Jump to content

User talk:Codex Sinaiticus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wyss (talk | contribs) at 03:59, 31 July 2005 (→‎Comment attrib for disambiguation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Initial Welcome Letter

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Draft Merge of Mitanni article moved to user page

Codex Sinaiticus 04:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A first suggestion: you may find that it works better over the long run to move the proposed draft to a temporary file in your userspace, for example User:Codex Sinaiticus/temp. That way any comments, discussions, etc. are kept separate from communication directed to you about other matters. -- llywrch 17:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I may end up moving it again if it causes any conflict, but for now it is on the regular user page Codex Sinaiticus 18:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Caucasian Albania, Artsakh, Arran (Azerbaijan)

Hi there,

Welcome to Wikipedia! Just wanted to quickly thank you for your valuable edits in the above-mentioned three pages and for your willingness to involve yourself "in my dispute with Rovoam" ;-) I don't feel alone in those pages now, and I am grateful to you for being my partner/counterpart in those pages and hopefully in many more pages in future. Bests.--Tabib 18:02, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Why do you consider BCE offensive?

And good job on the Mitanni article, by the way.Yuber

Thanks for the positive feedback...
Why BCE is offensive is a long story, not so much the actual initials or what they stand for, it has more to do with antipathy between the parties who would replace BC and AD with BCE and CE... BC and AD were used for centuries, but the newer initials first cropped up in the later 20th C (70's or 80's) in the journals of revisionists and Marxists with a decidedly minimalist bent. Resistance to the change is widespread, quite recently I saw a news article on Google about this very issue raging in Australia, and the uproar was great enough to stop the new-fangled initials from appearing in government schoolbooks. So rest assured, it isn't only myself who would object to their use. Probably safest not to stir up this whole can of worms... --Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 13:30, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect how to

To make a redirect put #redirect [[pagename]] as the content of a page (remove everything else). Cheers. CryptoDerk 03:36, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Gomer

I'm going through the Articles to Split. From reading the description (and making a time frame assumption), it seemed to me to be two different people (especially since the bits about Ezekiel implied it wasn't a single person represented by the name). Thanks for putting things on the right track -Acjelen 01:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Cimmerians

If I had known you would be so critical of my edit I would have shown my source. My edits are based on two books: 1)The Near East: 10,000 Years of History by Isaac Asimov & 2)The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia by Rene Grousset. I can support my edit, it isn't just speculation and even if it was, that doesn't mean that it needs to be deleted. Plenty of articles contain theories. Many scholors do believe the Cimmerians to be of an Indo-European stock, and some even put them under the Tharco-Phrygian sub-branch. The Cimmerians made contact with the Urartuians in the 8th century BC after the Scythians drove them out of southern Ukraine. But even before that the peoples of Asia Minor knew about a barbarous tribe to the north, which many scholors think were the Cimmerians. And finally the view that the Scythians took over the area around the 8th and 7th century BC isn't at all based on Herodotus. The Cimmerians fled southwards to the Caucasus and collided first with Urartu in the 7th century BC. The Assyrian King Sargon seeing his chance to destroy Assyria's great rival to the north attacked Urartu from the south. So Urartu had to choose which enemy to submit to, they choose Assyria. Together the two withstood the Cimmerians and kept them out of the Fertile Crescent. I think we can work together to make the Cimmerian article better, If I don't hear from you in 72 hours I will feel free to edit the article.--Moosh88 04:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


  • Hi, Moosh, I agree we can work together to make it better (there is room for improvement). My reverting your edit was not to say "keep your info out of the article", but only to say it ought to be reformatted, properly sourced, and put in the proper place. The opening paragraph is generally not the best place for more controversial stuff, but we could have a section just for that, on the pattern of what we did with the Hurrians. In fact your sentence above, Many scholors do believe the Cimmerians to be of an Indo-European stock, and some even put them under the Tharco-Phrygian sub-branch. - I would have no problem with, because it contains the correct formula for such an assertion.
As to whether the Cimmerians (Gimirru) really were Thracians and/or Bryges, I am still skeptical myself. True, many of these peoples did live side by side, and probably bumped into each other more than once, as they all circled around the Pontus. (Meshech, Tubal, Gomer and Tiras/Thrace were all considered distinct with good reason). I am aware that some (eg, McEvedy) do refer to these all by the general term 'Thraco-Cimmerian'. But this classification has been challenged in more recent years, with sound arguments against it. I have tried to bring some of this up further on in the article. You also said the Cimmerians moved south and clashed first with Urartu in the "7th Century", but careful analysis of the Assyrian records apparently places them at first within the region of Mannai, already South of Urartu. So if they came from the North via the Caucasus, how did they get through Urartu? It seems definite that they joined with the Assyrians in attacking Urartu from the South, when we first hear of them (714). By contrast, we hear of the Phrygians (Mushku) as early as 1200 BC, with the "Sea peoples", and they seem to be a distinct people from the Gimirru. And yes, Herodotus (440 BC) followed by other Greek historians is the main source placing them in Ukraine, although the fact that remnants of them seem to have dwelt in Crimea as the 'Tauri' is pretty conclusive proof they were there at some point.
Until we find more about the nature of the Cimmerian language, I would prefer to hold off judgement on their linguistic classification. As I said before, the only thing so far I have seen to go on, the king name Sandakhshatra, points to Indo-Aryan (satem), and no way is a name like that Thracian (centum). Codex Sinaiticus 02:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I'm looking forward to making the article better. We should get started as soon as possible. But first I have to make a few points. From what the Urartuian and Assyrian sources say, the Cimmerians raided the northern borders of Urartu and the Assyrians seeing their chance to break Urartu attacked the southern borders. I haven't come across anything which stated that the Cimmerians joined the Assyrians in the south and then attacked. Maybe a small band of Cimmerians, but the main host was in the North. Could you please tell me what your sources are? As for classifcation, I went by the discoveries of the French archeologist A.M. Tallgren, who believed the Cimmerians were of an Indo-European stock and they moved to the Russian steppe north of the Black Sea at around 1200 BC. This is further supported by a Finnish archeologist who found numerous objects in the Dnieper and Kuban region. Of these, the most important are the Borodino treasure (1300 BC?-1100 BC), the Shtetkovo treasure with its bronze sickles (1400 BC?-1100 BC), the bronze foundry of Nikolayev (1100 BC?), and the bronze sickles of Abramovka (1200 B.C.); all these discovered between the lower Danube and the lower Dnieper. This is why Tallgren believed the Cimmerians to have originated from Hungary and Romania or less hypothetically, inhabited those countries as well. With this information I think it's more likely that the Cimmerians were of a Tharco-Phrygian sub-branch, rather than an Indo-Aryan or Indo-Iranian. Please get back to me, thanks.--Moosh88 18:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I do have sources, but not time right now..! I hope to go over them in more detail for you sometime today or tonight though... What the primary sources (inscriptions) indicate is not exactly what you wrote in Mannaeans (Urartu joined the Assyrians against the Cimmerians).... Rather, the picture they paint is that the Cimmerians were first mercenaries of the Assyrians against Urartu, but later turned traitor against Sargon II, killing him in battle in 705. His grandson Esarhaddon could not even trust their promises of neutrality some 40 years later. Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 19:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whenever you can post your sources that would be great. Once again the sources we are using do not agree. Or one of us is confused about what the other is talking about. Small Cimmerian bands could have easily been mercenaries for Assyria, but when the Cimmerians were forced to move due to the pressure put on them by the Scythians, they attacked Urartu. Assyria attacked Urartu too, Urartu surrendered to the Assyrians, they joined forces and prevented the Cimmerians from entering the Fertile Crescent. The Cimmerians went to west Asia Minor and attacked the small kingdoms. Those kingdoms couldn't handle the Cimmerians, so they called for help from Sargon II, who led and invasion of the peninsula but died during a battle in 705 BC. His successor, Sennacherib finished the campaign; the Cimmerians remained quiet for the rest of his reign. But in 679 BC Esarhaddon (he was Sennacherib's son not grandson), Sennacherib's successor, led another campaign against the Cimmerians, who were being forced deeper into Asia Minor by the Scythians. The Scythians at this time were occupying Urartu. Esarhaddon was successful and to keep the Scythians peaceful he accepted a Scythian princess into his harem. The Cimmerians remained quiet for another 30 years, but in 653 BC they again attacked the small kingdoms of Asia Minor, this time the greatest Assyrian king Ashurbanipal along with Gyges, the founder of Lydia, finally put an end to the Cimmerian menace in 652 BC. This is a brief summary, but if I missed anything major or if you disagree with what I've wrote let me know; I'm very interested in the sources which you use. --Moosh88 20:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

some extracts from a website I found on Cimmerian origins

A.K.G.KRISTENSEN

A.K.G. Kristensen ("Who were the Cimmerians, and where did they come from?", Copenhagen, 1988) does however bring apparently irrefutable proof that the Cimmerians upon their first appearance were indeed serving in the Assyrian forces...

The findings of Ms.Kristensen are based primarily on an analysis of Assyrian inscriptions and also on a careful study of academic analysis on the subject heretofore.

1. Assyrian reports: A series of Assyrian tablets have been found from the time of Sargon-ii (721-705) referring to the Cimmerians and their country Gamir. They are military intelligence reports to King Sargon concerning campaigns in Urartu. These show that the Cimmerians were settled to the south and not to the north of Urartu. This means that the Cimmerians were first found in a buffer zone between Urartu and Assyria. Mannae and Musasir were the neighbourhoods in which Cimmerians were first reported.

2. Where did the Cimmerians really come from? Kristensen advocates the rejection of previously held academic theories concerning Cimmerian origins: Impartial examination of the content of the Assyrian tablets leads to a rejection of the commonly held thesis adopted by many researchers. The previously held ideas supposed that the Cimmerians came from north of the Caucasus and were driven to the south by the Scythians. Place names in Scythia (i.e. southern Russia) recalled the past Cimmerian presence. Archaeologists tended to identify "the vast southern Russian Catacomb Culture from the Bronze Age" with the Cimmerians "whereas the proto-Scythians were supposed to be responsible for the Timber grave Culture" which replaced them. Kristensen quotes from researchers such as T.Sulimirski, M.Salvini, U.Cozzoli, and others who point out that the said identifications are groundless. There is no archaeological evidence for the Cimmerians (or the Scyths) ever having been north of the Caucasus prior to their first appearances in the Middle East. Nor is there anything in their culture (which in the case of the Scythians at least, was Near or Middle Eastern) relating them to that area. The Cimmerians have not even been properly identified archaeologically and we must rely on Assyrian descriptions for our knowledge concerning them. Greek accounts and place names are SOMETIMES used to support the idea that the Cimmerians and Scythians originated north of the Caucasus. These proofs are actually either misinterpreted or.(says Kristensen and the authorities who support her) are literary inventions or anachronisms, based on events occurring a considerable time afterwards...

The First mention of Gamir (=Land of the Gimirri-Cimmerians) and its date: Gamir is first mentioned in a letter addressed to Sargon ii king of Assyria. They recount the defeat of a king of Urartu in Gamir. Both Rusa-i (d.714) and his son Argishti-ii were contemporaries of Sargon. The date of the defeat and which king is involved is therefore uncertain. One group of researchers opts for a date between 709-707 while another claims that it was earlier, in 714, and Kristensen adopts this last opinion. 5. The role of Musasir: Around the time that Urartu invaded Gamir (i.e. the land of the Cimmerians) the Assyrian king Sargon had been to the east of Musasir in Mannae waging war in Zikirtu. Musasir was a vassal state of Assyria yet Urartu had some claim over it. Sargon king of Assyria claimed "broke off his homeward march" and with an elite army group attacked Musasir which he took "without battle, sacked and placed under Assyrian sovereignty". Sargon says he then invaded Urartu and Rusa king of Urartu apparently committed suicide...

Parallelisms between the Assyrians and GIMIR: The reconstruction of the above events depends upon the unraveling of several parallel Assyrian accounts. In the War against Urartu exist the role played by "Cimmerians" in one account is the same as that of the "Assyrians" in the parallel version. In these cases the "CIMMERIANS" are paralleled by the "Assyrians" and may be identified with them since the CIMMERIANS were serving as ASSYRIAN SOLDIERS! The reasoning of Kristensen is roughly as follows:

a. The reports about the Cimmerians said that Urartu invaded Gimir ("Land of the Cimmerians") in north Mannae and was defeated after which the Cimmerians attacked the land of Urartu.

b. The reports about the Assyrians parallel those concerning the Cimmerians and say that Urartu invaded a portion of Mannae called Uishdish and fought a battle on Mount Uaush involving the Assyrians.

c. The battle between Urartu and Gimir and that between Urartu and Assyria must have been in the same month, in the late summer of 714 b.c.e. (or 707?).

d. In both the account concerning the Cimmerian encounter with Urartu and that about the Assyrian campaign against Urartu the army of Urartu seems to set out from the same base. In both cases Rusa, king of Urartu, flees from the scene of battle and leaves his army in the lurch. In both cases Rusa flees by the same complicated seemingly unlikely route. In both cases forces enter Urartu after having been provocatively attacked by Urartu: In one case Assyrians and Mannaeans march against Urartu; in the other, Cimmerians. In both cases after the battle, Urzana king of Musasir leaves (albeit unwillingly) the Assyrian side and passes over to that of Urartu.

e. An Assyrian account directed to the king of Assyria which issued from the region of Zikirtu concerning the king of Urartu after his defeat states,"The Urartian, since he went [to] Gamir [now?)] is very afraid of the lord my king".-In other words, because of his defeat at Gamir (by the Cimmerians) the king of Urartu had come to fear the king of Assyria! From Zirkitu Sargon had been reported as launching his attack against the advance of Urartu in Uishdish.

It follows from ALL the above that Uishdish and Gamir were one and the same place and that the war of Sargon against Urartu was the same as that of the Gamirra against Urartu!!

7. Parallelisms between the forces of Gamir and Assyria and the explanation of incongruities: According to the Assyrians, Sargon and Sin-ah-usur, the grand visier of Sargon led the cavalry from Zikirtu and defeated a numerically vastly superior force of Urartians in the mountains of Mannae after a breakneck march. Logistically such a feat seems highly unlikely if not impossible! In a parallel situation, in almost the very same words, Sargon claimed to have personally conquered the city of Ashdod even though he had not been there and one of his subordinates had done the work. At Ashdod it is known that Sargon did not personally participate but rather delegated one of his turtanu (nobles) to command the forces instead of him. The nature of the reports sent to Sargon concerning the war with Urartu also suggest that Sargon lacked firsthand knowledge of the encounter. Therefore it may be assumed that Sargon did not actually fight the battle but rather others (in this case Cimmerians in Assyrian service) did on his behalf.

8. The fortresses of Mannae: Some years prior to the final defeat of Rusa of Urartu, Rusa had taken control of 12 (or 20 according to another version) Assyrian fortresses in Uishdish. These fortresses had been garrisoned with Assyrian and Mannaean troops whom Kristensen claims had in fact been Cimmerians in Assyrian service since the Assyrians used conscripted exiles for garrison duties in border areas. It was over these Cimmerian (i.e. Gamirra) garrisoned posts and their neighborhood that the battle was fought. The said area was Uishdish and because of its Cimmerian-connections (suggests Kristensen) Uishdish was also known as Gamir. The Cimmerians therefore when we first meet them are in Assyrian service...

After his defeat Rusa king of Urartu flees to Musasir and there captures and crowns Urzana of Musasir as ("mock") king of Urartu. Meanwhile, Mannaeans and Cimmerians invade Urartu and capture Urartian cities. Mannae was a vassal state of Assyria and was acting on Assyrian behalf and so must the Cimmerians have been! Sargon captures and destroys Musasir. Rusa and Urzana are either killed, suicide, or otherwise disappear.

Esarhaddon and the Cimmerians: R. Ghirshman, the scholar of ancient Persian history, believed the Cimmerians to have been in the service of Assyria under Sennacherib in ca.689 if not before then. This opinion is not generally accepted though at all events, a treaty from 679 b.c.e. in the time of Esarhaddon reveals the presence of a unit of Cimmerians in the Assyrian army. In 675 Cimmerians were reported in or close to Man (i.e. Mannae) and had assured the Assyrians of their neutrality in the struggle then taking place between rebellious Mannaeans and Assyria. Esarhaddon did not believe them. Esarhaddon described them as, "zer amel hal qa ti i, who recognise neither the oath (sworn before) a god nor treaties". The above emphasised Assyrian Akkadian words ("zer amel hal qa ti i") have been subject to various translations all of more or less similar import. This expression has been translated differently by different researchers as: "outcasts"; "deserters"; "a race of fugitives"; "seed of dispersion" (Y.B.Yusifov); "vagabonds"; and "ruinous breed". These negative connotations applied to the Cimmerians in the time of Esarhaddon are all applicable to a people exiled from its land, at one stage serving the Assyrians, and later (in exile) attempting to re-assert its own identity. In Assyrian eyes they would have been deserting. The same expression was also applied to the forces of Lugdamne the Cimmerian king. In other words it is more than an epithet and acquired (in the case of the Cimmerians) an ethnic connotation.

Regarding the Cimmerians near Mannae mentioned above, the opinion exists that these too were still in Assyrian service though Esarhaddon had come to doubt their loyalty.

[End extracts]


I don't have time to read all of this right now, but I did read a large section and what stuck out for me was the quote in section 2 "Kristensen quotes from researchers such as T.Sulimirski, M.Salvini, U.Cozzoli, and others who point out that the said identifications are groundless. There is no archaeological evidence for the Cimmerians (or the Scyths) ever having been north of the Caucasus prior to their first appearances in the Middle East." This doesn't make sense because a Finnish archeologist found numerous objects in the Dnieper and Kuban region, most of which were identified as Cimmerian. Of these, the most important are the Borodino treasure (1300 BC?-1100 BC), the Shtetkovo treasure with its bronze sickles (1400 BC?-1100 BC), the bronze foundry of Nikolayev (1100 BC?), and the bronze sickles of Abramovka (1200 B.C.); all these discovered between the lower Danube and the lower Dnieper. The French archeologist A.M. Tallgren used these discoveries to support his claims. I will have to read more of what you posted later.--Moosh88 20:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Codex: I just want to commend you on your work and effort. Some good info added to wikipedia. We all thank you!

Hungarian prehistory

Hi, after a quick glance at the article I think it has a very strong nationalistic POV (looking at the references justified this for me). It should probably be rewritten from scratch. (Although I'm not an expert or anything.)

-- nyenyec ☎ 02:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with nyenyec, who is a well known anti-Hungarian agitator and hater along the wikipedia. The article is well written, thanks for it.

Workaround

That's an interesting idea - my watchlist may be too long for that to be practical as to the whole thing, but I can make a page for the most frequently changed articles - thanks, I will do that! -- BDAbramson talk July 1, 2005 19:19 (UTC)

Tyre

Just FYI, the user who added the comment to Talk:Tyre appears to be a vandal/troll on the subject of British/American spelling. Choess 00:08, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

POV Pushing

Quit pushing your pro-Christian Point of View. POV pushing is bad. Stop being bad. Be good. Like Jesus. WWJD? Not push POV on Wikipedia.

Also, deleting factually incorrect content is not vandalism. Thanks, and have a nice day. 68.23.224.34 14:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment attrib for disambiguation

I'm European and hence don't believe in censorship. If I did, I'd probably destroy the book of Leviticus before considering discussing whether it is appropriate to mention parts of the anatomy (which by the way, the vast majority of people, including Jesus and Mohammed and whoever, have and normally use in a non-sexual way) in the presence of religious texts. Please consider spending your time more productively. I suggest editing articles. Here for instance. Dmn / Դմն 01:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I were trying to be offensive, I would have used some sort of profanity. I will heed your suggestion and will use a blander comment in future. Tchuss. Dmn / Դմն 01:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


AH

I think we make first impressions that clashed with each other a bit, is all. I'm listening to you... I've encountered lots of editors lately who've been pushing PoV creep is all, thanks for understanding. I was properly appalled when I saw I'd reverted your grammar correction! Wyss 03:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Codex_Sinaiticus&oldid=19961641"