Talk:Mannaea

message: Assuredly, some authors have indeed claimed that the Armenians origin was in the Mannaeans, as a quick web search will reveal; whether or not those authors are credible, remains to be seen, but per wiki policy of neutrality, there is no reason not to at least mention that some authors do claim this.
  
Personally, I don't see why it is out of the question; since the Mannaeans ceased to exist as a polity at roughly the same time as the Armenians first begin to show up as a rapidly growing minority population within the remnants of Urartu.  Codex Sinaiticus 14:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Codex, I am rather sceptical about that. I've quickly searched internet and found no relevant info. On the contrary, one can see many other sources which claim that modern Azerbaijanis and Iranians are the descendants of Mannaeans, and their claim is much more convincing. I found just one by-line sentence in one non-academic web-page ("Because we are dealing here with a Europe-wide migration of peoples called "Ereth/Ered, Manes must have depicted the Eridu Babylonians, they becoming the Armenians (the latter were anciently "Minni/Mannae")") . Apart from that I found no other reference, and frankly, I think it is not serious to claim that Mannaeans were Armenian forefathers, simply because the "Armenian homeland" was a bit to the west. in present day eastern Anatolia but not in n-w Iran. Most importantly, you should refer to Armenian sources themselves, no single Armenian source, I can assure you, has ever stated that Mannae and Mannaeans had any relation to the present-day Armenians. I think just this last fact is senough to simply disregard the claim above on ancient Mannaeans and present-day Armenians.--Tabib 12:09, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
*You're right, the site you found does not seem credible at all; I just now did a quick search myself, and ran into another interesting site however: Check out  It seems somewhat more researched, and discusses good evidence for the following hypothesis:
#The Mannaeans were basically Cimmerians
#The Mannaeans / Cimmerians were Assyrian mercenaries (not just allies)
#The 10 "lost" tribes of Israel, whom the Assyrians deported at the time in question, were resettled and assimilated amongst the Mannaeans / Cimmerians
I'm still looking for more sites mentioning a connection with Armenia when I get a chance. Codex Sinaiticus 14:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Section

message: Hi i tried to link this page with the one from the german wiki but it doesn't work. So i give u the link 2 the german article. Perhaps u know how 2 do it. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann%C3%A4er --134.147.73.37 11:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with the Link 

message: The page was just semi protected because of an anon.  I thought he was edit warring to make some point, but looking through the history, I was reminded that we had a similar problem in early June '05, that also caused the page to be protected, and in that case it was assumed to be Rovoam, who was going around taking every article back to the last edit before Tabib, out of animosity.  
This time around, I see the very first two edits by the anon were clearly vandalism, because they both went back to way old versions that were so old, that some or all interwikis were lost.  Then after that, he settled on rewinding to a version that is a little more recent, making me think it might be just a content dispute.  But now that I see all the earlier edits, there doesn't seem to be any reason for it.  The June '05 vandal at least admitted he was trying to undo Tabib, but this time, it just didn't make any sense. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The anon reverter 

message: I changed the Greater Iran template to the Iran template, because the Mannaeans had nothing to do with Greater Iran.Azerbaijani 03:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template

message: I moved this statement : "The original ethnic and linguistic affinities of the populace are uncertain. They are sometimes considered to have been of non-Indo-European origin; however some historians see close similarities between Mannaeans and Indo-Iranian groups such as Scythians. The Mannaeans may also have been a branch of Hurrians (Khurrites), who were not linguistically Indo-European." to the talkpage.  Since the Iranica article by R. Zadok gives us a symbosis.  --alidoostzadeh (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  moved 

message: I removed the paragraph with Bible references, because all the references were either dead links, no page numbers, or referred to an Aegean group. Twofistedcoffeedrinker (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible paragraph 

message: Britannica online pretends that the Mannaeans and urartu where subdued in about 609 BC by the Median king Cyaxares:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/147792/Cyaxares  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.233.218.32 (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  defeat of the mannaeans 

message: I found several sources and books that claim that Minni may have referred to the Armenians, so I don't care what you have claimed, as long as you can proved otherwise, I will add a subsequent section relating to the topic, because Minni refers to the Mannaeans. I dare you to find ONE source that claims that Minni referes to the modern day Azeris. If you do, add that too. --Vitilsky (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Check this out "the original Armenia, the Minni of the Hebrew Scriptures, was probably limited to the provinces of Erivan and Nakhshivan, which now alone, by a singular fortune, retains under Russian sway that denomination." "The region (of Nakhchivan) was part of the states of Mannae, Urartu and Media" Nakhchivan? I will not add that to the text, but MANY books claim that Nakhchivan was connected to and Minni were Armenia, and I guess Media refers to modern day Iranian Azeris or Azeri Azeris. Oh yeah, they are all English, German and Jewish authors of the 19th and 20th centuries. I find that mesmerising, but that's just a couple of those sources. --Vitilsky (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: The pottery found at some of the sites in what arguably can be located in what was nominally Mannea include so-called Late Buff ware and Ziwiye Ware. The main sites which can arguably be attributed to Mannae include Bard-e Konta, Qalaichi, Rabat tappeh, Ziwiye, Changbar (Y. Hassanzadeh, Die Mannäer und die Urartäer in Nordwestiran, in: Helwing, B. et al. (ed.), Iran frühe Kulturen zwischen Wasser und Wüste, 2017, Munich, Hirmer, 177‒85. These same wares occur in Hasanlu III in the Iron III period, which date largely in the 8th and 7th centuries BC (Stephan Kroll, Hasanlu period III ‒ annotations and corrections, Iranica Antiqua 48, 2013, 175‒93). Assyrianising glazed bricks are a main feature of Rabat and Qalaichi.
Azd0815  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azd0815 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: archaeology

message: Mannaea was located wholly in modern Iran. It was not located in Turkey, Azerbaijan, or Iraq.
Mannaea's population is widely accepted as being Hurrian, Kassite, and Iranian-speaking. There is no evidence of Turkic-speaking peoples in this region until nearly two millennia later.
There is also no reason to link Mannaea with the previous Gutians, etc.
Skeptical1800 (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello! When I looked at the edits in this Wikipedia source about the state of Manna, it became clear to me that your goal is not to improve this article. If there are any grammatically incorrect sentences, this can be corrected. But you ran the easiest way. You have deleted more than half of the article. This is called Vandalism. I agree with you, the state of manna is located in the territory of modern Iran, and the source did not deny it. This state was located in the provinces of East Azerbaijan, Ardabil, West Azerbaijan and Zanjan in modern Iran. When we say Azerbaijan, we mean Azerbaijan in Iran (or the Azerbaijani Provinces). If it is not clear to you, you can also look at these links:  Azerbaijanian 777 (talk) 07:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just that they are grammatically incorrect, that could be easily corrected, it's that they are factually incorrect. Your edits were filled with nationalistic fringe theories from questionable sources. You went off on history of the Republic of Azerbaijan and unrelated peoples. Just because the Republic of Azerbaijan took its name from Iranian Azerbaijan does not mean that the history of the Republic of Azerbaijan needs to be discussed on this page. And those other provinces have anything to do with Rep. of Azerbaijan, let alone Turkey or Iraq, so I don't understand why you mentioned the Rep. of Azerbaijan, Turkey, or Iraq in your edits. Also, those two sources from Google Books you provided don't suggest that Mannaea was a Turkic nation anyhow, nor do they mention anything about the Rep. of Azerbaijan, Turkey, or Iraq, which your edits mentioned.Skeptical1800 (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

text:   Are you seriously claiming that Mannae was the first state in the history of Turkish peoples ? this would be quite an exceptional claim that would need multiple high quality sources. As far as i know about this topic, this sounds like a WP:FRINGE theory.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mannaean was not Turkic or Azerbaijani