Talk:Mitanni

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Reshaping of the article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  To Do 

message: 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)
replies: text: Now corrected. Shedsunefertum17 (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Indo