tree source does not say they were nobles.22:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

Dougweller, where can we put the Petrie source so its in the historical context? I need your help on what you and also Paul was mentioning about the historical contexts. Also Slatersteven you wrote: I susgest you provide the passage you are using or stop fallisifying sources <-- What do you mean exactly by this? Meaning the quote that you saw about Mitannian (Armenian) origin, we place the passage somewhere and with the source is the correct way to put it? Aryamahasattva (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The source is talking about Petrie's views on the parentqage of Ankenaten, It makes no mention of Indo-iranians or indo-europeans. If you continue to claim it does then you are claiming a sources says something it does not. So I would susgest that you provide the paragraph from the source that supports the claim that Petrei claims an Indo-iranian origion for the Mittani nobility (or that he even just mentions the mittani nobility).Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Editor blocked as sock of Ararat arev

Note that Forsts23 first got a 4 month topic ban, then editing through an IP a 24 hour block for breaking the ban, and now is blocked indefinitely as a sock of Ararat arev. As this is one of the articles he concentrates on, it might be useful to see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Ararat arev.Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Petrie source in Historical Context

I wrote to you (User:Dougweller) regarding what you quoted/suggested from User:Paul_Barlow:

("It has been supposed by Prof. Petrie that Queen Tii, the mother of Akhunaten, was of Mitannian (Armenian) origin, and that she brought the Aten religion to Egypt from her native land, and taught it to her son."). Fine, explain Petrie's views and place them in historical context and point out their relation to modern scholarship. Do not conflate 100 year old speculation with medieval genealogies and a modern model of the IE family tree that is wholly inconsistent with them both." (and also had the same problem I'm having). So do that, explain his views, put them into historical context..

Do you mean something like this quote:

It has been suggested by Prof. Petrie and Henry Hall, that Mitanni was of Armenian origin<-Petrie ref here [35] p. 384->. And in which part of the page of Mitanni can we add this? Aryamahasattva (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That would certainly not be acceptable, inasmuch as the reference in question does not suggest that W.M.F. Petrie at any time suggested that Mitanni was of Armenian origin. Your source does not say what you believe it says. You cannot draw the kind of conclusions you wish to draw from a gloss, and a gloss that Petrie himself didn't even write. Thanatosimii (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I didnt say it would be acceptable, that's why I wrote here to Dougweller, what he suggests, and how can we put what he mentioned regarding Petrie in historical context. Both Paul_Barlow and Dougweller mentioned putting Petrie in historical context and its relation to modern scholarship. So I'm waiting for their reply on this. Aryamahasattva (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You will never be able to integrate anything from that source. In order to put their views in context you need an actual exposition of their views. That source isn't one. Thanatosimii (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I dont quite understand you, so can you please wait until they respond. My message was to Dougweller and Paul. I understand your views on this. Its also pointed out above by Henry Hall here [36] p. 475, ...Armenian language, is of Iranian origins, and a relic of the Mitannian-Kassite invasions. This is another source mentioned by Henry Hall. So, I waiting for Dougweller's and Paul's reply on how to correctly put in the page of Mitanni, what format, etc etc. Historical context etc. Aryamahasattva (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting that as well. Hall is arguing that if Armenian is Iranian in origin, it would have come in during the Mitannian-Kassite invasion period, when Indo-Aryan languages spread west. That doesn't mean Hall is arguing that the Armenians are Mitannians, only that Armenian may belong to the Iranian branch of Indo-European, instead of the Greek Branch. That would be irrelevant to any page on Mitanni. Thanatosimii (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid you are wrong again. If you read the above comments by Til_Eusispegiel, (take the time to "read" others comments too actually instead of just using your opinions all the time) , he is the one that I found that pointed out the Henry Hall source, and that the names are of Armeno-Aryan origin, and this is the ancestor of Indo-Iranian and Armenian. Since you are not an expert on this field of study, I suggest you continue with your Ancient Near East/Ancient Egypt edits and studies, and leave this one up to other who are familiar like Paul_Barlow and Til_Euselspiegel. Since I assume you are lazy to read others comments I will be glad to post it here now:

As I research more, it appears that after the Indo-Aryan character of some Mitanni names became known in the late 19th century, several scholars wrote on this, and it is still considered by linguists as evidence for an Armeno-Aryan proto-group. Henry Hall (Egyptologist) was one of of several to suggest this, see Ancient History of the Near East from the earliest Times to the Battle of Salamis p. 475 [37]- was he an Armenian crackpot, or a Soviet? User:Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

And another note I like to make on your comments, Dougweller and Paul_Barlow were referring to the sentence that has Mitannian (Armenian) orign.., in the Petrie and Henry Hall source, so before you jump into there place, I suggest you be patient and wait for their replies also, instead of replying to every single comment that I make in their place, which the message was directed to them. I was giving the example of how the sentence should be, I didnt say that I will "accept", or that you "accept", that example of the sentence that we want to use in the historical context. Aryamahasattva (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

An Armeno-Aryan language family would be an undifferentiated ancestor of Armenian and the Indo-Aryan language family. If the Mitannian language comes from an Armeno-Aryan language family, that doesn't make it Armenian any more than English would be Indic because it comes from an Indo-European language family. Thanatosimii (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

From the way you just responded, it further shows you are not an expert on the subject matter. And I doubt you read others comments and the sources more thoroughly. Aryamahasattva (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's likely to take me a couple of days to respond. Personal comments about others however are a terrible idea, and we don't require people to be experts on a subject to edit it. Dougweller (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see the passage from the book that says Peterie said that "that Mitanni was of Armenian origin". I would add why are we indulging this? Policy states that sources can only be used to support text they direclty and excliitly support, this source does not (and never has, and never will) support the susgested text.Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologise that I have not been able to participate in this debate, especially since some comments of mine have been quoted. If we can get a clear sense of what Petrie's views were, they might be useful in a section on historical theories on the Mitanni. That would require a lot of work and would still be fairly marginal to the article. What we don't want is a trawl through literature to find any writer who makes some sort of connection between the magic words 'Armenian' and 'Mitanni' without any sense of what specific writers understood of any such connection. It is far from clear what King and Hall meant when they said that Petrie supposed that Tiye was of "Mitannian (Armenian)" origin. Maybe they meant something similar to "Gaulish (French)" - just giving a modern location to orient the reader to the ancient one. Without further information it's speculation. Paul B (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge from

I think List of Rulers of Mitanni should be merged into this section. –BruTe ^Talk 16:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

May 2012

King Inder has been accused of destroying the Indus Valley Civilisation.If king Inder destroyed the IVC then his worship must have originated in India.If king Inder,s worship originated in India then the Mittanis and Hittites must have come from India.There is story about a king called Bhoj.King Bhoj was a Yadu king.He had a great naval fleet.King Bhoj had attacked middle east with his great Indian Armada through the Persian Gulf.Chanakia has mentioned about king Bhoj in his Artha Shastra.The presence of Aryas in middle east might be from king Bhoja,s period.

The Indo-European language is not a natural language.It is man-made.some Indo-European linguist or linguists got together and made up this language.I have read T.Burrow,s "SANSKRIT".It is a comparative study of Indo-European languages.In the IE languages, the names of family relations all end in ter.Mater,pitar,brater,svaster,puhitar,duhitar etc.There might have been changes in spellings and sounds due to different dialects.The basic structure is same.Whichever country,place or region this language originated in, it spread in it,s man-made form.There is no such thing as Proto Indo-European,Indo-Iranian and Irano-Indian.The language must have spread in it,s original man-made form.There is no such thing as archaic IE.The Archaicness is due to different accents and dialects.In my opinion the IE might have originated in India and through the middle east it spread to Europe.It might have been spread by the army of the great king Bhoja.Rajbaz (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

As the message at the top of this page says, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mitanni article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."

Not only that, but this talk page is also definitely NOT the place to be premiering new ideas, research and theories from wikipedian editors, that have never appeared elsewhere in print. This is established from policies and guidelines such as WP:NOR, WP:SOAP, WP:TALK etc. If you know of a published source or reference that pertains to the article topic, that you would like to talk about here, with a view toward possibly incorporating new info or scholarly viewpoints into the article, feel free to bring that up here. There is unfortunately little that can be done with what you have presented above, although it would be quite proper to delete it from this page, especially if it continues unabated here while ignoring the above-mentioned policies. Regards, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Stop to falsification

hurrian-Uratian languages are non isolates. Hurrian-urartian langiages are so called Alarodian languages (Nach-Daghestanian)/ See in Encyclopaedia Britannica, see to works of Starostin S.A. and Diakonof I.M. About "isolated language" link an very old work - 1962 !!!^ É. "Drioton and J. Vandier, L'Égypte4th ed. (Paris) 1962:396f. See:Encyclopaedia Britannica 2007-2010 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD "According to scholars Igor M.Diakonov and Sergei A.Starostin, the Eastern Caucasian languages are an offshoot of the Hurrian-Urartian group"--81.163.48.28 (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's see. "Diakonolf and Starostin, in the most thor- ough attempt at finding a linkage yet published, have argued that I lurro-Urartian is a branch of the eastern Caucasian family. This would make it a distant relative of such modern languages as Chechen, Avar, Lak, and Udi (Diakonotf and Starostin 1986). The etymologies, sound correspondences, and comparative morphologies these authors present are quite tentative and viewed with skepticism by many (e.g., Smects 1989). In any case, a reconstructed parent language dating to the early third millennium b.c.e. at the earliest would do nothing to define the Urartian homeland more precisely." That's page 556 from The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10,000-323 Bce), published last year.[38]. Dougweller (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2017

83.249.231.2 (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The name Washukanni is similar to the Kurdish word 'bashkani', 'bash' meaning good and 'kanî' meaning well or source, and so is translated as 'source of good' but also as 'source of wealth'. Some scholars have claimed that the ancient city of Sikan was built on the site of Washukanni, and that its ruins may be located under the mound of Tell el Fakhariya near Gozan in Syria

The name Washukanni is similar to the Kurdish word 'bashkani', 'bash' meaning good and 'kanî' meaning well or source, and so is translated as 'source of good' but also as 'source of wealth'. Some scholars have claimed that the ancient city of Sikan was built on the site of Washukanni, and that its ruins may be located under the mound of Tell el Fakhariya near Gozan in Syria

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 01:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

On the "Indo-Aryan superstrate"

Hi everyone! I've been doing some research on Mitanni and the late Bronze Age, and as far as I can tell, newer scholarship seems to be questioning the consensus on an ethnically distinct ruling class more and more. There are certainly many modern works that mention (usually offhandedly, in works about other subjects) the supposed Indo-Aryan ruling class (e.g. Anthony 2007), but these usually cite outdated texts presenting an outdated consensus as objective fact.

I'm not an expert on the historiographical aspect, but this has been challenged since 1989 at least (H.W.F. Saggs mentions a Russian historian, but not by name, and I haven't found out whom he refers to), and the 2014 compilation "Constituent, Confederate, and Conquered Space" (ed. Cancik-Kirschbaum et al.) presents a consensus that the ruling class "probably spoke Hurrian" (2). In the same volume, Eva von Dassow (Univ. of Minnesota) writes: "Mittani was not the creation of an Aryan population... A tiny quantity of Indo-Aryan vocabulary and proper nouns became incorporated into the Hurrian language... Apparently no one in Mittani spoke the Indo-Aryan source language... there is no Indo-Aryan grammatical interference therein, and no other extant evidence indicates that the donor language had ever been the living cultural property of any part of the kingdom's population. The scant Indo-Aryan linguistic material does not attest the presence, much less the dominance, of an Indo-Aryan-speaking population. Instead, the kingdom's identity was 'Hurrian', as attested by numerous references to the king of Mittani as 'king of Hurri(-land)' or 'king of the Hurrian troops' (not 'king of the Aryan troops' or the like). While the practice of bestowing throne names of Indo-Aryan derivation on most of Mittani's kings suggests significant contact with an Indo-Aryan-speaking population, it does not indicate that the royal dynasty (much less the ruling class) was of Aryan 'blood'— whatever that might mean." (12-13)

With regard to the chariots, von Dassow continues: "the evidence does not suggest that it [i.e. chariot warfare] originated among the polities or peoples antecedent to Mittani... Hence, no special role can be attributed to the social class associated with chariotry... The formation of this class was moreover posterior to the formation of Mittani; it was not a cause of the empire's creation but an effect thereof." (13)

Basically what I'm saying is that I think the header should at least reflect this development in the field instead of asserting without qualification that the Mitanni state comprised an Indo-Iranian ethnic and sociopolitical group subjugating a Hurrian substrate. Wells327 (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wells327 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC) 

massive site uncovered by drought

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7198539/Ruins-3-400-year-old-palace-emerge-river-following-drought.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.99.33.80 (talk) 10:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2020

Religion of the empire has "ancient hinduism" included, when no reference is given. Should be removed. AliBaig6 (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Ancient Hinduism is only mentioned in the infobox of this article. If you click the link about the religion and read the religion's article it has information cited. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 05:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2020

There is no such thing as Hinduism. It should be changed to Brahminism or ancient Vedic Religion. Socialistpower (talk) 04:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. See Hinduism, which is definitely a thing. Also note WP:COMMONNAME. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Is the bolding necessary?

Hello, fellow Hanigalbat fans! Just a quick question I can't figure out: why are some important terms bolded in the article? This seems irregular to me, but to be honest, it's likely a lacuna in my knowledge. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Why not hinduism in religion category?

It is clearly mentioned in the treaties between Mittani and Egyptian Empire the name of Vedic deities such as Mitra,Indra etc. And also the kings have vedic name. AryaGyaan (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan deities, not Hindu-deities, mentioned in Middle-Eastern treaties and in the Vedas. Hinduism came into existence more than 1000 years later; see Origins of Hinduism and Hindu synthesis. "Vedic" is not the same as "Hindu." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah,Vedic is not same as hindu but vedas are the essential part of hinduism that's why I had put Vedic deities in Brackets.And also only Hindus worship the vedic deities.and secondly,the aryan invasion theory in india is outdated.You can see the recent research. References:

1. Shrikant G. Talageri, The Aryan Invasion Theory: A Reappraisal

2. Shrikant G. Talageri The Rigveda and the Avesta: The Final Evidence

3. Tony Joseph, Early Indians : The Story of Our Ancestors and Where We Came From

Even if there was Migration(not invasion),it has been proved that vedas are not written indo-aryans but were written in india. AryaGyaan (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I know the recent research, and it has strongly confirmed the Indo-Aryan migrations. See:

• Two new genetic studies upheld Indo-Aryan migration. So why did Indian media report the opposite?
• Scientists Part of Studies Supporting Aryan Migration Endorse Party Line Instead
• Tony Joseph, New reports clearly confirm ‘Arya’ migration into India

See also User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Some interesting gossip from Kai Friese. Talageri is as non-WP:RS as can be; Tony Joseph actually endorses the Indo-Aryan migration theory, so it's not clear to me why you present him as a source for the statement that the IAmt is "outdated." But we agree that the Vedas were written in India. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Genetics studies can't prove or disapprove amt.See this: Kalyan Ray (2019), New DNA study challenges Aryan invasion theory, deccanherald. The three important studies are: 1. Linguistics, 2. Archeology, 3. literary sources. Why Amt is wrong? Because
1. We don't any evidence of AIT
2. A migration is not gonna destroy a civilization;a invasion can.
3. AMT supporters say that Chariots were brought by Aryans. The new archeological studies are just very intersecting.You can see: ndtv.com, In Uttar Pradesh, 4,000-Year-Old Chariots And Coffins Found

But the AMT supporters say that Aryan invaded from 1500-1200 BCE and also this is the also the evidence:
1. T. R. S. Prasanna (2012), There is no scientific basis for the Aryan Invasion Theory, Current Science Vol. 103, No. 2 (25 July 2012), pp. 216-221
2. Chatterjee et al. (2019), On the existence of a perennial river in the Harappan heartland, Nature Scientific Reports volume 9, Article number: 17221. (This paper is on Saraswati River which is mentioned in Vedas as a mighty river.
AryaGyaan (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll bet you didn't follow the links I provided:

• Kalyan Ray hasn't understood what he's writing about; see, again, Two new genetic studies upheld Indo-Aryan migration. So why did Indian media report the opposite?.
• See Sinauli for the socalled "chariots."
• Prasanna is nice. Published in 2012, cited three tinmes (one time by himself). Quite sensational, compared to Narasimhan et al. (2019) cited only over a hundred times (not to mention the 2018 pre-print).
• Regarding Chatterjee et al. (2019), see the response by Sinha et al. (2020), Fluvial archives of north and northwestern India as recorders of climatic signatures in the late Quaternary: review and assessmen, Current Science, 119 (2): ""most workers have documented the cessation of large scale fluvial activity in NW India in early Holocene, thereby refuting the sustenance of the Harappan civilization by a large river."

Maybe it's time to leave the Hindutva-bubble, and read some real scholarly research? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Firstly,I am not a Hidnutva Supporter.So,don't put a label on me.Secondly,why I didnt read the links is because you referenced me websites like wire and scroll which are totally biased same goes to Swarjya and Opindia.One is leftist which believes that AMT is true and Aryans brought Sanskrit and Vedas to india and second is Hindutva which says that OIT is true and India is a pure race.Both claims are rubbish. Now,let's start from begining: AMT suppoters say that Aryans brought Chariots and Iron Age in India and the date given by them is 1500-1200 BCE.which totally contradicts with new discovery of chariots found in Sanhuali. AryaGyaan (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

www.wionews.com/india-news/4000-year-old-chariot-found-in-uttar-pradesh-village-142951/amp AryaGyaan (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Secondly,we have found the Saraswati river which dried up in 2000 BCE.And this river has been mentioned in Rigveda(the oldest) 63 times and is described as the mightiest one.which make Vedas older than 2000 BCE.So,it menas that they were not written by indo Aryans. We have also found that 2/3rd settlements of indus people were around this river. AryaGyaan (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/evidence-of-river-saraswatis-existence-found/article30306789.ece/amp/ AryaGyaan (talk) 08:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

This the latest reserach:https://m.economictimes.com/news/science/iit-kharagpur-study-reveals-decline-of-harappan-city-dholavira-was-caused-by-drying-up-of-river-and-drought/articleshow/73066330.cms AryaGyaan (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

the must read book is The rigvedic people by one of the greatest archeologist of the world Prof.BB Lal. AryaGyaan (talk) 08:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Now,lets talk about mittani people religion :The treaties between Mittanis and Eghyptians clearly mentions Vedic gods.So,in the religion category:Hinduism(Vedic Dities) must be mentioned. AryaGyaan (talk) 08:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

See WP:OR and WP:DONTGETIT. Mitanni was not Hindu; there wasn't even something like "Hinduism" at that time in India. The Sinauli "chariots" were ox-pulled carts with solid wheels, possibly broguht there by proto-Indo-Iranina speaking Aryans. The references to "Sarasvati" in the Rig Veda are mostly to the goddess and to the mythological river; the few references to a physical river may also refer to the Helmand or Haraxvati river in southern Afghanistan; when identified with the Gagghar-Hakra, the Rig Veda actually describes the situation as it was in the second millennium BCE: dried-up. And Lal is not "the greatest archaeologist of the world," but a controversial Hindutva-agent. His The Rigvedic People: Invaders, Immigrants or Indigenous has received 9 (nine) citations since it's publication in 2015, four of which from Michel Danino, and one by Lal himself. The scholarly value and impact is zero. Enjoy your bubble. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Lead

The whole "Currently there are two hypotheses regarding how Mitanni was formed" part is a complete turn-off in the lead. 98.143.65.225 (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Yamhad and Vassals.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2021

Change Hattarsus to Hattusa.

Hattarsus is in my view a misnomer. The capital of the Hittite Empire is called Hattusa.

CONTEXT: Shattiwaza became king of Mitanni, but after Suppililiuma had taken Carchemish and the land west of the Euphrates, that were governed by his son Piyassili, Mitanni was restricted to the Khabur River and Balikh River valleys, and became more and more dependent on their allies in Hattarsus.

CHANGE TO: Shattiwaza became king of Mitanni, but after Suppililiuma had taken Carchemish and the land west of the Euphrates, that were governed by his son Piyassili, Mitanni was restricted to the Khabur River and Balikh River valleys, and became more and more dependent on their allies in Hattusa. 84.9.53.228 (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

In 'People' section

In the second paragraph, after "The names of the Mitanni aristocracy frequently are of Indo-Aryan origin" please add the following reference link: https://www.azargoshnasp.net/history/Aryan/mitanniindoaryannames.pdf Johundhar (talk) 04:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

In "History" section

It might be pointed out that, as explained clearly in the 'chariot' wikipedia entry, Indo-Iranians developed the spoke-wheeled chariot around 2000, and the earliest traces of Mitanni (or possibly other Indic or Indo-Arian groups) occur not long after that. And then shortly thereafter, chariots start to become a major feature of war in much of the Mideast and Egypt. It is not too much of a stretch to suggest that the Mitanni were the first, or among the earliest, groups to introduce this game-changing technology into the region. Also note that many of the names refer to horses and chariots, and the Hittites brought in Mitanni to teach them about the same. Johundhar (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Further on the same from O.R. Gurney "The Hittites" (1962...yes, dated, but if anything, recent research would seem to reinforce his points, though I have not done a careful lit research to see what, if anything has been said on this recently), pp. 104-105: "The light horse-drawn chariot with spoked wheels belongs to the world which succeeded the downfall of the Amorites, and makes its appearance at about the same time in Kassite Babylonia, in the Egypt of the eighteenth dynasty, and in the new kingdom of Mitanni in the north...Hence we must conclude that [the Mitanni]...brought with them their special knowledge of horse-breeding, and that it was from them that the art was learnt by the peoples of Western Asia." Johundhar (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Ruler table removed from article

The following is a tentative correlation of Mitanni with nearby kingdoms until the reign of Tusratta by Stefano de Martino:

Mitanni	Egypt	Hatti	Alalah	Kizzuwatna	Terqa
Principate of Mittani		Hattušili I
Rise of the kingdom of Mittani		Muršili I
First attestation of Mittani	Tuthmosis I
Kirta (?)
Šuttarna I (?)					? Qiš-Addu
Parattarna I	? Tuthmosis III ?	Zidanza II	Idrimi	Pilliya	Qiš-Addu
Sausadat (??)
Parsatatar
Sauštatar	? Tuthmosis III ?	Tuthaliya I/II	Niqmepa	Šunaššura	? Qiš-Addu
Parattarna II (??)
Artatama I	Tuthmosis IV
Šuttarna II	Amenophis III
Artašumara (Uthi)
Tušratta	Amenophis IV	Šuppiluliuma I

For convienience and history.Ploversegg (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Reshaping of the article

@Ploversegg: I see you are committed in the hard task of reshaping this article, I agree with you that it was necessary to change many things, especially in lead section, but I do not share all your choices, especially your deletion of recent Eva von Dassow essay (2022), and these two issues in other sections:

1) The table made based on Stefano de Martino's article (2014), because it's fundamental to understand what other kings around the region are considered contemporary to Mittani kings, even if some of them are only "tentative.", and

2) It should be included, once again, the first "mythical" king in the list of rulers, in order to have a wider vision of Mitanni's development and cultural beliefs.

On the other hand, Mitanni region was first known as Hanigalbat since at least around 1600 BC from Babylonian sources (See von Dassow 2022). Eva von Dassow is conservative in that view, because that term could be even older, not beginning with Assyrian sources, as was established previously in this article. Of course, Mitanni state, at least known by that name by its neighbours, could have been later, but it's necessary to start, as an antecedent with first attestation as Hanigalbat.--Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I've probably made some mistakes here but the article was such a hairball I didn't quite know how to start untangling the hair. Lots of unsourced 1911 type text too. So I will not be in any way offended by anything you wish to revert or change. My thinking on the ruler tables was that two was one too many. :-) The hard part is redoing the History section which is a mess and I'm not even sure I have the energy for the task. My thinking is that the long blurbs in the ruler sections should be merged into the History. The ruler articles have, or should have all that info anyway. And the section on the name seems way to technical for the article but it is cool so I hate to rm it. Oh, how do you feel about merging in Naharin?Ploversegg (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I've added von Dassow's information in lead section, and I understand that you do not want two tables that could overload information, but maybe there could also be a way to not loose the valuable information in Stefano de Martino's source. Regarding Naharin, I think it would be good to merge it in Mitanni's article. Although, if it were a larger article, it would be useful to have it as an independent one related to the particular reference by Egyptians.--Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Am currently reading von Dassow 2022. Nice so far, though of course I have a few nits like the Kemune tablets are from after the destruction of the Mitanni city and are Middle Assyrian (and not yet published), if my memory is correct. :-) If you prefer, we could just go back to the Martino table instead of the current one (even though now that I think of it the current one was a copy of one I wrote for the now defunct Short Chronology Timeline article - thats ok). I will read your article changes after I finish Dassow. PS It might be in the reading but I am unaware of a source for Habigalbat back to 1600 BC. Kassite maybe?Ploversegg (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Eva von Dassow mentions "toward 1600 BC." It is at least some years before the fall of Babylon in 1595 BC, so prior to Kassite times there. These are her words: "Babylonia and Assyria: Here the kingdom of Mittani was called Hanigalbat. By this name, it is first mentioned in texts of the late Old Babylonian period (toward 1600 BC)"(von Dassow 2022:467). She also mentions in footnote 32. that it was Frans van Koppen (2004:21) who firstly found these references in Babylonian texts.--Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. This let me find it in an article "Koppen kindly informs me that the letter "is an expenditure of beer for dragomans of H.-troops as transliterated by Gelb. It comes from Sippar/Abü Habbah and dates to year 3 of Ammisaduqa"." - Da Riva, Rocío. “A New Attestation of Ḫabigalbat in Late Babylonian Sources.” Die Welt Des Orients, vol. 47, no. 2, 2017, pp. 259–64 This Dassow article is distacting. Like I read there was a mitanni tablet at mardaman which led to me adding a source to that article (and adding a goddess).:-)Ploversegg (talk) 02:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Rocío da Riva (2017) is a previous source, and Gelb (1968:97) is the earliest publication commenting on these texts.--Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 02:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I am being briefly diverted by reading van Dassow 2014 which, though earlier, is a much better paper being intended for a technical vs encyclopedia audience. A good paper so far.Ploversegg (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ploversegg: It's important to try to decrease the size of some sections, and you are doing a good job on this article. On the other hand, Eva von Dassow (2022: 467, footnote 32.) also mentions van Koppen (2017: 56, with footnotes 40 and 69) regarding the Old Babylonian texts. It seems the tendency in recent research, by von Dassow and van Koppen, is to retake studies from late Ignace J. Gelg from the 1960s, and from other scholars in the 1990s.--Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Thought you were done for the day. Hope I didn't step on some part you were working on. :-) I finished van Dassow 2022 (after reading her earlier papers). I've read a couple of van Koppen's papers like "van Koppen, Frans. “THE OLD TO MIDDLE BABYLONIAN TRANSITION: HISTORY AND CHRONOLOGY OF THE MESOPOTAMIAN DARK AGE.” Ägypten Und Levante / Egypt and the Levant, vol. 20, 2010, pp. 453–63" and the 2017 one and thought they were good. For myself I have been just avoiding the hard job of doing a new History section to replace the current weak one (my thought was to use the ruler paragraphs as a basis). I replaced the Mitanni section in the Hurrians article and poked the Washukanni and Tell Fakhariya articles etc. And working the edges of the main article mainly cleaning out bits of encyclopedia fluff. If I overcleaned don't hesitate to fix or to tell me and I will. If you have thoughts on how this should go feel free to let me know. :-) PS I've read a number of impressive works by Gelb over the years.Ploversegg (talk) 01:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B.: Actually Spalinger, and a number of other authors use "naharain". I also see a lot of authors use "mittanni". No idea. Linguistics not my strong suit. Anyway, I am looking at building a ruler table that blends some of each original table. Need to see if I believe (ie. there is source support for) the synchronism with the first two Hittite kings first.Ploversegg (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

You are right, I was searching and found Yosef Mizrachy (2012) comments on two shapes of the word: Naharin and Naharina. But Spalinger uses Naharain.--Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)