From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Petrie link used as a source[edit]

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 [1] (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 [2] 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 [3] 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[edit]

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)


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)

Regarding Petrie source in Historical Context[edit]

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 [4] 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 [5] 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 [6]- 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[edit]

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

May 2012[edit]

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[edit]

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"-- (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.[7]. Dougweller (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2017[edit] (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"[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 02:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)