Talk:Adiabene

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Assyria High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.AssyriaWikipedia:WikiProject AssyriaTemplate:WikiProject AssyriaAssyrian
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Former countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country

Iraq High‑importance

	Iraq portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Iran Low‑importance

	Iran portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Assyrian?

Please provide verifiable sources for Adiabene being Assyrian. The names of their Kings like Izates( Ezid in Kurdish/ Izad in Persian means God) are Indo-European not Syriac. Moreover there is no evidence of any existing Jewish Assyrians. Throughout the Assyrian history there has been too much animosity between Assyrians and Jews. Thanks. Heja Helweda 07:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I've come in response to the requested NPOV check. I can find no openly biased comments in the text. I've also found and cited several sources on the contents of the article, so the article now passes both WP:V and WP:NPOV. I've removed the NPOV check flag on that basis. Good luck. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 18:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Adiabene were Kurdish

Adiabene were Kurdish not Assyrian. Neutral and credible sources needed. TaurusMount 14:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The language of Adiabene was Eastern Aramaic, what we now call "Assyrian". There is no evidence to support the theory that they were ethnically Kurdish. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

About Adiabenes language already another wikipedian has talked about. I'm going to show you that Adiabene were ethnictically Kurdish. For instance you can see this genetic analyse in which clearly refer to the the Adiabene as Kurdish not Assyrian. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v69n5/013033/013033.web.pdf?erFrom=2255487239794439927Guest TaurusMount 20:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

TaurusMount -- I've already done a NPOV check here and could find no bias issues. Could you please explain what it is you would like checked so that the NPOV checkers might understand what it is you would like our opinion on? Thank you. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 22:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, it appears you've removed it. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 22:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Adiabene was Assyrian. The Romans also named the kingdom of Adiabene as Assyria. http://www.srr.axbridge.org.uk/chron_tab1.html (The Romans invading Adiabene) http://assyriatimes.com/engine/modules/news/article.php?storyid=139 http://www.imninalu.net/tribes3.htm http://www.aanf.org/America/assyrians/assyrian_continuity.htm (Quoted from this page) http://www.nestorian.org/bishops_of_adiabene.html http://persian.ws/7000/7000-3.htm

"The Assyrians [Ashurayeh or Aturayeh] did not vanish, they built smaller kingdoms for themselves in ‘Edessa’ [Urhai] which was ruled by 29 kings, 14 were known as Abgar and 15 as Mano. The Greek called it ‘Osrhoene’ while the Armenians called it ‘Asor-hones’ meaning Old Ashur. The Assyrians build other kingdoms like ‘Adiabene’ in Arbil and ‘Haran’ in Syria.

Philip Hitti, a professor of Semitic literature at Princeton University, in his book ‘History of Syria’, wrote;

Before the rise of Islam the Syrian [the Greek word for Assyrian] Christian Church had split into several communities. There was first the East Syrian Church or the Church of the East. This communion, established in the late second century, claims uninterrupted descent in its teachings, liturgy, consecration and tradition from the time the Edessene King Abgar allegedly wrote to Christ asking him to relieve him of an incurable disease and Christ promised to send him one of his disciples after his ascension. This is the church erroneously called Nestorian, after the Cilician Nestorius, whom it antedates by about two and a half centuries.... --Yohanun 17:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Adiabene was kurdish after all Actually according to Vladimir Minorksy a well credited Russian Orientalist known for many contributions to ancient Middle East history states that Adiabene was kurdish. He claims that the while the most ancient history of Assyria dates back to 2-1.5 millenia BC the Kurdish people were recorded as early as 3000bc as the karda. His biggest claim is that the Medes people of the fertile crecent is actually a direct ancestor of the kurds themselves which puts their history further back to 6000bc. With Northern Iraq being the indigenous home to Kurdish people it puts that Adiabene who were indiginous to that area were kurdish. The region from present day Assyria, Anatolia, the fertile Crecent down to Baghdad was under the control of the Assyrian empire, but being a vassal of another empire does not make you the same race as that empire.

The sources used were: http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~siamakr/Kurdish/KURDICA/2002/2/minorsky.html http://www.vohuman.org/Article/The%20Zoroastrian%20Houses%20of%20Yazd.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.65.205 (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have sources from Kurdish historians saying that Northern Iraq was inhabited by Assyrians and I have another Kurdish historian saying Kurds came from Persia. Kurds speak an Iranian language and have similar customs of Iranian culture. Therefore, Kurds are indigenous to Iran, not Northern Iraq.

Also, the word "Karda" is not connected to Kurdish as Sumerian =/= Iranian. Just because the word sounds as as Kard/Kurd/etc doesn't mean it's referring to the Kurdish people. The Kurdish ethnicity didn't exist until the Medieval period. ܐܵܬܘܿܪܵܝܵܐ 18:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Christianity to Judaism Conversion

The article states that the rulers converted from Christianity to Judaism in the 1st century, CE. I found it unlikely that any first century rulers were Christian. The religion was very new at the time, and early on it appealed primarily to the oppressed. Owing to my doubts, I tried tracking down the source for this revision using the links provided. However, I could find nothing that addressed this matter. This may well be the result of my own shortcomings. As a result, I ask those who have worked on this article to please review this matter and show me the source for this information. I am keenly interested in the early Christians, and I would find further information about this particular matter very interesting. Respectfully, Rklawton 18:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If you read it carefully, the article never claims that they were Christians in the first place. They converted from their indigenous religions to Judaism though there is not enough info. on their original religion.Heja Helweda 23:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Disputed banner

I've added the factual accuracy banner for various reasons, mainly due to sourcing of the Kurdish claim.

The two cited books need to be directly cited.
The History of Aramaic source, where it claims has references to Adiabene, contains only a single mention of the kingdom where it also states ". . .in Assyria in the kingdom of Adiabene." No mention of Kurds and hardly a reliable source.
The two University of Chicago sources which supposedly deal with the Kingdom of Adiabene are actually two of the same source on what looks to be a document genetically linking Jews to the gene pool of the rest of the Middle East. Not quite sure what that has to do with citizens of Adiabene converting to Judaism or citizens of Adiabene being ethnically Kurdish.
The kulanu source only begins with "Nestled in the highlands of modern-day Kurdish Iraq" and does not describe Adiabene as being Kurdish.
The History of Christianity in Iran website is just that, a history of Christianity in Iran. Only mention of anything remotely Kurdish is ". . .mountains of Kurdistan."
EretzYisroel is hardly a reliable source as it is biased (ie the line "Other neighboring nations affected by Islamic & Arab expansionism" on the main page).
Finally, The history of Judaism in Kurdistan comes from a source called kurdistanica. Clearly biased, however, the source for that article seems to come from a Harvard professor. In this case, the original source needs to be cited.

--3345345335534 16:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Your arguments are quite good, and I was coming to think that the Kurdish claim was quite weak considering the present sources. So, I've removed "Kurdish" from the article, and consequently, the disputed tag. Thanks for your constructive help. Aldux 16:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

BOTTOM LINE - This was a Aramaic speaking Kingdom. Where is the Kurdish language of the region to claim it as a Kurdish kingdom? End of story. Chaldean 14:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Cute Vandalism!

See what happens when Aramaic-speaking Syrianis become sympathetic to the different and extinct Assyrians! :) (The killers of their own forefathers!!). Brusk u Trishka 22:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't give a shit if this was an Assyrian kingdom or whatever. I just want to stick to facts. That's all. What do you have as back up, corroborating your claims, of Adiabene being a Kurdish kingdom? Come on now, spit it out :) Assyrians never became extinct. Though we are not far off from becoming extinct, we're still around, for now. — EliasAlucard|Talk 04:07 31 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Attempts to reach a consensus

Hello EliasAlucard, Chaldean and all other users active on this article! I'm tired of crazy edit warring and want an NPOV version which is accurate and neutral and free from political propaganda. I believe that Adiabene just like modern Iraqi Kurdistan was a diverse society and belonged to all of its inhabitants.

It was a Parthian, Roman and Sassanid satrapy!
Its people followed Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, Mithraism and other religions!!!
They spoke Kurdish, Parthian, Persian and of course Aramaic which was the official language!
Thier rulers were Magians...
and and and ...

So I conclude that there is no way for egosim or monopolism! It's part of history of both of us: Iranic Kurds and Semitic Christians!

Then my suggestion is let's we all contribute to the article and try to improve it without removing of other parties material. Tomorrow I'll try to edit it so that none would be dissatisfied. Thanks. Brusk u Trishka 02:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't added any political propaganda. In fact, I haven't even edited this article the least. I did however, remove blatant Kurdish propaganda of Adiabene being an ancient Kurdish kingdom. Surely, I doubt the Assyrians controlled this kingdom entirely. But there's nothing really that says Kurds existed in this kingdom. After all, Persians are not Kurds. — EliasAlucard|Talk 04:32 31 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

They spoke Kurdish - Where is the source for this? Chaldean 02:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

They did not speak Kurdish. Kurdish is a relatively new language. — EliasAlucard|Talk 04:35 31 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Well I provided sources that Kurds lived in Adiabene (and will add more). Their main concentrations were just around Arbela. When the Arabs conquered Adiabene they fought the Kurds not anybody alse. In the towns such as Arbela lived an aristicratic class called Magians. Magians as o Sassanid era were not a special ethnic group -unlike as in past- but simply were noble class who of course were Zoroastrians and actually protectors of the faith. I'm sure that there were Syriacs or as yiou say it Assyrians for a lot of Christians immigrated to preach Christianity or were force to immigrate to Mesopotamia by Sassanids. Brusk u Trishka 02:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Syriac is a cognate of Syrian. Before the state Syria, we called ourselves Syrian. Which is derived from Assyrian. — EliasAlucard|Talk 05:17 31 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Kurdish is a northwestern Iranic language which means even can be older than Persian. Brusk u Trishka 02:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Was it called Kurdish at the time? Did they greet someone with the phrase chonee bashee? Maybe it evolved into the modern Kurdish language. But that's your assertion, and I haven't seen any credible sources yet. Your edits will be reverted until you start bringing serious facts, not biased vindications. — EliasAlucard|Talk 05:11 31 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Apparently your history knowledge is zero! You have too many questions as if I am your history teacher! Is that your citiation? Why dont you put your own sources in the article for your own claims? why you keep removing sourced material? isn't that a clear indication that you have an agenda?! Brusk u Trishka 10:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added some info about rulers and population. You are also welcome to add your sourced material into the article. but please and please dont remove my edits as it only results in edit warring. Brusk u Trishka 10:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've told you, start presenting serious facts, or your edits will be reverted. Before you start Kurdifying this article, I want you to present the facts right here on this talk page, page for page, and I want you to quote what you're going to cite as a reference. And I want you to, at the very least, give me a link, to where I can read these claims. Yes, I'm going to be a pain in the ass about this. Got it? — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:31 31 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Look their was no Kurdish language in the Kingdom, thus it can't be a Kurdish kingdom. End of story. Chaldean 23:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Its not you who decide but the sources! Brusk u Trishka 23:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Here a strong source for Kurdish language:

The Adiabene is the country between upper and lower Zab and that is the land of Kurds; and the Kurdish vocabulary does in fact contain numerous expressions which were borrowed directly from the old Semitic Iraq before the Arab period and which are foreign to all other Iranian dialects. The Cambridge History of Iran, page: 495, Ehsan Yar-Shater, Ehsan Yarshater, Published 1983, Cambridge University Press, 1488 pages, ISBN 052120092X

I can bring you 10 sources right now saying Kurds are not older then 1,000 years old. Does that mean I can go and completely terrorize the Kurdish people page? Just because you have some fony source doesn't give you the right to make a ridiculous claim. Adiabene was Aramaic and not Kurdish. END OF STORY. Chaldean 00:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You are free to edit every article on wikipedia. I'll be too gathering info about origins of Semitic Christians of Iraq. Brusk u Trishka 00:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Look at the lies and fakes of this Brusk user. I checked only one claimed "source" of a line - "In later times Adiabene became an archbishopric, with the seat of the metropolitan at Arbela.^[1]. By the third century, the majority of the inhabitants of Adiabene were Christians, and the majority of these were of Iranian and not of semitic or Aramean birth and extraction. ^[2]" I checked the source, not the Kurd is not mentioned NOT ONCE. Enough of these games. You can't be trusted as you have been proven to twist sources. You have proven to be unreliable, thus how can you be trusted to edit this page with your propaganda. Chaldean 00:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

First those are not my sources, I mean I did not provide them, Second when it says majority were of Iranian stock, why dont you get the point?! Are Syriacs Iranian too?!! End of story! 00:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)~

What do you mean they are not your sources? You are trying to put these sources in the article and I was trying to remove them. Second of all, you have been proven to not be neutral about any Assyrian related articles since you have proven your crazy hate/bias towards Assyrians be justifying the assignation of their patriarch. [] Disgraceful. Chaldean 00:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not add those sources to the article, although they still back my point! Second if this crazy edit-warring with me is because what I said on that page then You too are not neutral because you hate me because of hating of solderis of foreigners. (What I said on that page is just how I speak! Actually Simko did not kill many Assyrians, And as a Kurd I consioder Assyrians as our bros, You know that the only people on this planet who (at least partly) support you are Kurds? Even Armenians ignore you! Sarkis Aghajan Mamando => Good Guy! I support him! Brusk u Trishka 00:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You like Sarkis because he is mostly a KRG puppet. Even Armenians ignore you - What is that sapose to mean? Please be professional or else you wont be taken seriously. This is not a football game where you rote for your team. Construct with professionalism is all I ask from you. Making wild statements makes other users think you can't be relied on when editing. Chaldean 00:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God! You've become professional Chaldean? But how on wiki or on forums? hahahaha Sorry! Brusk u Trishka 00:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Is removal of sourced material kind of professionality?! Is not adding a source professionality? Then I won't add any more sources unless you will add some sources bakcing your points. Brusk u Trishka 00:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Chaldean, have you seen this? What a fucker. — EliasAlucard|Talk 05:43 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

You know that the only people on this planet who (at least partly) support you are Kurds? — Then why are you Kurds trying to erase our history, and rewrite it as your own? No, you haven't convinced me; you're no friend of the Assyrian people. — EliasAlucard|Talk 07:54 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

No I'm not going to erase your history. That was another vesion of historiography of modern Assyrians. It's not what Kurds say but what Syriacs themselves say. Dont you deny that there is no consensus about your history and even identity about your people? Do you now about this? They are not Kurds. Whatever I did /do I'm not going to say that you are strangers on your lands, nor to say you are Kurds, nor im demonizing your history, which is what real enemies do, as it is down by some ethnic groups against Kurds... Brusk u Trishka 12:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That site is not to be taken seriously. It's written by Aramaean wannabe Assyrians, known as Syriacs. The Aramaeans never took over Assyria, they were part of the Assyrian empire because Assyrian kings had deported them and assimilated them into the empire. This has clearly gone over their heads. Anyway, they are ethnic Assyrians, however, very confused Assyrians. Just like you Kurds, they are trying to rewrite history. They even claim that there was a huge Aramaean empire and everything. Sometimes, they even confuse it with the kingdom of Armenia. lol — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:24 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is not only those confused Arameans who say this but a lot of scholars. Brusk u Trishka 12:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Example? — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:13 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Like this!:

Self-identified Chaldeans and Aramaeans are frequently called "Assyrians" by Assyrian nationalists. This is deeply resented by many or even most in those communities, who do not want to be identified, wholly or even partially, with the ancient Assyrians, or with modern Assyrian nationalism. that's sick! -_- Brusk u Trishka 22:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

They are not Aramaeans, nor are they Chaldeans. Those were ancient peoples. We are the descendants of the Chaldeans (Babylonians), the Aramaeans, and most of all, the Assyrians, who had conquered the entire Fertile Crescent. These "self-identified" Chaldeans, began calling themselves that in the 16th century, after a Church that was founded by the Roman Catholic Church. Who do you think were the new Chaldean Catholic converts? Assyrians, of course. As for them calling themselves "Aramaeans", this is based solely on the fact, that we speak Aramaic. That doesn't mean that we are Aramaeans. The ancient Assyrians spoke Aramaic too. They have called themselves Syrians since ancient times, not Aramaeans. What do you think Syrians means? Of course, Assyrians. We Assyrian nationalists, are just sticking to historical facts, that's all. And by the way, many Chaldean Catholics and Syriac Orthodox, identify as Assyrians. The site you pointed to, is not by scholars. If you want scholars and academics who identify us as Assyrians, I can give you plenty. — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:58 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

References

[1]
Hoffmann, "Akten," pp. 259 et seq.
[2]
http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1553&C=1367

Lets write this article from clean scratch

Trishka, you are undermining the Syriac roots of this kingdom and smearing it with Iranian. Just because the Kingdom was under Persian rule does not mean its population was Iranian. The Assyrian rotes of the kingdom has been established by scholars. You ask for sources, where here they are;

"This theory main- tains that the Peshitta originated in the Syrian province of Adiabene, and was based on an Old Palestinian Targum which was already in the " - The Targum and the Peshitta Version of the Book of Isaiah, E. R. Rowlands, Vol. 9, Fasc. 2 (Apr., 1959), pp. 178-191 []
the Aramaic dialect spoken in Adiabene and transcribed into the Syriac alphabet" -Towards an Edition of the Syriac Version of the Old Testament, P. A. H. de Boer, Vol. 31, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 1981), pp. 346-357 []
the prince of Assyrian Adiabene, under Caius Claudius, sent his five sons to Jerusalem to acquire accurately the language and culture of the country" - The History of Jesus of Nazara: Considered in Its Connection with the National Life of Israel ... - Page 153 by Theodor Keim - 1876 []
Assyria ancient proper, lay east of Tigris between Armenia, Susiana, and Media and appears to have been comprehended into 6 provinces Arapha, Adiabene, Arbelis (Arbela), Calachene, Appolonias, and Sittacene. Of these provinces, Adiabene was the most fertile and important; in it was suted Nineveh, the capital. - Dictionary of the Holy Bible Dictionary of the Holy Bible - Page 114 by Augustin Calmet - 1832 []
Yet by Josephus' time we have seen Assyrian Adiabene Judaized, and the last pagan shrine, that of Ishtar of Arbela - The Lost Tribes a Myth: Suggestions Towards Rewriting Hebrew History - Page 634 by Allen Howard Godbey - Religion - 1974 []
But the most celebrated district was Adiabene, this track was the most fertile portion of Assyria. - The History of Herodotus: A New English Version - Page 468 by Herodotus - 1862 []
Helena was the widow of Monobazus, king of the Assyrian province of Adiabene. [] - Blackwood's Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine. - Page 405 1892

I barely did any research, but I can go on and on giving you legit sources. You can't attack not one of these sources as they are acedimically respected. Non of them are Assyrain authors, etc. Another thing; ask yourself this simply question - how can Iranians be living in Mesopotamia in the 1-3 century? Its common sense. While Iranians did rule Mesopotamia throughout the years, it doesnt mean it was Iranian inhabited. Mesopotamia for the most part was Semetic. The presence of Iranians to the region can not be older 1500 years if not earlier then that. Chaldean 14:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was located in ancient geographical region of Assyria and I did not deny this, morever it had a Syriac population too, which I did not deny this either. The same as yesterday its time to go out of home and I will be back after a few hours. c ya soon! Brusk u Trishka 14:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have more information for Osrhoene than Adiabene, but it is quite clear that both kingdoms had diverse populations. The region was a buffer zone between Roman and Parthian/Persian control and it had important economic significance. The region does seem to have been predominantly Aramaic-speaking at the time. However, there were plenty of speakers of various Middle Iranian languages living in the area. I do not think that a discussion on the ethnic make-up of Adiabene is worthwhile. Our idea of ethnicity is quite a modern idea, and with little scientific grounding. There really is little evidence for what we might consider an ethnic identity in late antiquity, and what there is is open to misinterpretation. — Gareth Hughes 17:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Garzo, thank you for your contribution. Brusk u Trishka 12:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine lets not ephisise ethnicity in the article. Where in the 1st century did a group considered themselves Kurdish anyways? These statements are totally radical. No ethnicity mentioned in the article for now. Chaldean 16:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The Καρδουχοι seem to have been Kurds, mostly Zoroastrian. Their language seems to have been Iranian, but little else is known. They seem to have been mainly in Şirnax, south of Armenia and east of Mesopotamia. Although it's clear that there were speakers of various Middle Iranian languages in both Adiabene and Osrhoene, it is quite impossible to say much more than this. Likewise, the term 'Assyrian' seems to have referred to the geographical region than any particular people. — Gareth Hughes 16:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

the term Assyrian seems to have referred to the geographical region than any particular people. - and that region just happen to have a Aramaic-speaking people and be the center of future Assyrian churches (Church of the East). Figures. Chaldean 18:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess that settles it then. Should we use the sources you provided above? — EliasAlucard|Talk 08:39 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

hmm... Aramaic-speaking people who in future (around 15-16th century AD) became known as Assyrians!! (and Chaldeans!). That's just what Aramnahrin says! :) Brusk u Trishka 12:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The Chaldean Catholics are Assyrians, originally. They just changed the name of their Church, when they converted to Catholicism, for historical reasons. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:20 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I heard some aramaic tribes too changed their name to Assyrians after they changed their religion... :) Brusk u Trishka 22:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The Iranian Kordukhi tribes are ancestors of todays Kurmanji and Sorani Kurds. they are even recorded by Pliny to have been fluiding into Adiabene. In the time of Islamic conquest and Homogenization of the people of the area., many other northwestern-Iranic speaking tribes were recorded/assimilated as Kurds. This means the non-Kurmanji (and non-sorani) Kurds who speak dialects closely related to Parthian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brusk u Trishka (talk • contribs)

I know that what makes you anxious in the article: the inclusion of Magian aristocrats.

Ok if this is the case I can forget about Magians, But removal of Kurdish tribes and defenders of Adiabene is really unfair. Brusk u Trishka 12:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what people call it one-sidedness! The sources I provided are every second in danger of genocide (= removal), but yours are not! Brusk u Trishka 12:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You haven't provided any sources. Did it even exist a language in ancient times that was referred to as "Kurdish"? Removing a source is not the same as genocide. Please learn the proper use of the word. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:20 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Didn't I really?! Brusk u Trishka 22:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I know that what makes you anxious in the article: the inclusion of Magian aristocrats.Ok if this is the case I can forget about Magians, But removal of Kurdish tribes and defenders of Adiabene is really unfair - Where in the 1 - 3rd century anywhere in the world do you find a group of people calling themselves Kurds? Chaldean 00:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

In southwestern Asia, exactly where today they live, on their ancestral homeland... Brusk u Trishka 00:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You know by now that when your going to make such a big statement, you need to provide credible sources with it. Chaldean 00:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Didn't I provide?Brusk u Trishka 10:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I am still waiting for a source(s) claiming their were a group of people specifically calling themselves Kurds in the 1-3 century. Chaldean 21:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)'

Hello my friend. Read this ancient document of Ardashir founder of Sassanid empire. Brusk u Trishka 21:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbela since long ago had an Iranic population

Arbela had long ago had an Iranic population at least since the time of Median empire when Cyaxares the Great gave the city to Sagarthians. Darius the Great also mentions Arbela as part of Media and Persians refered to south of Iraq as Suristan (probably Assyria) not north.The Adiabene principality innitiated by a Parthian lated noble family, and under Sassanids which the government was much more centralised it was ruled by fanatic Zoroastrian priests often of Median origin but sometimes also with a Persian mix. HeviyaJiyan 09:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Where are your sources? Iranic and Median does not mean Kurd. The Mede-Kurd connection is not exact science, and it is a disputed theory. To claim that Kurds are racially pure Medes is pushing it. Now, I'm not denying that there were Iranic speaking peoples in Adiabene, but what does that have to do with Kurds? — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 16:37 09 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a pan-Iranist hence have no interest in Kurdish-Mede connections. But you just tell me what Iraniac-speaking populations have to do with Aramaic-speaking peoples?!! HeviyaJiyan 17:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

They've dominated our regions for quite some time. Other than that, you brought Iranic population here on the talk page, so you'll have to do your explaining of how that is relevant to the article? — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 03:07 10 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

I asked my question: Since at least Median Empire to the end of Sassanid Empire by Arabs Arbela the core of Adiabene was dominated both politically and demographically by Iranians. Now how this Iranian domination is totally neglected by you and is labeled as something alse? HeviyaJiyan 09:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not neglected by me. You are not giving me any sources for these claims of yours. The first thing I did is to ask you: Where are your sources and the reason why I asked what it has to do with Kurds is because this article has for several months been under constant 'attack' by Kurdish POV-warriors who believe they are Medes. So, again, where are your sources? — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 16:34 10 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

Behistun inscriptions carved by Darius is a good source for presense of Iranians in Arbil. HeviyaJiyan 14:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Link please. Elias 17:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

to Behistun Inscriptions. HeviyaJiyan 19:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

And how is that relevant to this article? — Superman 13:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is biased

It is clear that this article has been tainted with biased views. Good evidence for this is clear when one of the sources cited is from the "Assyrian International News Agency", an agency steeped deep in nationalism. How can a dispute between the origin of a royal family be decided when the evidence itself is questionable at best.

On another note, many of the evidences showed are in fact from foreign professors but are very skewered in their research. The information presented on the side of Adiabene being Assyrian are from professors who in their retelling of Assyrian history entirely claim that the history of the Kurdish people is a false one. Any professor disputing the proven genetic, linguistic and heredity link between the Kurdish people and ancient cultures of Hurrian or Medes is in itself a questionable source to quote.

For example the source "Adiabene was Assyrian, Not Kurdish" written by Fred Aprim claims that not only was Adiabene Assyrian but that the so called "rumour" of that family having kurdish blood in them was perputrated by Kurdish Nationalists trying to solidfy a "fake" past, and I qoute "There is not a single reliable source that shows that the royal house of Adiabene (the region of ancient Arbela, modern Arbil in northern Iraq) was Kurdish; in fact it was Assyrian." Although this claim in itself is not sourced but an opinion.

Fred then says "Furthermore, there is no proof whatsoever, archaeological and historical, that proves that modern Kurds inhabited Mesopotamia in ancient times." Although clearly the statement is false, Ancient Roman and Greek texts cite the kurdish people in that region numerous times in the Corduene province as Karduchi, Karda and Kurt, these sources are cited in the Kurdish section of wikipedia. The name itself derives from ancient persian, rooted from the word meaning "warriar"

Fred by disputing the cultural and biological origin of a whole race is no different than the Turkish government disputing the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians in the early 1900s. Either eliminating a race by military means or using scholar means to refute their history and existnce is no different in their end goal, which is to make a specific group of people dissapear. The article is also cited again from "Assyrian International News Agency" and cannot be considered unbiased.

I implore the admins charged with maintaining the level of truth of this artcle to at least label it biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.65.205 (talk • contribs)

It is clear that this article has been tainted with biased views. — Yeah? How so? The only biased views that this article has been tainted with, is the Kurdification process that it has been under constant pressure of. Good evidence for this is clear when one of the sources cited is from the "Assyrian International News Agency", an agency steeped deep in nationalism. — This article, is in no way, cited by AINA. There is a link to an article by Fred Aprim which has been published on AINA, where Aprim argues that Adiabene was Assyrian, and his arguments sound convincing to me. But the article doesn't cite him. So please, stop misrepresenting your case just to grab a cheap point. As for AINA being nationalist, that is true, and get this: even nationalists can be right. Just because you are a nationalist, it doesn't mean every thing you utter, say and claim, is by default, wrong. The information presented on the side of Adiabene being Assyrian are from professors who in their retelling of Assyrian history entirely claim that the history of the Kurdish people is a false one. — Well, chances are that the history of the Kurdish people is entirely false. Let's face it, you can't even decide on who your ancestors were. One day, it's Medes, next day it's Hurrians, third day it's Mitanni, fourth day it's Gutium, and so on. Would you please stop this indecisive bullshit and just pick a race? Because really, you are not exactly displaying a certain genealogy by claiming descent from fifty different ancient ethnic groups. The Kurdish people is a very mixed people of different races. The only thing you have in common with Medes is a vague linguistic connection of Indo-Aryan languages. Languages tell you something about your origin, but it is not necessarily indicative of bloodlines. Your comparison with the genocide the Ottoman empire committed on Armenians (Armenian Genocide), Assyrians (Assyrian Genocide) and Greeks (Pontic Greek Genocide) is a very sarcastic likening, especially considering that Kurds perpetrated the genocides. It even becomes more ironic, considering that Kurds today in "Kurdistan" are calling Assyrians "Christian Kurds", which is in my point of view, an attempt at genocide, by denying the existence of Assyrians. By the way, have you seen this? Perhaps you Kurds shouldn't talk about who's committing a genocide on whom. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 15:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

@EliasAlucard

As for AINA being nationalist, that is true, and get this: even nationalists can be right. < This is from what you called "CONVINCING": "Only Kurdish writer make the wilde claims..." You think this is a scholar work or an insult to the Kurdish Nation?!! If we ever suppose even one or some writers try to deface the history, so it's a reason to call the entire writers of the respective nation as "Wild Claiming"?!!! Besides I think this article should be removed becuz it exactly contains Insult to the Kurdish Nation and is fairly uncivilized.

Well, chances are that the history of the Kurdish people is entirely false. Let's face it < Really? Ok, let's face it! you can't even decide on who your ancestors were. < How come?! One day, it's Medes, next day it's Hurrians, third day it's Mitanni, fourth day it's Gutium, and so on. < This is exactly your lack of knowledge.

Hurrians were the first inhabitants of the today territory of Iraqi, Iranian and large parts of Turkish Kurdistan. Mitannies and Medes settled after them, and according to the linguistic facts today Kurdish Language is the only Northwestern Iranian language which is spoken in the ancient Hurrian and Median settlments and contains features of both Hurrian and Median at the same time. "Gutium" is worthy of mention becuz of its anceint Semitic variaties of "Kurdushum" and the possibility of "Corduene" (Kordu, Qordu) and "Kurd" being derived from it. But fot sure, according to the linguistc and geographical facts, Kurds are Iranian People (more likely descendents of Medes) with a Hurrian and Anatolian (Hittite) background.

Would you please stop this indecisive bullshit and just pick a race? < I'm sorry for your language! Havent you heard of Indo-Germanic tribes being mixed with Pre-Indo-European locals of Europe?! For example Germans possess such background. They call themselves "Deutsche" which is a Roman name, though some the other Germanic People call them "German" which seems to be their true title of unkown etymology. For sure we know "Deutsche" is the same as "German" and the title "German" is referred to all Germanic People (though it's of unkown etymology).

Kurds call themselve "Kurd" and this identity/title appears atleast since Parthian Empire (~ according to "Karnamag-i Ardashir-i Babagan, The Book of the Deeds of Ardashir Son of Babagan the Founder of Sassanid Empire, The Oldest Surviving Text of Zoroastrian Emperor).They're, along with Tati, Mazandarani, Talyshi, Semnani and Central Iranian People (according to the Linguistic and Geographical facts), descendents of Ancient Medes. Also I think you-who concludes Kurds and their Identity, must be aware of "Mede" never ever called themselves "Mede" and it's believed that they referred themselves "Arya" or "Ayra" (where the name "Iran" ~ "Eran" comes from) in meaning of "Noble" (~ also Modern Kurdish "hir", "her", and "er" in meaning of "honorable", "noble"). Therefore linguistic and geographical factors will be the mighty evidences to conclude which people as descendents of Medes. Also amoung all Northwestern Iranian languages and even amoung all languages of Western Iran, Southeast Turkey and Iraq, it's Kurdish which shares similarity with Pre-Aryan Non-Semitic Languages such as Hurrian (and furthur Hittite).

Because really, you are not exactly displaying a certain genealogy by claiming descent from fifty different ancient ethnic groups. < Once again I'm sorry for your non-academical and un-civilized way of talking abt a Nation.

Where did someone claim Kurds being descendents of "50" ethnics?!! The Kurdish people is a very mixed people of different races. < Well you better first to clarify what do you mean of "race"?! If you mean Racial Types therefore no need to mention that every nation and people on this planet are mixed of different races, but you can see which race or races to be "dominant" amoung them. Kurds are mainly a mix of Iranid, Alpinid and Mediterranean (with amounts of Hither Asiatic, Dinatic, Oriental, Turanid, and Nordic strains indeedracial types.) Indeed their Aramaic Speaking Christian neighbors (of Aramean, Syriac, Chaldean and Assyrian Identities) are well-known for the preservation of their "Oriental" features of Racial Type (mainly with noses bent in the third, and characteristic which according to Weninger C, 76.64; F, 98.52; also is found amoung Arabs of Northern Africa) via "endogamy" becuz of "religous matters". Indeed the dominance of Iranid, Alpinid and Mediterranean types amoung Kurds is another possibilty to consider them as a mix of Hurrian, Median and Anatolian, along with the linguistcal and geographical facts. Thus they are distinguished from their neighbors (maybe except marraiges with Armenian, Arab and Kurdish Christians)

The only thing you have in common with Medes is a vague linguistic connection of Indo-Aryan languages. < To claim "Indo-Aryan languages" as the "only" thing "in common" between Kurds and Medes, can be explained in two ways: 1. You really talk and make conclusion abt the stuff that you dont know enough of. 2. You try to deface Academical facts in a silly way! ~ Becuz being "Indo-Aryan" isnot the only thing in common between Kurds and Medes, since Kurdish and Median languages share a closer connection in fact and both belong to the Iranian Languages, Western Iranian Langauges and eventually Northwestern Iranian languages (along with Mazandarani, Gilaki, Talyshi...).

Also according to this (The Origins of the Kurds and the Early Kurdish-Armenian Contacts), by Garnik Asatrian), a Religous Christian texts is found in Armenia which claims to be written in Armenian, Persian and Median (Armenian "Maday"). It's very interesting that the section which is referred as "Maday" ~ "Median" is exactly in Northern Kurdish! This is the only Early Mention to the Median language. Also for your knowledge, all recorded Median words are found in Modern Kurdish (without any exception). Now I just wonder, if you are gonna say "are these the only things in common between Kurds and Medes?!", so do you know any other Modern Iranian language in which you could found all Mede words without any exception, an early medieval text referring it as "Median", spoken in the former "homeland" of Medes, surrounding territories of Hegmatana?! I mean do you any people on this planet owning more evidences of being descendents of Medes, rather than Kurds?!!

Languages tell you something about your origin, but it is not necessarily indicative of bloodlines. < Indeed, and Racial Types may submit along with Linguistic, Geographical and Cultural evidences the state of prominently being a mix of Hurrian (Pre-Aryan) and Medes (Iranian). It even becomes more ironic, considering that Kurds today in "Kurdistan" are calling Asyrians "Christian Kurds", which is in my point of view, an attempt at genocide by denying the existence of Assyrians. < This is another sign ofyour lack of knowledge. Most Kurds may refer to the Aramaic Speaking Christian as "Kurdistani Christians". Also the only thing that minds, is the "wrong" title of "Assyrian" which some non-informed (Kurdish, Persian...) persons refer to all "Aramaic Speaking Christians" and thus it's the "ironic" matter in which Aramean, Syriac, and Chaldean identities are denied!

Perhaps you Kurds shouldn't talk about who's committing a genocide on whom. < So you deny Ba'athi, Turkish... Governments killing hundred thousands of Kurds and attempting to uproot Kurdish Nation by Cultural, Linguistical Assimilation, Policy of Denial, Genocide, Chemical Attacks...?!!! Also the websites such as AINA, who in the so-called Academical Searches Insult the Entire Kurdish Nation, remind nothing but Pro-Ba'athi Stinky Fascists... (I just wonder if you have ever read "Adiabene Was Assyrian" and the mention to "Wild Claim of Kurdish Writer Like Other Claims"?!!!! So if you have done, how come you called such Un-Civilized work which exactly is an Insult to the Entire Kurdish Nation as "CONVICING"?!!! (78.38.22.21 (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)).

World War I and the recreation of Medo-Assyrian wars

The Article "Adiabene Was Assyrian" Must Be Deleted

Assyrian, Kurdish or actually none of above?

So many disputes here, but no academic information. It is not serious to bring a reference from a Christian book to describe history. The fact is that Adiabene has been a Parthian vassal kingdom, with no direct relation to Assyria (long gone before that). Indeed the kingdom has also included former Assyrian lands and significant Assyrian population. However, Adiabene itself was not related ever as Assyrian, and its ruling cast were most probably of Hellenistic descent, with roots in previous Seleucid Empire in the region. Aramaic language of the locals was influenced by the official adoption of Aramaic during the Persian period. The country has also temporarily become dominated by Roman and later Byzantine Empire during Roman-Persian strife. After the decline of Persian Sassanid and Byzantine empires, Adiabene finally formed into Kurdish semi-independent sheikhdoms during the early middle ages (until Arab and Turk conquest). I must make parallels to Jerusalem Kingdom in what is today Israel. Can we relate to Crusader Kingdom as Byzantine? not at all. Can we relate to Crusader Kingdom as Israelite? Of course not. In the same manner Adiabene is neither Assyrian or Kurdish. It was Parthian, even though proto-Kurds and Assyrians surely made a significant portion of its population. I would be happy to hear some scholar view to say otherwise, and unless done so, the "Assyrian" relation will be removed by me next week.Greyshark09 (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I also agree on not mentioning any modern ethnic groups in the article, certainly in in the lead for that matter. As you said the region was inhabited by Aramaic speaking people with many Iranic and Hellenistic elements. However, it's worthwhile to note that it was in the historical region of Assyria as it was known then.--Rafy talk 12:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I actually quiet forgot about this article, until seeing your remark. With this dormant status, i suggest we both can make some constructive edits for more referenced and NPOV representation, i will go back to the classic period after i finish with some modern issues.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the Article even controlled? Assyra by 200 AD?

Here are a few of the "sources" used.

The first source is the Syro-Chaldean Church website. And far from being a reliable source. Not only that in the link given there is not a single mention of Adiabene for that matter. This "source" will be deleted

Second given source is, " The Biblical Geography of Central Asia: with a General Introduction. page 122"

And it does not say that Romans renamed Adiabene to Assyria as it is claimed in the source description. The Source mentions that Pliny tried to describe were Assyria WAS by using modern (for his time) geographic regions. That is like me using modern South American state names to describe were the Inca Empire was located. A good evidence for this is that Pliny is talking in the past form about Assyria. And with no word does he mention Adiabene as Assyria or that Romans renamed it Assyria

And this is the third source. "Ammianus Marcellinus, another fourth-century writer. In his excursus on the Sasanian Empire he describes Assyria in such a way that there is no mistaking he is talking about lower Mesopotamia (Amm. Marc. XXIII. 6. 15). For Assyria he lists three major cities-Babylon, Ctesiphon and Seleucia (Amm. Marc. xxIII. 6. 23),"

Do people know where lower Mesopotamia ist even located? What does Lower Mesopotamia has to do with Adiabene? And even Than again this source is only describing the historic location of Assyria, it does not claim these regions were still Assyria.

So the question remaining for me is, is this site even controlled by some Administrators, because certanly I smell a whole chunck of ethno-centrism around here.

Another typical ethno-centric sentence was "The majority of the population in Adiabene spoke Aramaic" without a single evidence provided.

Some Admin should clean up this webpage.

regards Wikisupporting (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Found two moure falsified "sources" here.

In the article is written ″Adiabene was a district in Mesopotamia between upper and lower Zab and was a part of the Neo Assyrian Empire and inhabited by Assyrians even after the fall of Nineveh. It was an integral part of Achaemenid Assyria (Athura) and Sassanid Assyria (Assuristan)″

In the source given => https://books.google.de/books?id=fQkUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA156&dq=The+History+of+the+Decline+and+Fall+of+the+Roman+Empire+adiabene&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAmoVChMI2ujggpCDyQIVSPRyCh1ACQ7B#v=onepage&q=The%20History%20of%20the%20Decline%20and%20Fall%20of%20the%20Roman%20Empire%20adiabene&f=false

Is non of that written. Again we are dealing here with a quote of Ammianus description of ancient Assyria by Median time (600 BC) and predates Adiabene by 800 years. Another case of source falsification.

I quote from the source ″Ammianus remarks that the PRIMITIVE Assyria which comprehended Ninus and Arbela had assumed the more recent and peculiar appellation of Adiabene.″

1. There is nothing called Achaemind (Achaemenids predate Adiabene by 600 years!) or Sassanid Assyria and there is no mention of such a thing in the given "sources". There is also no mention of Adiabene being a part of a "Neo Assyrian Empire". The Neo Assyrian Empire did not last beyond 609 BC see the main article => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Assyrian_Empire And Athura and Assuristan are completly fabricated terms.

And the other provided "source" which is more of an religious book aka Bible. Does not indicate anything of the things claimed above either.

This part of the article will be deleted.

regards Wikisupporting (talk) 10:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)