Talk:Mannaea

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)Reply

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")") [1]. 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 [2] It seems somewhat more researched, and discusses good evidence for the following hypothesis:

1. The Mannaeans were basically Cimmerians
2. The Mannaeans / Cimmerians were Assyrian mercenaries (not just allies)
3. 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)Reply

• As far as I can tell, the main author who seems to make this connection with Mannae is named Yair Davidiy; also, I keep turning up a hit to an JewishEncyclopedia.com entry "Armenia" where it seems to mention Mannai, but the website is down and I can't read the article in full at this time. I will try more later, when I have more time. Codex Sinaiticus 15:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

• Hi, I just found a "cached" version of the 1902 Jewish Encyclopedia article "ARMENIA", so now I can read what it says:

According to the Peshiṭta and Targum Onkelos, the "Minni" of the Bible (Jer. li. 27) is Armenia—or rather a part of that country, as Ararat is also mentioned (Isa. xxxvii. 38; II Kings xix. 37) as a part of Armenia. The cuneiform inscriptions speak of "Mannai" in the same neighborhood (Schrader, "K. A. T." 2d ed., p. 423). In ancient times the Armenians were in communication with Tyre and other Phenician cities, in which they traded with horses and mules (Ezek. xxvii. 14).

Now I admit this info from 1902 is a little out of date; the article goes on to associate Armenia with Meshech and Tubal, more often connected with Georgia; furthermore, in the reference it gives above to Ezekiel 27:14, the term actually used is "Beth-Togarmah" but for some reason this name is not mentioned in the article. But it does go to show that the puported relation between "Minni" "Mannai" and "Armenia" was made 100+ years ago, so therefore I believe it could be mentioned as a theory, with proper attributation. Regards Codex Sinaiticus 15:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Codex, I do not see any "theory" here on alleged links between ancient Mannaeans or Armenians that deserves to be mentioned. Most of the sources and authors, as well as we both agree that Mannaeans are people with unnown affinity, which were probably kin to ancient Cimmerians, or Medians, or perhaps also Iranians (although their "Indo-Europeanness" is under question). But none of the authors, even Armenian authors themselves, have ever claimed any link between Mannaeans and Armenians. The key to understanding the quote you bring above is here: "the "Minni" of the Bible (Jer. li. 27) is Armenia—or rather a part of that country, as Ararat is also mentioned...". This statement (the accuracy of which is itself a matter of dispute) simply refers to the ancient borders of "Greater Armenian" kingdom, which is believed, at times comprised parts of northwestern Iran (including areas which several centuries earlier belonged to Mannaeans), as well as large parts opf Caucasus, Asia Minor and upper Mesopotamia. Rovoam (who has very good knowledge of history, but always used his knowledge to push his nationalistic POV, manipulations and vandalism) has in the past posted several interesting maps of "Greater Armenia", which show the borders (at least alleged/claimed borders) of this ancient Armenian state. [3] Some of them include parts of present-day northwestern Iran. So, the quote, apparently refers to this period when it talks about Armenia and ancient Mannae. I believe, we can mention Armenians in this context, referring to the fact that some authors have argued that at times borders of Greater Armenian kingdom also comprised areas of ancient Mannae, present-day northwestern Iran. --Tabib 11:19, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, Jeremiah 51:27 mentions "Minni, Ararat and Ashkenaz" together, and nearly all Christian and Jewish commentators agree that these three nations all became components of Armenia, (although the Armenian language itself seems to be mainly derived from a later Phrygian component that entered the terrain sometime around 600 BC.) Since the 3 peoples in question are usually agreed to be Mannae, Urartu and Ashkuza, we are talking about a very similar mix of the same peoples who also became the Azeris. This once again would indicate that the Armenians and Azeris are much more closely related than many suspect.

Prominent Jewish & Christian Sources I found for this, with a quick search:

• Easton's Bible Dictionary
• Palestinian Targum

(derives "Armenia" from "Har-Minni", mountains of Minni.)

• International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

(also states that the Ancient Egyptian term for Armenia / Minni was "Ermenen",

• John Gill

Hopefully all this should be enough to include a statement like "Some Jewish and Christian scholars write that..." Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 15:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi Codex, I agree with you very much on your words that Armenians and Azeris, as well as Turks in general, have more in common than they even suspect. And certainly this comes from their centuries-long intermingled geography, history, culture etc. The facts you've found about the origin of the word Armenia and its alleged link to Mannae/Minni is rather interesting, I've never heard about it before. Certainly, if there are sources which at least lay down such claims, it deserves to be mentioned, and perhaps not only in this entry but also in Armenia entry as well. However, I would still be very cautious in formulating some opinion about aleged links between Mannaeans and Armenians. So, basically, you can put something like, "Some Jewish and Christian scholars write that...", BUT, the most important thing is what you will put after this "that", because, it is a slippery slope and one can easily misinterpret the history and make Mannae an "Armenian state" or Mannaeans - "Armenian forefathers", a claim which even Armenians themselves do not make. --Tabib 19:05, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I forgot also to say that Ashguaz/Ashkenaz/Ishguz are basically Scythians commonly thought to be Turkic (some although contend they were Indo-Europeans. Just in case, if you dont know.--Tabib 19:09, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest "Some Jewish and Christian scholars write that the name Armenia was derived from Har-Minni, i.e. 'Mountains of Minni'." (It seems the Jewish Targum was the first to give this etymology, followed by the Christian authors, btw.)

Yes, the Scythians are another fascinating puzzle; it seems only a small step from "Ashguza" to "Oghuz", and there are enough other similarities to make me wonder why this connection is not proposed more often. The reason some think them Indo-European is because known specimens of the Scythian / Saka language would seem to place it firmly in the Indo-Aryan sub-family, not too distant from Avestan. On the other hand, the language could easily have changed a lot between 500 BC and 500 AD; and the specimens we have might only represent the speech of the ruling caste, not that of the subject peoples... In addition to Turks, Scythian origins are often claimed for nearly all the large families of Europe (Celts, Teutons, and Slavs) so chances are, there is more to unravelling this mystery than first meets the eye! Codex Sinaiticus 23:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

In principle, I dont mind such formulation, but perhaps this sentence would be more appropriate in Armenia. As to Schythians, you are right this is really a big puzzle, but unfortuanately, the Scythians entry is written completely one-sided. I do not have proper knowledge of the issue, so I prefer not to get involved more closely, at least unless I have something more solid at hand. --Tabib 09:50, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Scythians are not commonly thought to be Turkic. They are commonly thought to have been Iranic. The Turkic hypothesis is pretty much a pseudo-scientific fringe theory. Alexander 007 03:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why so many Turks want to re-write their own ancient history in a Western direction. You don't need to justify your presence in Anatolia or Dzungaria or anywhere in between. Hundreds of years in China and Siberia add up to a richer culture than what the Pontic Scythians left us. Be glad they weren't Turks; you guys get blamed for enough atrocities. (I mean, Vlad the Impaler and Ivan Grozny are made out as heroes...Eastern Europe was full of semi-nomadic groups, most of whom superior calvary the Circassians, Dacian/Baltic Getae, but Scythians cornered the Black Sea slave trade. beside running away from the Persians Kudos to the Askuza (whose name might be Elamite: "mounted knights", an Iranian dialect ("ruling cats?") "Ashguza" means "seizer Their prestige was built on wealth earned though slave-raiding and piracy. The Turks started poor and rugged, surrounded by predatorsDealing with the Han Chinese the Pontic Scythians . Honestly though the Pontic Scythians seem a glamorous group thanks to Herodotus Ashguza and Oghuz might sound superficially similar but these are different peoples and languages and the Oghuz Turks were simply light years beyond the Scythians in cavalry warfare. Saka tribes would hire on as scouts or hunters for serious armiesthe Greeks never saw them as a threat. Why spoil the greatest door-kicking in history, as the Huns under Uldin Hundreds of years adventuring in the wildest terrain, fighting the most sophisticated enemies, negotiating with the cleverest thinkers...if only some good historical novels could show Turkish ancestors in their true light. While the Tocharians were content to sell jade, and the Sai tribes were just another mercenary group. The Siberian Turks had to struggle to keep their population viable and the Turks in China tweren't pretentious or interested in linguistics and were happy to borrow words from whoever they did business with; it didn't change their culture or the unique flow of their language. I doubt they were very impressed with the Saka tribes, as they hadn't invented saddles, pants, calvary swords, or marching band signals. Pontic Scythians were tolerated by the Greeks because they brought in slaves and could be paid off in trinkets. Their culture was bizarre, but formal, As a fighting force they The Circassians could BaltiI wish more Bronze/Iron age records survived (as Guifang, Xunyu, Chidi) The Pontic Scythians were interesting to the Greeks mostly because they brought in slaves We all know they existed in China and Siberia - After their brief — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.190.90.235 (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

For some deeper insights into the Mannaens from the Assyrians' perspective, and how battles did not occur without divine consultations during biblical times, see the cuneiform references in Starr, I (1990) Letters to the Sungod; Divination an Politics in Sargonid Assyria, Helsinki University Press (State Archives of Assyria IV). pp 29, 32, 34, 36, 38, 48,51, 55, 56, 58, 68-69, 75, 155, 244-246, Furthering thought (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Might I add:

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)Reply

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)Reply

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:[4] [5] Azerbaijanian 777 (talk) 07:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

@Azerbaijanian 777: 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)Reply