Talk:Shatt al-Arab

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Iran (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Iraq (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Arab world (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Archives[edit]

Avesta[edit]

I found it somewhere:

در اوستا اگرچه از نام خلیج فارس بطور صریح نام برده نشده اما در مهر یشت در مبحث مهر یا میترا اشاره‌ای نیز به اروندرود شده‌است که در آن دوره «ارونگ» گفته می‌شده‌است و چنین آمده:

«دارنده دشت‌های فراخ» و «اسب‌های تیزرو» که از سخن راستین آگاه است و پهلوانی است خوش اندام و نبرد آزما، دارای هزار گوش و هزار چشم و هزار چستی و چالاکی یاد شده، کسی است که جنگ و پیروزی با اوست، هرگز نمی‌خسبد، هرگز فریب نمی‌خورد، اگر کسی با او پیمان شکند خواه در شرق هندوستان باشد یا بر دهنه شط ارنگ، از ناوک او گریز ندارد، او نخستین ایزد معنوی است که پیش از طلوع خورشید فنا ناپذیر تیز اسب بر بالای کوه هرا بر می‌آید و از آن جایگاه بلند سراسر منزلگاه‌های آریایی را می‌نگرد.

It says that in Avesta in Mihr yasht it's name has been mentioned. But I checked mihr yasht, and It was not there. Can someone recheck it, as I'm sure it is there in Avesta. --Wayiran (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Wayiran, you should have looked for Raηhā, or simply Rangha (which is the equivalent of Arang); if you had done so, you would have found the following:
XXVII
104. 'We sacrifice unto Mithra, the lord of wide pastures, .... sleepless, and ever awake; 'Whose long arms, strong with Mithra-strength, encompass what he seizes in the easternmost river and what he beats with the westernmost river, what is by the Sanaka of the Rangha and what is by the boundary of the earth.
Please note the reference to both "Rangha" and "the westernmost river". Kind regards, --BF 20:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC).


On 15 March 2009 Wayiran added to the article the following unqualified assertion: Also "Arang", the other form of "Arvand", has been mentioned in [the] Avesta. The accompanying reference: Avesta, Mihr yasht, section 27, paragraph 104. (the text cited by BF above).

It has two problems: it doesn't appear to be correct, and as currently presented it is a direct interpretation of a very complex primary source (thus infringing our no original research policy, which clearly states that [a]ny interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.).

Iranica's article on the Arvand-Ruud clearly asserts that no river "Arvand" is mentioned in the Avesta (or in the Bundahishn). As for the identification of the Rangha river of the Avesta (described in Iranica's article on the Arang as "primarily mythical") with the Arvand, the article on the Arvand-Ruud points either to:

  • a confusion between Arang and Arvand, originated from the fact that in Pahlavi both names differ in a single stroke.
  • a posterior attempt to identify the Rangha/Arang of the Avesta with something concrete (a Persian horror vacui of sorts).

This is hardly surprising, considering that -as Iranica's article on Avestan geography mentions- "[g]eographical references in the Avesta are limited to the regions on the eastern Iranian plateau and on the Indo-Iranian border."

In short, no Arvand or Shatt al-Arab in the Avesta. - Best, Ev (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As per edit summary: your message here is ignored because 1. you do not know what you are talking about. 2. the edit we have made says: Arang is old Iranian and tends to be identified with Arvand (well-sourced). Our sentence does not say Arang is Arvand. Is that clear? 3. Now the source to the previous sentence in the article says why Arvand is Tigris. Is that clear too? In short, here only one name has historical value.--Xashaiar (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
No Xashaiar, it is not clear.
2. The sentence you added ("Even much older is the name "Arang" as mentioned in Avesta which tends to be identified with the river Arvand.") is not particularly clear, is misleading -making a broad unqualified affirmation that can be interpreted in many different manners- and is most definitely not well-sourced, as it cherry-picks one particular fragment of a sentence from Iranica's article on the Arang ignoring the rest of the text & the other articles mentioned in my post above.
3. No, it is not clear. Would you please elaborate ?
And yes, I can appreciate that edits to these articles do not aim at providing our readers with mere information, but at advocating that the Farsi name is the only one with "historical value", and the one everyone should use. That much is clear. - Regards, Ev (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
1. You gave free proof of my first claim that "you do not know what you are talking about"! 2. There is one thing called "clicking". Click on the link to Avesta to see the reason to include words: "OLDER" and "EVEN". These are also WP:V. 3. The source says exactly what I have added. Therefore WP:RS and WP:V. 4. According to wikipedia rules this can be included. Very useful, related, and historical piece of information (unlike obverse of, certain banknotes: which should give an answer to your last accusation: comparing to these edits, it is clear what is my agenda and yours: "finding out the relevance of adding "Daf is depicted on obverse of certain banknote" to "History of Daf" is called "quiz of the year". Other editors may be able to answer this quiz.).--Xashaiar (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Ev is correct. Both with respect to the fact that the EIr is being misinterpreted, and with respect to the fact that the Avesta knows nothing about places in Western Iran (leave alone places in Mesopotamia/Babylonia). Indeed, it would seem that BF already knew that before he began soapboxing.
I would like to commend Ev's infinite patience in dealing with the nationalists. It is thanks to dedicated people like him that Wikipedia is not a complete pile of crap. Those interested in knowing the 9th-11th century rationale for identifying a mythological river with variously the Tigris or the Nile (or something else) can drop me a line at my talk page. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. :-) Ev (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
As usual you are not even wrong. 1. EIr is RS. 2. It states explicitly Arang... tends to be identified with the river Arvand (wasn't folk etymology your only available reasoning?). If one respected scholar states a possible identification, then why it should not be included? 3. Thanks to myself that do not allow creation of fictional dead links, this wikipedia will become a better place. 4. You call me nationalist, isn't it better than being homeless?--Xashaiar (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Xashaiar, could you please try to stay on-topic.
2a. A sentence snippet isolated from its context does not convey a text's meaning. You should know this.
2b. If a respected scholar mentions a possible identification, that fact can usually be included; but in a clear manner and providing the proper context. We could mention that "Scholar John Doe considers that X could be identified with Y [ref], and others agree/disagree [refs]". In this specific case, such details would be better presented in a separate paragraph.
As I mentioned in an edit summary, you can present the sources and propose the wording here, at this talk page, and we will all see if the paragraph is sound & merits inclusion. - Best, Ev (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
again I have to explain the most obvious argument: 1. The article states what I wrote. And since I made it Italic (could use double quote instead) to mean that "it tends...". 2. You and the previous editor do not stick to the sources you are quoting: the question of identification of Avesta geography is not at all clear. (removing fictional stories, they are clear. But fictional books are produced in mass.) Stick to it. Now this means there is no definitive (that is yes or no) answer to the question of identification of Arang/Arvand?" You are pushing for your POV, My POV is different. 3. I do not see any problem with that quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xashaiar (talkcontribs) 20:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Moving on ...
The pre-"later Pahlavi period" applications of the name 'Arvand' -- i.e. the real or putative references to the Tigris -- belong in the article on the Tigris. A statement that could belong here might read ...
"In Iran, the Shatt al-Arab came to be known as the 'Arvand' during the later Pahlavi period. Prior to that time, the Shatt al-Arab was known as the ________, and the name 'Arvand' typically referred to the Tigris. Although the Tigris now flows into the Shatt al-Arab, it seems to have previously flowed into the Shatt al-Hayy."
Or something to that effect. Whatcha think? -- Fullstop (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
No way. I would recommend something similar to what I said (maybe rewording [up to Shahnameh as it is] but follows) something that refers to Arang but mentions "tend" (or "corruption" as said in pp. 159-161). That is Arang is really what existed in "Old Iran" (Ok, we don't know for sure what Arang is called now and not vise versa.)--Xashaiar (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
That would be the most sensible approach, Fullstop. After the paragraph we can add a simple "(see also Tigris#Etymology)", for clarity & to keep everybody happy. :-) I will see what I can find about what name Iranians used for this waterway before the arrival of Arvandism. - Best, Ev (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Avestan geography[edit]

Fullstop: "Avesta knows nothing about places in Western Iran (leave alone places in Mesopotamia/Babylonia)" , on which basis are you saying this? --Wayiran (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wayiran that thing is the best example of selective quote to push certain WP:POV. 1. Using the quote from EIr to claim that "Arang is not Arvand" is OR and does not belong to wikipedia. 2. Let us look at evidence for the claim (Avesta knows nothing...) which is promoted by some scholars: At the moment there are some evidences that: the homeland of Avestan language is western Iran. (here in encoclopaedia 1 which happens to be from the same source as that claim). So why not using this? I think definitive answer to the question of geographical identification of places mentioned in Avesta (whether Western Iranian or Eastern Iranian) does not exist. What is not understood by people who revert more than they click is: The word arvand is the Middle Persian rendering of "Arang". I do not understand why this can not be mentioned in article.--Xashaiar (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
So Wayiran I support you change though a banknote is missing to satisfy those whose only sources are banknotes.--Xashaiar (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Xashaiar, Iranica's article on Avestan geography mentions that, with the exception of an important study from 1921, there's a general agreement among Iranian scholars that the events of the Avesta should be located in eastern Iran. – But you choose to ignore the existence of any scholarly consensus, and emphasize instead the exception that suits your personal world view. Nice. - Ev (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Read my comment once more. Look at the underlined and bold words. After understanding, then we discuss more.--Xashaiar (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the same source (Iranica's article on Avestan geography) mentions a scholarly consensus and an exception from 1921. You like the exception.

The word arvand is the Middle Persian rendering of "Arang" ? According to whom ? And why would that matter to the article on the Shatt al-Arab ? - Ev (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wayiran, just for starters, and as already commented above, Iranica's article on Avestan geography mentions that "[g]eographical references in the Avesta are limited to the regions on the eastern Iranian plateau and on the Indo-Iranian border." Are Western Iran or Mesopotamia located on the eastern Iranian plateau or on the Indo-Iranian border ? - Best, Ev (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Starter!? I guess Iranica has generalized it by saying so. But the eastern Iran is only one of the candidates for Geographical position of ancient Iranian people and Avestan geographical locations and as it is unrelated to this article I won't go into details, but I suggest you to consider Chichast lake which is in Northwest of Iran and is well mentioned in Avesta and then consider the "hara bazaiti" which is the Avestan render of "Alborz" mountain in north of Tehran, and in addition to this, you can read this article. BTW eight Kassite kings of Babylon had the title of Zoroaster and other things which brings the idea of considering the Babylon equivalent to some Avestan geographical places. --Wayiran (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
What follows are the basics. Some crucial points first:
#A1 The Avesta does not mention places in Western Iran. Forget anything to the contrary. Its false.
#A2 The Avesta is a collection of religious compositions, not a treatise on geography.
#A3. The Avestan compositions are younger than the concepts expressed within them.
#B1 The Pahlavi books were written in Western Iran. They are accordingly from the Western Iranian perspective.
#B2 Lots and people, from all over Iran, identified "holy names" with places in their vicinity.
  • The Avesta's texts contain memories of very ancient times, stories told for hundreds of years before someone decided to compose a song (or whatever), which then eventually became an Avestan hymn (or whatever). All those "names" from ancient times do not necessarily correspond to any real places. Some of those names do correspond to real places, and those are all in Eastern Iran. Like sughd for Sogdiana.
    And just because a certain word appears in the Avsta does not mean that that word is also a proper name. For example, the Avestan word for "swift" is aruuand, which is just an ordinary adjective. Not a name!
  • When the Pahlavi books (which means 9th-12th century Zoroastrian texts) were being written, the authors applied it to their idea of the "world". Which is not the same as the "world" of the Avesta, and is not the same as the "world" of 2,000 BC.
    So, some "holy names" got "transported". Not only to Western Iran, but all the way to the Mediterranean, and all the way to India.
    In fact, even real places got "transported". For example (IIRC), sughd (Sogdiana) was identified with Syria.
  • The Pahlavi books were written by educated people (priests)! So, just imagine what the normal people did. Well, there is not only one Alborz, or one "Chichast lake". There are multiple Alborzes, and multiple "Chichast lake". For example, the Shahnameh puts "Alborz" waaaaaaay east. Yet other people identified "Alborz" with Mount Ararat. And the "Chichast lake" in Sistan -- although in the East -- does not necessarily correspond to any Avestan name either.
Hopefully, you now understand that lots and lots of people identified lots of "holy names" with lots and lots of different places. But only very few Avestan place names actually correspond to real places. And even when "holy names" do correspond to real places, those names were also given to other places.
Hopefully, you now understand that "[g]eographical references in the Avesta are limited to the regions on the eastern Iranian plateau and on the Indo-Iranian border" is perfectly correct, and perfectly precise. It is not a "generalization".
In any case, the Tigris is not the Shatt al Arab. If you want to write about the MP identification of "Arvand" with the Tigris (or the Nile), then go to those articles. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with you. I don't have time to discuss, and this discussion page is not the place to discuss whether Avestan geography refers to eastern Iran or western Iran. The fact is that it covers both. You should read the famous book of Dr. Jahanshah Derakhshani regarding this issue, and I can't type all of it over here. It has been well discussed there. Besides that, traditional history due to it's myths is not necessarily considered as a mythological issue, but the history can be taken out from it. Today characters like Solomon are considered as historical characters, whereas he has only been mentioned in Bible, and not in any other historical source. Hopefuuuuuuuuuuly you accepted some of my points. --Wayiran (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Wayiran, I hope you understand that your disagreement and statements do not change what our sources tell us; namely, the existence of a general academic consensus on the issue. - Regards, Ev (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, where has Ferdowsi said about Alborz in east??

These are all the beyts in which Ferdowsi has used "Alborz":

برم خوب رخ را به البرز کوه شوم ناپديد از ميان گروه

ز البرز کوه اندر آمد به دشت چو بگذشت ازان بر فريدون دو هشت

برانگيخت ما را ز البرز کوه که يزدان پاک از ميان گروه

که بودش بدانجا کنام و گروه ببردش دمان تا به البرز کوه

به البرز کوه اندر آن زشت جاي برفتم به فرمان گيهان خداي

چو باز آوريدم ز البرز کوه به پيمان چنين رفت پيش گروه

بران کوه البرز بردن گروه وزان جا کشيدن سوي زاوه کوه

گزين کن يکي لشکر همگروه برو تازيان تا به البرز کوه

يکي جايگه ديد برنا شکوه يکي ميل ره تا به البرز کوه

به کاري که بسيار دارد شکوه مرا رفت بايد به البرز کوه

قباد دلاور ببين با گروه مرا گفت رو تا به البرز کوه

کنون آمدم شادمان با گروه چنانم که گويي ز البرز کوه

که ديو اندران رنج‌ها شد ستوه يکي خانه کرد اندر البرز کوه

وگر کوه البرز در جوشن‌ست تو گفتي جهان سر به سر آهن‌ست

که از کوه البرز تا برگ ني به رستم چنين گفت کاووس کي

وگر کوه البرز در جوشنست تو گفتي يکي باره‌ي آهنست

تلي گشته چون کوه البرز جاي همي‌برد هر کس بر سوفزاي

به مردي جهاندار شد با گروه قباد آنک آمد ز البرز کوه

Even if he has mentioned that it shows that the Iranians were in west of Alborz mountain, so you have agreed that Avestan geography covers western Iran, upto Egypt too. --Wayiran (talk) 06:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Iranica's article on the Alborz (in the first paragraph of "i. The Name Alborz") mentions that "Ferdowsi in the Shahnameh refers to the Alborz mountains as though they lay in India." - Best, Ev (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Fullstop didn't answer. "Hara brazaiti" (which is the Avestan form of Alborz) has a common part with Semic languages and that is "Hara" which in both means "mountain". This similarity shows that they have not been too far. Fereydun had 3 sons, Salm, Iraj, Tur, Salm had the control of WEstern Iran, probably the geographical area of Roman empire, Iraj had Iran in center, and Tur had east, upto China. Best. --Wayiran (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

For that Hara, you can see Armageddon, which is "Har-Majdo" which means "mountain of Majdo" and is supposed to be the place where last war of Truth and Devil takes place. --Wayiran (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources[edit]

The following comments were copied here from Wayiran's talk page. - Ev (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Why does the text "misrepresent the sources" in your view? --Wayiran (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue is explained at Talk:Shatt al-Arab#Avesta (permanent link). - Best, Ev (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I've already read that, can you please specify exactly what is your problem with the source? The source supports it very well in my view. Are you saying "Arang" was the name of another river and it is unrelated to this Shattalarab, so it should not be covered in this article? --Wayiran (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
No, Iranica does not support that wording. Only snippets of its articles, read in isolation from the rest of the text, can be misinterpreted to say what you propose to add to our article.
In that talk page, Fullstop and I are saying two things:
  • We don't really know if the primarily mythical Arang mentioned in the Avesta was any actual river at all. If it was a real river, it was one located in eastern Iran, the geographical area in which the events of the Avesta are located. So, if it was a real river, it was not the Tigris, and much less so the Shatt al-Arab.
  • It appears that, in the Middle Ages, Persian writers identified (either by error or deliberatedly) the primarily mythical Arang mentioned in the Avesta with real rivers: sometimes with the Tigris, in other ocasions with the Nile, or with the Orontes. That fact is interesting, and can be included in Wikipedia. But it is related to the Tigris (and the Nile, and the Orontes), not to the Shatt al-Arab; thus, it belongs in the article on the Tigris (and the other rivers).
Best, Ev (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The preceeding comments were copied here from Wayiran's talk page. - Ev (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree that before any well academic research on the issue we can't consider "Arang" as an absolute actual river. Again I agree that before any academic research on it, we can't say that absolutely it was Tigris, as it had other interpretations like Nile and etc too, and again Tigris itself is an Iranian/Aryan word:

در متون سومري به دجله، «ديگنه» گفته مي‌شد كه همان «دجله» عربي يا «تيگره» فارسي باستان است كه در زبان هخامنشي ثبت شده و ريشه آن «تيگر» به معني تند است كه در زبان يوناني هم «تيگريس» همان دجله است. زبانشناسان واژه «ديگنه» را به هيچ‌وجه سومري نمي‌دانند، پس در نظر سومرشناسان اين رود تاكنون بدون ريشه مشخص بوده است اما در زبان آريايي معني دارد. «تيگره» در زبان آريايي به معني تند است. واژه‌هاي تيغ و تيز هم از همين ريشه‌اند. در زبان انگليسي هم «TIGER» به معني حيوان تندپا يا ببر از همين ريشه است.

Rough Translation: In Sumerian texts, Tigris was called as "Digne" that is same as Arabic "Dejle" or "Tigre" of Old-Persian. Phonologists don't consider "Digne" as a Sumerian word at all, So in the view of Sumerologists this river has remained without any specific root up to now, but it has a meaning in Aryan language. "Tigre" in Aryan language [or language of Aryans] means "swift". [Persian] words "Tigh" and "Tiz" are also from the same root. Also in English language, "Tiger" with the meaning of a fast animal or tiger is from the same root.

Source: here, Also you can read other books of Jahanshah Derakhshani, whcih are having vast amount of material regarding the roots of Aryan civilization in Middle east and West Asia.

But the important thing is that the sentence in article says "WHICH TENDS TO BE IDENTIFIED WITH ARVAND", It is clear that it is not saying absolutely Avestan Arang, refers to Tigris, but it says it tends to be identified with. --Wayiran (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Wayiran, that is the sentence we all read in Iranica's article on the Arang. It says that in the works of Persian writers from the Middle Ages the primarily mythical Arang mentioned in the Avesta tends to be identified with the Tigris, as is the case in the Zatspram (3.22), the Dadistan-i Denig (92.2) or the Pahlavi Vendidad (1.19). In other ocasions, it is identified with the Nile, as in the Bundahishn (XI A).
As I already told you (in the comment copied above), these facts are interesting, and can be included in Wikipedia. But they relate to the Tigris and the Nile, not to the Shatt al-Arab. They do not belong in this article. - Best, Ev (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
So I will add a new section as Etymology in next few days. --Wayiran (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

presitful[edit]

I just did a web search for "presitful". Every hit seems to be copied from this article, except a reference to "vice presitful". Clearly some word was mangled, but I find nothing like it in the referenced article (Danube River). Can someone guess what word(s) were meant?  Randall Bart   Talk  20:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the term meant is thalweg or deep river line. It does appear that somebody has mangled the phrase. --A.S. Brown (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I changed this from presitful principle to thalweg principle. While I don't know what the misspelled "presitful" was meant to be, the description in the rest of the original sentence match that of the thalweg principle. I also removed the reference to the Danube river, since that article did not mention this principle or anything related to borderlines in rivers. Conscientiouspirate (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

greater Iran[edit]

arvand rud is the real name of this river.this is an old name. shat al-arab is a false name and all know this. please change the subject of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.132.209.113 (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)