Talk:Mitanni

Merge?

It seems like Naharin is a stub article that doesn’t need to exist. Anything that’s relevant in that article can be merged into this article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed.Ploversegg (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

An intesting quote from Amenophis II who called himself "[the destroyer of] Naharin, the one that laid waste Khatte, viol[ator of the] Babylonian [woman], the Byblian maid, the little girl of Alalakh and the old crone of Arrapkha! And the Takhsians are nothing at all! —really what are they good for?" (in Redford, Donald B.. "CHAPTER EIGHT Asia in Egypt: Mosaic, Not Melting Pot". Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2021, pp. 214-238)Ploversegg (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ploversegg: I considered the situation and suggest Naharin remain as a separate article. Although a stub, it's valuable for searching purposes of readers. The more items you have the better, and that stub can grow with more information in future. So the tag suggesting merging should be deleted, at least until we have a section in Mitanni exclusively dedicated to Naharin.--Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I concur though for a different reason. I read the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naharin from the last merge attempt and decided it was more contentious that I thought.Ploversegg (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

That's right, so we can delete the tag if you agree.--Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

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)

To Do

@Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B.: I am going to say that this article is in an order of magnitude better condition than it was before. My sense is that there are two main things left to do, one easy, one hard.

• Redo ruler table - I'm thinking maybe a split into kings and vassals and blending in some info from the table I removed a while ago but I'm just skybluing here.
• History and ruler blurbs - The hard part. I reread Mitanni#Artashumara_and_Tushratta and rolled my eyes like a dozen times. All the weasel words! The complete lack of sources! Etc. And it almost seems to me that this stuff should properly be in the History section. Thoughts?

If there is other stuff you see needs to be done feel free.Ploversegg (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Certainly, both issues you mention have to be revised. Section in De Martino's table that can be used is the part he refers to 'Principate of Mittani' and 'Rise of the kingdom of Mittani.' I see he is refering to 'Habigalbat' period. Regarding large sections of kings with no reference, this is an issue it needs to be solved, maybe slowly. It would be also needed to shorten a little Mitanni#Artashumara_and_Tushratta and maybe also Mitanni#Shattiwaza / Kurtiwaza.--Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B.:Actually Luckenbill does use etc several times. [1] Not that anyone will notice. I wish I had a newer translation but this was the best I could find. At least now I can tell what the tablet actually said vs what was already in article.Ploversegg (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B.: Dates. I hereby give you carte blanche to pick regnal dates for Mitanni rulers. Note though that Assyrian cross dates cannot be fully relied on after 1133 BC because the limmu eponym dating system starts to unravel. Personally I am a bit doubtful even up to 1133 BC. PS We also don't know if there is a ruler between Shattiwaza and Shattuara I like a son with the daughter of Suppiluliuma I. :-)Ploversegg (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Neither Mladjov (2019), nor von Dassow (2022) consider a king between Shattiwaza and Shattuara I, and these are among the latest analyses on this issue. Von Dassow even has a detailed outline in page 471 regarding royalty contemporary relationships. I also have doubts on using too early secondary sources, I prefer recent publications. Of course, accurate datings are not avalaible, but approximate chronology is very useful, even though future scholarship can change the scenario. Regarding Assyrians and datings after 1133 BC I have no opinion, by now. On the other hand, I appreciate your quotings of primary sources (tablets).--Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I looked at the chart on 471, which is fine though dateless. Were did the dates come from? I'm sure they are fine, I just like things chronological. And Van Dassow has minor issues. For example I read the entire Hittite treaty twice and don't know where they got the idea that the treaty with Artatama II was abrogated. Maybe it happened in some other document.Ploversegg (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it seems Eva von Dassow does not explain much on how did she use some sources for dating. On the other hand, Ian Mladjov considers that: "While my reconstruction does not depend precisely on any specific chronology, I am currently inclined toward a Lowered Middle Chronology for Mesopotamia (fall of Babylon 1587 BC: de JONG and FOERTMEYER 2010; MANNING et al. 2016 and 2017) and a version of the Low Chronology for Egypt (Thutmose III from 1479 BC; Rameses II from 1279 BC: von BECKERATH 1997; KRAUSS 2015)..." and that his list "assumes generations of 20–30 years, adjusted to fit any known synchronisms."--Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 02:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I am always amused when people talk about the Egyptian Chronology like it is set in stone. It has a lot of holes covered by wallpaper. The entire Third Intermediate Period of Egypt is a mess. And we won't even start with how many rulers have uncertain regnal lengths or possible overlaps in rulership. By the time you get to the Mitanni Period I consider Egyptian dates accurate to +/- 25 years, maybe a bit worse. That's why they try to shore it up with the limmu lists and a suspect astronomical event or two. Unfortunately, if you doubt the standard EC you look like a pyramids built by UFO aliens person.:-) Its just the opposite in the aNE where there are a slew of different chronologies and nobody agrees. I prefer to stay "chronology-agnostic" (not even fully buying the whole Venus Tablet thing) and think of it as number of islands formed by synchronisms in an ocean of floating chronology. Slowly we are gluing the islands together. Some day we will have a continent. Anyone who doesn't think its that messy I point to Chronology of the ancient Near East.Ploversegg (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B.: I've run out of stuff to poke on the Mitanni article. If something is needed let me know. It looks pretty good compared to before.Ploversegg (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

As you say, the article is much better now, and with more references. You did a good labor.--Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey, not sure whether this is the right place to bring this up, and I’m far from an expert on Ancient Near East civilizations, but I can read IPA, and the gloss /mɪˈtæni/ (at the top of the article) strikes me as pretty unlikely for the word “Mitanni,” just eyeballing it as a native English speaker. Specifically, I think someone has made a mistake in the vowel of the second syllable. I haven’t heard the word spoken aloud, but for anyone who has, is the second syllable really pronounced like the word “tan”? It seems to me that the vowel /ɑ/ (in full, /mɪˈtɑni/), the one in the first word syllable of the word “father,” is more plausible. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:C080:E970:D1BB:6BB1:11F7:93E6 (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Name

Under "Name" Maryannu is listed. This is not a name of Mitanni at all (certainly not by the Egyptians, as the article claims), but the term used for chariot warriors. It needs to be removed. As the page is protected, I cannot do this myself. Shedsunefertum17 (talk) 10:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Now corrected. Shedsunefertum17 (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Indo

If these influences are considered specifically INDO-Aryan, does it mean that they arrived from India? Or did these languages separate somewhere in the Steppe? In that case when? Either much more than 4000 years ago, or Cemetery H can't have any relation to Indo-Aryans. Or Cemetery H is much younger than 3900 years. --95.24.64.92 (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)