Talk:Arzawa

Apasa, capital of Arzawa - etymology in Hittite

There are plenty of Hittite dictionaries and Lexicons online, I'd like to request someone add an etymology for Apasa after adding some of the sources that have researched the name, as Apasa and the later Greek word for the city seem closely related.

Hittite Etymological Dictionary Jaan Puhvel 1984 has appa- as uniformly related to "after" in a temporal sense', but Greek authors sometimes take it related to Ephor like Sparton's overseers.

As this is a harbor town, "looking after" may make more sense then "over seeing" and "see-er you see in landlocked capitals where the large hill is used as the name generator.

fyi - http://www.assyrianlanguages.org/hittite/en_lexique_hittite.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.42.179.151 (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Arzawa and Asia

- "Arzawa may be the origin for the name of the continent Asia."

Assuwa and Asia

- Not Arzawa, you're thinking of the other Luwian kingdom, Assuwa. It was Assuwa that gave its name to Asia.

- I agree. I have left the original quote in place for now, but have added Assuwa reference with original source.

- There is no indication Arzawa and Assuwa were separate kingdoms. Assuwa was the name of a coalition, and Arzawa may have been a successor state. Read Bryce (2005), Kelder (2010) and Cline (2013) for background on this. 2600:1702:28E0:EE0:70BE:C450:3FF6:69B1 (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Arzawa and Argos

- Was Argos that gave its name to Arzawa?

Note: The word "wa' means "land" in Hittite language.

- Was Bellerophon, the Corinthian prince of Greek Mythology, the same person with Uhhaziti, king of Arzawa?

- Was Arza-wa the "Argive land" (i.e. Achaean or Mycenean colonies), in Asia Minor (or else, Anatolia), in 16, 15, 14 centuries B.C. ?

- Was Madduwatta or Maddywattes, the Lukkan king of Arzawa (1360? B.C.) the same person with Jobates, the king of Lycia according to Greek Mythology?

- - Is exact the etymology, below ? :

Madduwatta < Maddu-watta < (Madd)u-watta < Uwatta < Ιοβάτα < Ιοβάτης (Jobates or Iobates)

- Was Piyama-Kurunta, Arzawean general and son of Uhhaziti, the king of Arzawa, the same person withHippolochus (= he who is leader of cavalry, in Greek), the first son of Bellerophon or with ("Pegasus (the Corinthian)", the mythical horse of Bellerophon?

Note:

Hippolochus = Hippus ( = horse, in Greek) + lochus ( = group of soldiers, in Greek).

--Ionn-Korr 11:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Answers and Critics

Altough English isn't my mother tongue, I have to make some corrections here:

-Argos and Arzawa are surely to be differentiated, not only are their names quite different, but also their locations are surely not identical. Altough the geography of the Arzawa-lands is difficult, it is sure that Arzawa must have been in West-Anatolia, and so cannot be identical with Argos.

It is also wrong that -wa means land in Hittite. utne or udne means land in Hittite. There is no meaning of -wa as a substantive in Hittite. I don't know where you got that idea from.

-Why should Bellerophon be identical with Uhha-Ziti?????

-The Madduwatta - Iobates etymology is surely incorrect, Madduwatta in Greek should be, as you said Mad(d)ya(t)tes

-The other identifications are all to be discarded. The Arzawan rulers cannot be identified with persons from Greek myths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.60.63.76 (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

language about language

... the linguistic identity of Arzawa was predominantly Luwian ...

Does this mean anything other than "Arzawa's predominant language was Luwian"? If not, I'd change it to the more transparent wording. —Tamfang (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

well i guess no one else has a problem with it —Tamfang (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arzawa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040202190725/http://pages.sbcglobal.net/zimriel/amc/arzawa.html to http://pages.sbcglobal.net/zimriel/amc/arzawa.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arzawa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051201025834/http://robotwisdom.com/science/troy.html to http://www.robotwisdom.com/science/troy.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

List a Arzawan kings as a complete mess!

The list of Arzawan kings is widely inaccurate (like many things that appear in Wiki's history articles). It could be fixed by resorting to few decent references, but until then, it's better just to delete it. 2600:1702:28E0:EE0:70BE:C450:3FF6:69B1 (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Location of Arzawa and Seha

I posted a short summary of Gander (2014). He's sort of offering a different picture of location. Y-barton (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Removal of cited information

[[1]] It's weird to remove scholarship with the excuse that it's outdated. In fact there is not contradictory view on this one as such this can stay.Alexikoua (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Georgiev (1981) provides a specific possibility and there I see no problem if this one is mentioned here. By the way there is no scholarship that contradicts Georgiev's claim and as such claiming that this should be removed at any cost can be easilty considered disruptive editting.

In terms of linguistics there is indeed strong linguistic evidence that Greek speech was present in the LBA-era of western Anatolia as such the existence of a possible Mycenaean Greek equivalent term is a valid information and good to have. Alexikoua (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Georgiev (1981) claims:

"During the second half of the 2nd millennium B.C. the Argeians, the Achaeans, and the Danaans colonized several parts of the southwestern and southern coast of Asia Minor, as well as the island of Cyprus. At that time the Hittites knew of them by the names Ahhiyawa=(ἈχαιϜοί or) *Ἀχαί(ι)Ϝᾱ from *ἈχαιϜ-i̯ᾱ ‘the country of the ἈχαιϜοί, and Arzawa (Arzauwa). Hidden in the name Arzawa is probably the late Mycenaean (= Cyprian) form of the name *ἈρζειϜᾱ < *Ἀργ(ε)ēϜ-i̯ᾱ ‘the land of the Argeians’, a derivative of the ethnicon *Ἀργεεύς ‘inhabitant of Argos’ or of the ethni-con itself *ἈρζεϜēς from *Ἀργ(ε)-ēϜ-ες ‘inhabitants of Argos’.15 The same form was preserved in Latin: Argīvī originates from *ἈργειϜοι ‘inhabitants of Ἀργεια, a derivative of *Ἀργ-ειϜᾱ < *Ἀργ(ε)-ēϜ-i̯ᾱ ‘the country of the *Ἀργ(ε)-ēϜ-ες. The towns of Ἄργος in Caria and Ἄργειόπολις in Cilicia are the traces of the Argeian colonies (= Arzawa) in Asia Minor."

Now, the name Arzawiya is attested since the reign of the Hittite king Ḫattušili I (1650–1620), which directly contrasts Georgiev's speculations about the second half of the 2nd millennium BC, who bases them on numerous dubious reconstructed terms. Furthermore, in recent bibliography no scholar supports that "Arzawa = Argean colonies" conjectured by Georgiev on the basis of the above mentioned dubious linguistic reconstructions. And the claim "At that time the Hittites knew of them [the Argeians, the Achaeans, and the Danaans] by the name Ahhiyawa ..., and Arzawa (Arzauwa)" is purely incorrect. WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims require exceptional sources, not outdated publications like Georgiev's. If you find new academic sources that support it, feel free to restore your addition. – Βατο (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against including a mention of Georgiev's proposal. However, we would need more than a single source from the 1980s to justify reporting it as a probable truth in Wikivoice. Botterweg14 (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, this conclusion by Georgiev needs to be stated since the author passes wp:RS. Bato needs to take a deep breath and avoid pretenting that this is WP:EXTRAORDINARY since the region of Arzawa was in direct contact with that of Mycenaean Greece.Alexikoua (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Bato's rationale has serious problems and appears to be just unexplained personal assumptions:

Error 1: the name Arzawiya is attested since the reign of the Hittite king Ḫattušili I (1650–1620), which directly contrasts Georgiev's speculations about the second half of the 2nd millennium BC-> claims that there is bibliography that contradicts Georgiev's view but there is no contradicting view presented. I'm afraid that there is no scholarship that's against this view especially when Georgiev's linguistic construction finds a possible equivalent term in the adjacent Greek speech of the 2nd millenium BC. Well it's not bad to have it in the article.

Error 2: bases them on numerous dubious reconstructed terms: Yet again a personal opinion without providing bibliography that contradicts this view. What's exactly dubious? You need to provide supporting bibliography not just personal speculations.

Error 3: WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims require exceptional sources, not outdated publications like Georgiev's: extraordinary why? Georgiev is RS, on the other hand you need to present something that contradicts this view, as such there is no reason for it to be removed. After all it's stated that linguist Georgiev proposed a possible equivalent term and it's not bad at all.

We need to rely on scholarship not simply claiming that a scholar falls into WP:EXTRAORDINARY without presenting any bibliography that contradicts this view. Our personal opinion isn't enough to turn sholarship (Georgiev in this case) into WP:EXTRAORDINARY in order to have him removed.Alexikoua (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Botterweg14: it would still be WP:UNDUE for that section, and it would require accurate wording to explain every conjectural contradiction made by Georgiev (1981) to make the content balanced, including appropriate sourcing. The editor who added this content selected and included only those parts provided by Georgiev that seem to be less dubious, but overall, the hypothesis is inaccurate. The actual attestation of the name occurred during the reign of Hittite king Ḫattušili I in the period 1650–1620 (Bryce 2009, p. 74), and it is considered an Anatolian name (Younger & 2016 383), while Georgiev (1981) hypothetically claims that "During the second half of the 2nd millennium B.C. the Argeians, the Achaeans, and the Danaans colonized several parts of the southwestern and southern coast of Asia Minor, as well as the island of Cyprus. At that time the Hittites knew of them by the names Ahhiyawa ..., and Arzawa (Arzauwa)" and that "The towns of Ἄργος in Caria and Ἄργειόπολις in Cilicia are the traces of the Argeian colonies (= Arzawa) in Asia Minor.", i.e. that the name Arzawa, which he speculatively equates with Argeians, spread with Mycenean colonization in the 2nd half of the 2nd millennium BC, but the name was already present in Anatolia in the 17th century BC (Bryce 2009, p. 74). Georgiev's hypothesis is based on such assumptions as "At that time the Hittites knew of them by the names Ahhiyawa ..., and Arzawa", which is completely erroneous given what present-day sources support: the content of the article as well as current scholarship do not relate the names Ahhiyawa (Myceneans) with Arzawa (Anatolians), and do not relate their populations, as Arzawa is regarded today to have been inhabited either by Luwians, Carians or Lydians, all Anatolian-speaking peoples, not by Mycenean- or Greek-speaking populations as assumed by Georgiev (1981). If User:Alexikoua is so confident of the accuracy of Georgiev's speculations, he certainly won't have trouble finding recent sources that discuss those hypothetical claims put forward around half a century ago. Otherwise, they are evidently not worth of inclusion. – Βατο (talk) 10:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Bato: please avoid abstract arguments here: your claim that it's considered an Anatolian name does not contradict that there is a (late-era) Mycenaean equivalent on this name since Arzawa & Mycenaean Greece were in close contact all that time. Arzawa is regarded today to have been inhabited either by Luwians, Carians or Lydians? What has this to do with the obsession to get rid of the Mycenaean equivalent of the name? You are also falsifying T. Bryce who states that a late-Mycenaean collonization is a possibility in Cilicia see: Trevor Bryce, The land of Hiyawa (Que) revisited, Anatolian Studies 66 (2016): 74b, there is a strong tradition in Quwê and Hilaku, Hiyawa < Achaea connection [[2]] indded. Please provide precise points with supportive bibliography on why you feel that this is not a good addition in Arzawa. To sum up:

1. there is no reason to remove the possibility of a Mycenaean equivalent term.
2. Bato needs to present scholarship that questions the *ἈρζειϜᾱ < *Ἀργ(ε)ēϜ-i̯ᾱ connection. Alexikoua (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:Burden, including this claim would require appropriate sourcing. For reasons Βατο has explained, appropriate sourcing would mean more than a single citation from the 1980s. Omitting a claim does not require a counter-source. Botterweg14 (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Botterweg14: Αs I see Georgiev who is a widely known linguist on the field by the way isn't the only one that supports this link. Just by reading some Hittite related articles (Lukka lands) I saw this book: Mosetto, Mario (20 March 2018). Origins of European Peoples: Part One: Ancient History. AuthorHouse. ISBN 978-1-5462-8425-3. and it reads: Argos' inhabitants are the Argives, name that can be very well compared to the Hittite name of Arzawa's land in western Anatolia. Georgiev isn't definitely the only one that supports a possible linguistic connection with the name Argos. Alexikoua (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: that's not WP:RS, it is a self-published book by AuthorHouse, and the author is a retired lawyer. You are an experienced editor and you should have known it, but evidently you have not found better than that. – Βατο (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Unexplained complete removal of any reference to Mycenaean Greece

Plenty of scholarship has emphasized on the connection between Arzawa and Ahhiyawa (diplomacy and forming anti-Hittite alliances) nevertheless for an unexplained reason this has vanished from the article recently (both prose and citations as redundant). I can name at least 20 modern mainstream scholars who are clear on the equation Ahhijawa - Mycenaean Greece (Beckman, Gary; Bryce, Trevor; Cline, Eric, Jorrit Kelder etc.). On the other hand I can't see any scholars pointing to the opposite.

Removing cited information on the Mycenaean-Arzawan connection warrants some explanation and since the cited version that refers was already present -per wp:BRD- any removal should receive concensus in tp. Alexikoua (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for starting a discussion, but I'm not sure what the basis of your complaint here is. The version you're objecting to contains several references to Ahhiyawa and Mycenaean Greece, as well as an explicit statement of their equation: ...in particular in concert with the Ahhiyawa of Mycenaean Greece. My objections to the version you are restoring should be clear from my edit summaries. Botterweg14 (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear at all. In this edit [3] you claimed to have "expanded" on the Mycenean connections but in fact it's the exact opposite, you removed 3kb of text including everything related to the cooperation between Arzawa and Mycenean Greece. Khirurg (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Once again, I'm not sure what you're referring to. The text I added was In its final century of independence, Arzawan culture was influenced by the culture of Mycenaean Greece, which was beginning to expand into Western Anatolia. For instance, Mycenaean-style pottery and architecture are both evidenced at Apasa, which may have even had a Mycenaean cult center at the site of the later Temple of Artemis. Botterweg14 (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

From what I understand, one issue here is the removal of the "Sources" section with the explanation that it is "redundant" because there are inline citations. From my experience so far, I've noticed that citations with {{Sfn}} tags are preferred over repeated inline citations that add to the total size of the article. The other issue seems to be the bold removal of content, along with used sources, related to the Mycenean-Arzawa relations (for example diff) without an explanation in the edit summary. I generally want to assume good-faith, as it is expected in wikipedia, so I believe that this could be worked out. Piccco (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand why that reversion might look unexplained to you. But if you go back in the article's history, you will see it explained in edit summaries including (but not limited to) "Removing content that isn't really about Arzawa's later history per se (though such a section could be developed at some point)". I am happy to clarify, to elaborate, to discuss further, or whatever improves the article.

As for short citations versus long citations, both are used freely on Wikipedia. I have a slight preference for long citations, but if someone wants to convert the article to sfn I'm fine with that. Just as long as they do it correctly and consistently. Botterweg14 (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

From what I see, in the edit that Khirurg used (diff) you, indeed, made an interesting addition in the "Society" section, so thank you for that, but you also removed several paragraphs that seem to me they were in one way or another related to Arzawan history. Most of it seems to be about the Arzawan population and its deportation to Mycenean territory, Piyama-Radu being active in Arzawa etc. It is logical that when someone sees large amount of information, including quotes from sources (?), being removed with a somewhat vague explanation, they will find this removal a bit weird. Piccco (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I also wanted to comment on the sentence in concert with the Ahhiyawa of Mycenaean Greece (here Ahhiyawa are treated as a people) turing into in concert with the Mycenaean Greek state of Ahhiyawa (here Ahhiyawa is treated as a state). To be honest, I'm not sure if this wording is more precise than the previous one. The Ahhiyawa refers to a people (the Myceneans) and the land that they inhabit (aka "the Mycenean world or some part of it"). I'm not sure if describing Ahhiyawa/the Mycenean world as a state (one political entity) is very accurate, because from what we know this might have not been the case. For example, the Mycenean world was made up of the so-called palatial states. As such, we don't really know if every mention to Ahhiyawa in Hittite texts refers to the same political entity (let's say, a unified kingdom) and not just Mycenean-inhabited or -controlled lands. Piccco (talk) 10:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure, mistakes happen. Though I would have appreciated it if the other editors had taken the time to read my edit summaries, and failing that, inquired civilly instead of making false accusations. I would still appreciate it if the other editors would apologize and strike their earlier comments.

As for your comment about terminology, I see your point but I'm following the Kelder (2004-2005) reference here, e.g "This does however not exclude the possibility that Mycenaeans from regions independent from Ahhiyawa were actively engaged in Anatolia, too. Therefore, one needs to be careful when attributing the presence of Mycenaean wares in Anatolia to Ahhiyawan activity: other Mycenaeans may have played a part too." That's why I used "Mycenaean Gree{ce|k}" in my additions about cultural influence but "Ahhiyawa" in reference to international relations. Botterweg14 (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I see that; however, I still think that the lead should just reflect the general consensus about Ahhiyawa (which is that it refers to the Myceneans and the Mycenean world, as opposed to one state or politial entity). This quote might be a bit cherry-picked and it might not be appropriate to base the wording of the lead on that. Besides that, it doesn't mention a state per se. In fact, my original wording seems in accordance with that quote too; in concert with the Ahhiyawa (as a people/ nation, or a state) of Mycenean Greece (cultural influence, part of Mycenean world). Overall, I'm just not very sure about the word "state" for the lead. Piccco (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Replying to the first paragraph: I don't think the editors really wanted to make any accusations, it's just that some of the edit summaries didn't exactly reflect the edits that were made. You see, even I who read the summaries I got a bit confused. But it's okay, I'm leaving this aside now. When you said "mistakes happen" did you refer to the accidental removal of the content that I pointed out above, like the Arzawan deportation to Mycenean lands etc.? From what I understand, the editors found this content significant enough to have a mention in the body of the article; hence the reaction when it was removed without a very clear explanation. I also think that this information was important for the Arzawan-Mycenean relations; I guess it'd be worth a mention in the body. Piccco (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The Kelder quote is not cherry picked. This is the main theme of his research. Here is how he summarizes his own work in the "prologue" to his 2010 book: My thesis is the existence of a large territorial entity covering most of the Greek mainland, the isles in the Aegean, and the center on the Anatolian west coast that was later known as Miletus. This entity was known as Ahhiyawa to the Hittites.... Of course, there are subtleties here (including the fact that not all scholars agree with Kelder!) and I am happy to discuss and compromise but I would really rather not deal with these continuing WP:ASPERSIONS.

As for the details about the deportation of Arzawan civilians, my proposed text reads Uhha-Ziti and his family fled to Ahhiyawa-controlled islands in the Aegean, while local populations faced further sieges and deportations. I think this is a sufficient level of detail, but I'm amenable to including more so long as it is relevant, well-sourced, and contains no plagiarism. Botterweg14 (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)