Talk:Aratta

Section removed by Dbachmann

This entire section below was removed from the article page by Dbachmann; I know it needs citations and also needs serious trimming (eg mentioning Phraaspa certainly seems like undue weight and a long shot) but I still would like to see some kind of section specifically discussing this view, with the proper citations, if anyone can improve it. I may get around to looking up citations myself if I get time to research it.

Urartu hypothesis

See also: Kura-Araxes culture

According to one theory, Aratta included the Northwest of Iran and present-day Azerbaijan. Its borders were purportedly from the Caucasus mountains to the Zagros mountains, and from the Caspian Sea to the Black Sea.

Aratta is thought to be related to the later kingdom of Urartu, because of its geographical location and name. The name also resembles Ararat, and the mountain is indeed located in the possible area of Aratta.

Aratta is often mentioned by modern historians in connection with the later regional powers of Mannai, Urartu and the Medes. Its legendary capital city may have been Phraaspa, site of a little Parthian-era castle recently discovered (in April 2005) near the river Aras River along the Armenia-Iran-Azerbaijan border. However, the castle is firmly dated to the Atropatene (c. 300 BC) and Parthian (c. 200 BC) eras, thousands of years after the mysterious references to Aratta in Sumerian inscriptions.

Some would more specifically locate Aratta on the eastern side of Lake Van near the Turkish-Iranian border. A significant population and a flourishing landscape is known to have existed there in the third millennium BC.

---

I will be happy to see a discussion of this "hypothesis", provided it can be attributed to at least a single halfway serious academic. This seems to be entirely based on "Aratta" sounding like "Ararat" though, with no evidence of lapis lazuli or anything to back it up(?) -- two names sounding somewhat similar a scholarly hypothesis do not make. Especially if both names are attested in cuneiform, and more than a millennium fully two millennia apart. dab (𒁳) 14:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned as the theory of not only the Armenian national historians like Movsisian, but also quite a few non-Armenian scholars including David Rohl. Til Eulenspiegel 15:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

sure, just cite where it is discussed, and don't try to sell Movsisian as "many historians". I must say I've really had it with this Armenian nationalist pseudohistory, and I am extremely bored with fantastical claims like Movsisian's. We have a separate article for this stuff. dab (𒁳) 15:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Mythical Aratta

The citations and tags in the second paragraph shouldn't be there because the only information on Aratta comes from myths. There is no objective evidence to cite. Until some hard evidence surfaces (i.e. a cuneiform tablet documenting a shipment from Aratta), this place should be treated as fictional.

I would also like to point out that an obscure book on paganism is not a reliable source. Sources, even published ones, need to be vetted for reliability. I'm sure some source of that ilk could be found to equate Aratta with Atlantis as well! Sumerophile (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I get the feeling you have not bothered to read a single one of these sources that you are blindly passing judgement on and removing as citations from the sound of the title, would I be correct? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, and I don't think too many people have. Sumerophile (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Cambridge History of Iran

The Cambridge History of Iran is rather seriously misquoted [1] in the article.

In Max Mallowan's chapter on Cyrus' Babylonian campaigns 2000 years later, he suggests that Anshan might have then denoted an area south-east of Elam, not the whole Zagros mountain range.

And in the footnote, Mallowan mentions his view from 1969 that Anshan in Enmerkar's time was co-terminous with the modern Bakhtiari region, due east of Susa. (Later in the early 70's, Anshan was identified with Tepe Malyan, again southeast of Susa. [2])

Saying that Mallowan thought Anshan was the Zagros in general is like saying the state of Virginia is the Appalachians in general. Nor is any northerly direction implied in any of this.

Sumerophile (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Messages copied from History of Sumer rgarding Sumerophile's Original Research

User:Sumerophile, did you read our policy on WP:SYNT? What we will need is a published author who has specifically written something like "Urartu is a poor match for Aratta, because it lacks the materials mentioned in the myth". If anyone has ever published such a statement before, it can be used. If no one has ever published such a statement before, we, by policy, cannot be the first to make this argument, because it is Original Research. Is that simple enough? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sumerophile, the absence of something cannot be put into an article in Wikipedia unless a reliable source states that it is absent. And the absence of these minerals can not be used to disprove that Arrata = Uartu, even if you find a source saying they are absent, unless the SOURCE says that it disproves that link. Otherwise it's original research by you, specifically Synthesis. Read WP:SYN if that doesn't make sense.

Cinderella is an interesting example. The Wikipedia article on Cinderella does not say she is not known to be a real person. Why? Because no one provided a reliable source that said so. The article does provide a number of scholarly sources saying that it is a very old myth, going back at least to the first century B.C. The point is, wikipedia editors aren't allowed to prove anything, even by finding sources. They quote or paraphrase reliable sources who prove things. Got it? Msalt (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"There is no synthesis going on here"?? Obviously you still are not clear on the concept, after numerous wikipedians have tried to explain it to you. There is most certainly WP:SYNT going on in the claims regarding the presence or absence of minerals in the Aratta region, since that argument appears in no published source we know of, and appears to be a "wikipedia original", AKA "original research".... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Following is the WIkipedia policy definition of "Original synthesis":

"Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly."

"Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. This would be synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which constitutes original research.[6] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."

The argument that Aratta is a poor match for Urartu because of an alleged lack of minerals, even assuming it were a solid and correct argument, meets the definition of "ORIGINAL SYNTHESIS" because this argument has never before appeared in any published source we know of. Wikipedia is by policy not allowed to be used as a publishing website for new theories that have never appeared in print, therefore policy says this novel research argument HAS TO GO. One editor is insisting that this novel research be allowed to remain in the article even though nobody before Wikipedia has ever before published such an argument, but at least three editors have explained why this contradicts policy, to no avail. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no synthesis in this article, and Til Eulenspiegel, you've been nothing but extremely uncivil. Sumerophile (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to explain it as patiently as I can, no matter how many times it takes. I'm just not certain what the problem comprehending this is. The book on minerals and the atlas you are quoting, simply do not contain any arguments regarding the location of Aratta, nor do they contain the word "Aratta". Taking these references to prove some original or unpublished "point" regarding the location of Aratta is therefore clearly against the policy. Now, if you ever do turn up a scholarly reference that actually does make such an argument, then I will be the first to defend its inclusion. OK? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources to be added to article, with TITLES and page numbers

When page numbers are wanting from cites and things like that, on wikipedia, there are an abundance of appropriate tags we can use to mark the deficiencies and give other editors a courtesy period to look up the page numbers, rather than use this as a pretext to utterly haul and pull the cited information from sight.

In response to objections raised about the lack of page numbers for some scholarly references in this article, I have taken the trouble to research these authors and supply the wanting page numbers containing the relevant information. Since this is one of the issues behind the recent edit warring that has caused this page to become locked, I would ask any admin here to please review these scholarly references, and to incorporate them into the article, so that lack of page numbers can no longer be used as the pretext for concealing this information that is easily available elsewhere. It will then remain to be seen if another, new pretext will then be found.

• Note: These are all the same prominent scholars who have published their translations of the Sumerian epic, "Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta"; no more qualified and reliable sources than these can possibly be found:

• Samuel Kramer, 1963 The Sumerians, p. 275 (locates Aratta betwen Urmia and Caspian, Iran; his 1952 translation had suggested Luristan)
• Georgina Herrmann, 1968 Lapis Lazuli: the early phases of its trade, in Iraq p. 54 (locates Aratta nr. Caspian Sea, Iran)
• Sol Cohen, 1973, Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, p. 55-61 (identifies Aratta with combined Hamadan-Nahavand-Kermanshah-Sanadaj areas, Iran) [3]
• Yousef Majidzadeh, 1976 The Land of Aratta, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 35, 105-114 (located Aratta nr. Shahdad in Kerman province, Iran; same expert now investigating Jiroft, Iran as potential site) [4]
• J. F. Hansman, 1978 The Question of Aratta, JNES 37, 331-336 (locates Aratta at Shahr-i-Sokhta) [5]

All of this can be verified from the following links to the actual sources above; the two from JNES should provide most informative to any interested researchers or scholars who may be researching the historiography of the scholarship regarding Aratta. It should be obvious to anyone from reading the freely available first pages of the two JNES (Journal of Near Eastern Studies) articles that all of these authors have been peer-reviewed by one another and by others in the field.

With regards, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Baudhayana Sutra

I've never heard of the Aratta before, but have come across the name in the Baudhayana Sutras, Sacred Books of the East, Vol. 14, on page 148. They are mentioned in the context of a forbidden land which should not be visited by Brahmins. I don't see any reference on this page to the name appearing in Hindu scripture, especially something old like this, 400 bce. Arumugaswami (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)