User talk:Zestauferov/Iberian Problem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Sources

What is the evidence for the existence of "Hetto-Iberian" as a real linguistic catagory? -Ben01:49, 30 Jan 2004 & Zestauferov 17:19, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

I note that Giorgi Melikishvili is mentioned as a source. I have a copy of his Die Urartaeische Sprache (a German translation of the Russian original), and can't find any mention of Basque, Iberian, Proto-Iberian, or Hetto-Iberian in the prologue dealing with "Urartaeisch und Hurrisch" (pp. 5-11), nor any mentions in his survey of the literature in "Einforschung des Urartaeischen" (pp. 11-17). I would think that he'd mention something like this if he thought there was any linkage between Hurro-Urartaen and Basque.

Then again, my German isn't that good, and this is argumentum ex silencio -- perhaps someone else could enlighten me as to Melikishvili's views?

-Ben 01:34, 9 Feb 2004

I've been reading more on the subject, it seems that an "Hetto-Iberian" family is a real linguistic theory combining the Hurro-Urartean family with the Iberian-Caucasian languages into a super-family, which appears to be a valid (if controversial) linguistic theory, much like Nostratic. Aside from the name (and ergativity), I can't see the connections with Basque though. -Ben 19:00, 9 Feb 2004 & Zestauferov 17:19, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Is this from the same book? If not the source details would certainly not go amiss here. Zestauferov 17:19, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] For user Ben

Dear "Ben",

Thank you for your letter.

I did not say on the work of Professor Giorgi Melikishvili "Die Urartaeische Sprache". I had told about his monograph "For the History of ancient Georgia" (Tbilisi, 1959, in Russian), where Melikishvili concerned the tribes (Khaldi (Khalib), Tubbals, Mosiniks, etc.) known in the modern science as "Hetto-Iberians" (or "Hatto-Iberians"). The term "Hetto-Iberians" was put into scientific turn by the noted Georgian historian, Professor Simon Janashia (1900-1947). Please note, that Abkhazians (Abkhazs) are one of the Iberian-Caucasian peoples also.

With best regards,

Dr. Levan Z. Urushadze (user Levzur)

Tbilisi, 11 Feb 2004

Two questions, 1) has Etruscan been read? 2) was Hatti ever written down? It seems hard to me to link them with Basque and then place them in Anatolia. Wetman 01:26, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is comparable to our knowledge of Phoenician. User:Zestauferov 15:42, 10 Feb 2004 I am not up-to-date with Etruscan discoveries, but I know Hattian is known from the Bogazkoy excavations. Zestauferov 17:19, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Important sources for the history of "Hetto-Iberians" are: well-known works of Strabo and Xenophon These authors describe Anatolia and the Caucasus without mentioning "Hetto-Iberians" or characterizing the linguistics of the region. Have I misunderstood your meaning? Wetman 02:21, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm looking for legitimate info on any sort of Caucasian/Hattic linkage theories, and have found this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/031221975X/ref=sib_rdr_prev2_ex39/104-9967348-4159163?%5Fencoding=UTF8&keywords=Melikishvili&p=S018&twc=&checkSum=%2BVoZNFMMvTgKvxHPAA6acd%2FAde%2Fo3jC9IlrE0GKcivc%3D#reader-page

Top of pg 39:

"The very first investigator of Hattic, E. Forrer (1919, pp 1033-34) established its non-IndoEuropean character and suggested its relationship with Abkhazo-Adyghean languages. The same view was proposed at roughtly the same time by Bleichsteiner (1923). The main reasons were striking structural similarities (particularly, extensive use of prefixation) between this ancient language of Asia Minor, extinct since the early second millennium BC, and the languages of the West Caucasian group. These structural affinities were later discussed by Dunaevskaja (1960), Diakonov (1967) and Ardzinba (1979). These latter two also noted some material correspondences (in affixes) between Hattic and West Caucasian. Ivanov (1985) proposed many Hattic-West Caucasian material parallels, both in radical and affixal morphemes. Though not all of these comparisons are equally convincing (largely because of the poor preservation of Hattic), Ivanov did in general manage to demonstrate the existence of this relationship. Hattic-West Caucasian similarities in lexicon and grammar have been further investigated by Braun (1994), Taracha (1995) and Chirikba (1996, pp 406-32)."

This source (The Abkhazians: A Handbook: ISBN 031221975X ) goes on to discuss theories of the relationship between Hattic and the language of the Kaskians. I'll try to post more later. -Ben21:48, 9 Feb 2004

Did you buy that book? I have it in my Library at home. The problem is Georgians don't want to acknowledge Abkhazians as a seperate people. The Abkhazians were the Transcaucasian Iberians and Georgians want that honour. At least that is what I have come to understand.Zestauferov 17:32, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Herodotus

As an observation, last night I carefully read the relevant part of Herodotus (Book 4), where he describes the Black Sea & the peoples who lived on its shores. Nowhere does he mention the Caucasus by name -- although he repeatedly mentions both Colchis and the colony of Phasis at the far end of the black Sea -- although there is one or two passages which may describe the lands of the Caucasus. Does anyone know if there is a book & chapter numbers where Herodotus mentions Iberia? -- llywrch 22:54, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC) & Zestauferov 17:19, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Basque Question

I think there is a problem on wiki that things not common in English language texts are often assumed by some users to be unconventional. Does anyone think this is the case here? User:Zestauferov 06:32, 9 Feb 2004

The problem isn't that "Hetto-Iberian" is not common in English language texts. It's that attempts to link Basque with other language families are very common and have historically been a hallmark of unconventional theories. -Ben 19:00, 9 Feb 2004

It would probably be a good idea to mention the Basque controversey in the article can you list any such theories? Zestauferov 17:19, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hetto-Iberians on the WWW

"Hetto-Iberian" at www.google.com gets no hits User:Wetman 02:03, 30 Jan 2004

You should have tried "Hetto-Iberians" however, the only two pieces available on google in English are www.travelguide.ge/georgia/history.htm www.zviadi.angelcities.com/Georgia.htm Zestauferov 05:39, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Proto-Iberians" or "Proto-Iberian" has much more. A little variation helps with the results, Searching in Russian would be even more useful. However Proto-Iberian has the connotation in English of the peoples who preceeded the current inhabitants of Spain & Portugal. User:Zestauferov06:34, 9 Feb 2004

[edit] Hattian vs Hittite

Linkage between Basques, Etruscans and Hittites? Weren't, the Hittites Indo-European speakers? RickK 03:17, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You are correct the so-called "Hittites" spoke the Indoeuropean Nasite language. But no-one is linking these Hittites with Iberians.


However Hattic speakers are not Hittites. The Hattians preceeded the Nasite speaking Hittites are commonly recognised to have spoken a language similar if not identicle with Hurrian to the Circassian languages.

[edit] Entry Title

It is Wiki policy to try and use the most common phrase concerning the subject as the entry title. Thus Wetman brought up a good point.

Since the Google search for "Hetto-Iberian" only finds these Wikipedia entries in this entry, the statement In Georgian and European scientific literature, the term is often used to refer to a family of Iberian-Caucasian languages aren't both "scientific literature" and "often" a little misleading?Wetman 19:23, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Good point but lets remember Wiki policy is to use the English language term and unfortunately

  • not all scientific literature on every subject is publised online.
  • not all online material is registered with google.
  • not all scientific literature is written in English.
  • not all scientific literature use the singular English forms of certain terms regardless of the grammatical rules of the language in which it is written. User:Zestauferov06:32, 9 Feb 2004 & Zestauferov 17:19, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

I suppose it is important to mention in the entry itself when a subject has not been widely covered or accepted by the English-speaking scientific comunity. Of course this must be balanced or else it will sound like a form of Imperialism suggesting that because of this it has no equal value to theories widely covered and generally accepted by the English-speaking community. Zestauferov 06:40, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC) & Zestauferov 17:19, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Did you read anything I put on your user talk page about the possibility that "fringe" theories are correct (e.g. plate tectonics)? Did you notice that I'm using a Georgian source to argue with this Hetto-Iberian nonsense about five paragraphs above? Obviously I'm a big fat Imperialist. And obviously I'm comitting cultural genocide with all the places I've reverted your articles to something sane -- why, you can't find a single mention of "Hetto-Iberian" throughout the entire Wikipedia now, can you? Not to mention how I've been lobbying to get you banned instead of talking to you about your edit - quite clearly I'm blinded by the Orientalist discourse.Ben14:27, 9 Feb 2004
Are you very excitable by nature or is it just you come accross wrongly in your typing? If the cap fits wear it. In fact my comments were directed to the likes of Wetman. I had not noticed my messages because I have been busy. But actually your first reactions to Hetto Iberian are in the history pages. Nonsense you called it and still call it. And still you infer that I am not sane? Is Nostratic also nonsense? Is anything new or unheard of insane? Or have I misunderstood sarcasm?Zestauferov 15:42, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Seriously, though, mentioning when a subject is outside the mainstream of scholarship within the English-speaking world is exactly what I believe to be the right approach. This includes adding disclaimers to other articles (the places which now assert "a Hetto-Iberian language") as well.
--Ben14:27, 9 Feb 2004

The best results I could find with closely related subjects were Transcaucasian Iberia and Transcaucasian Iberians. Would Transcaucasian Iberian Languages be acceptable even though Basques, Etruscans, Hattians, and Hurro-Urartians are all very very Trans?Zestauferov 17:19, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Dear friends, the article "Iberian-Caucasian peoples" is completely changed and renamed. New title of the article is "Caucasian peoples" Levzur 20 Feb 2004

Levzur this started as an article about the Hetto-Iberian language hypothesis. Since you have brought the article in small steps to this point would you kindly re-write the article about the Hetto-Iberian (or as you call it hatto-Iberian) language hypothesis please?Zestauferov 16:21, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please don't. The changes to the article were the outcome of a process involving responses to a lot of criticism. It would be a pity to undo the progress that was made this way. Josh Cherry 00:46, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Josh please look at what links here. Do you really think it is fair to say it is all about Caucasian-Peoples? It is anachronistic to name an ancestral tribal group after the final locationn of one of their splinters.Zestauferov 01:38, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This really is anachronistic and something really must be done about it. You can't have Pelasgs, Habiru, Etruscans, Basques, Hattians & Hurro-Urartuans classified as Caucasian Peoples even if they are included in the linguistic arguments. Linguistically there are well-founded relationships, (with Circassian & Avar respectively but not with South-Caucasian) but please. This is comparable with the early attempts to callthe Indo-European languages Indo-Germanic instead. What proof do we have that Hattians & Hurro-Urartuans came down into Anatolia from the Caucasus? As far as I am aware the only available evidences suggest that both came from the east.Zestauferov 18:22, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

@ Levzur, You cannot have Urartuan in the list if you want to exclude Hurrian since the two languages are virtually identicle!?! Don't sit on the fence, make your stand (this is afterall basically your page since upon investigation the data is not actually accurately presented). It certainly seems like you are following some kind of Nationalistic agenda, are you? Why would Urartu be so important to the scheme but its earlier Hurrian form be rejected? This is certainly inconsistent as are your answers [1] [2]. Zestauferov 01:39, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Levzur's reply to Kaz's Questions

Dear "Kaz",

Thank you very much for your letter. I am a Georgian historian and I can answer your questions very well. Here are my answers:

1. Yes, Nort-Caucasian & Kartvelian are parts of Iberian-Caucasian language family and they include Etruscan as well as Basque.

2. The Kart were the same as the Khaldi people (which it is believed were the proto-Iberian tribe of "Khalibs"). However, it is not thought that the Kart and Khaldi people were related to the Kurd people.

3. It is believed that the language of the proto-Iberians was a proto-Kartvelian language.

4. Yes, I am familiar with the links you mentioned. ([3] & [4])


5. The Proto-Iberians were the indigenous peoples of the Caucasus and Asia Minor.

6. Yes, the (Habiru) spoke a proto-Iberian language.

With kind regards,

Dr. Levan Z. Urushadze (User Levzur 00:10, 7 Feb 2004)

6 Feb 2004

Without any documents, Dr. Urushadze's six axioms don't seem very easily supported. Can anyone give the sources please? Wetman 01:26, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Indo-European Languages

The pre-Hittites at Hattusa spoke an indigenous non-Indo-European language, until the Hittites moved in. And it seems that the main point here is that from the the earliest times natives of what is now Georgia have also spoken non-Indo-European languages. Am I right? Wetman 01:26, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC) & Zestauferov 17:19, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't think so, I think the main point of this entry is to show that there are some scholars who see a material & linguistic connection between the non-Indo-European inhabitants of the Caucasus and the Basques, Etruscans, Pelasgs, Hattians & Hurro-Urartians :o) Did I miss anyone out? Zestauferov 17:19, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Two Iberias

Where does the connection of Trans-Caucasian Iberia with West-European Iberia come from? Isn't that like saying people from the country of Georgia founded the American state of Georgia? Adam Bishop 01:55, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC) & Zestauferov 17:19, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm confused -- is "Iberian" here a term for the Iberian penninsula (as the original article claimed, with its links to Basque), or a region of the Caucasus? If the latter, I'll retract at least a little of my criticism. (Not that anyone cares) --Ben 03:37, 9 Feb 2004

In the earliest written sources Iberia first applies to a Trans-Caucasian (as far as Anatolia?) area but later the term appears applied to the Iberian peninsular. There are no solid theories as to why the term became linked to two lands so far apart both well known by the Romans that refered to them by that name. In this entry the term Iberian is meant in the Transcaucasian sense only. Zestauferov 06:32, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] One "Proto"-Iberian origin?

Certain Certain characteristics of the Basque language have linked it to some languages spoken in the Caucasus and subsequently it has been suggested the dual location of the applied term "Iberian" indicates that the ancients knew of some migration of a related people. Zestauferov 06:32, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC) & Zestauferov 17:19, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

But, there is a language spoken in Louisiana for the last two centuries called Acadian language, a dialect of French. And there is the Semitic language Akkadian language spoken by the Babylonians. Does this suggest that the Babylonians migrated to Louisiana simply because the language names are similar? --Ben14:27, 9 Feb 2004
No but we are talking about a 100 year or so difference between the application of the term in the east to its first applications in the west by the same nation's geographers and lets face it the distance between Anatolia and the Iberian peninsular is hardly the same as that between Louisiana and Iraq. Again I am not advocating the relationship just explaining from common sense what I have seen and heard without reference to the real details.User:Zestauferov 15:42, 10 Feb 2004
One idea is that some time between 1200 and 300 BC Israel managed to assert itself as a significant maritime power currently assumed to be part of the Phoenician period with Hebrew colonies on the Atlantic and Black-Sea coasts. Zestauferov 06:32, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Why did you mention Israel? Is Israel connected with Transcaucasian Iberia, Urartu, and the Basques? Have you written about this theory somewhere else I could see? --Ben14:27, 9 Feb 2004 & Zestauferov 17:19, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
I have not written about this theory because I do not have access to the sources right now. As you know the men of Israel were known as Ibri. The theory is that Israel's "Ibri" merchant navy established ports in the eat Black-Sea and the Iberian penninsula. This may just be Hebrew nationalism, but the suggestion is that many activities people have labelled as Phoenician were in fact those of the costal Hebrew tribe of Dan. Before anyone pulls my leg, it wasn't from http://www.world-destiny.org/a35ibr.htm The connection you could not see is probably once again in the name Iberi. User:Zestauferov 15:42, 10 Feb 2004

[edit] Genetic Relationships & the Comparative Method

In this entry the term Iberian is used to apply to the Caucasus, but certain characteristics of the Basque language have linked it to some languages spoken in the Caucasus Zestauferov 06:32, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Are you talking about ergativity or agglutinativity? Just because Hurro-Urartean and Basque share these implies nothing at all about genetic relationships -- see Comparative Method. --Ben14:27, 9 Feb 2004
Ben I am not the one who did the research and made the connection, I am just repeating what I have come accross. I know I am not a lier and I know the info was from several independent academic sources, but Wiki is just a casual hobby for me. People do different things here but I do this to unwind if I ever have a lot of free-time on my hands and the feeling takes me, I will sift through the pages of research articles to find the sources for you but with a newborn on my hands it may be some time away. User:Zestauferov 15:42, 10 Feb 2004

[edit] Grammar & Typos

What is the sentence "The term "Hetto-Iberians" brought in science Academician Janashia." Supposed to mean? Yes, I know the contributor's first language is not English, & definitely writes it better than I can German or Latin, but could someone please explain? -- llywrch 00:54, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It means "The term "Hetto-Iberians" was brought into science by the Academician Janashia." Zestauferov 17:19, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Votes for Deletion

Attempt to link every non-Indo-European people into a single language and ethnic group, from the Hittites to the Hatti to the Etruscans, with no historicity. This is Levzur's attempt to bypass the objections people have raised about his use of the term Hetto-Iberians. He's now redirected that page to here. See also Pelasgians and its history. RickK 02:52, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

    • Note
    • 1) this has been placed here by RickK who according to his contributions does little constructive editing (prefering revert wars) but an unpropotional ammount of VfD-ing
      Your opiniion of me has no bearing on the merits of this listing, but I'll put my edits up against yours any time. See my user page for a list of articles I've created. RickK 03:49, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Not an opinion, just a verifiable observation and one that bears very heavily on any VfD with your name attached to it.Zestauferov 06:43, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC) P.S. Wiki is not about claiming & trying to preserve original works.
    • 2) Levzur has not been informed of such objections
      Sure he has. He's been fighting this battle for week's now RickK 03:49, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Please give the link to any place where he has been addressed directly concerning this so that we may verify your claim because according to his talk page your info is incorrect.Zestauferov 06:43, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • 3) Hittite or Nesite as it is more accurately known has not been linked, this assumption comes from RickK's habit of gloss-reading and assuming the rest, it can be traced to the talk page he now wants deleted.
      I have no idea what this means. RickK 03:49, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • It can be stated that the article does show a strong Georgian POV but this can easily be edited for more neutrality. Zestauferov 03:16, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I can't pass judgement on the validity of the theory, but I will note that the article cites an extensive list of sources, so -- assuming the sources aren't made up, and that they actually say something in support of this theory -- it doesn't qualify as original research. I think it just needs attention from someone else who's familiar with the history of the Caucasus. --No-One Jones 03:29, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • The problem is that he's seeding all of the history articles with the theory as if it's established fact, when it certainly isn't. RickK 03:38, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
        • Neither is the Indo-European hypothesis.Zestauferov 03:44, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Dear RickK and Dear No-One, I am a Georgian historian. The Main fields of my scientific activity are source studies of the history of the Caucasus and the history of the Caucasian peoples. Unfortunately, you do not know the history of the Caucasus, nor the Georgian sources, nor the very important investigations of Georgian scholars, nor the results of archaeological excavations on the territory of Georgia and the Caucasus! Levzur - Dr. Levan Z. Urushadze 17 Feb 2004
      I hope you do not mind me smoothing-out the grammar a little in your post Levan. It seems your points were anticipated by the neutral vote of User:Mirv aka No-One Jones which according to convention (since neutral votes have no other established value as far as I have understood) indicates s/he will be voting but wants to see how the discussion progresses first.Zestauferov 06:43, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. It would be good to mention alternative theories, if any. I'm also curious how Stalinism has affected this research. Some transliterated names could already exist in WP but spelled differently. Humus sapiens 19:06, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, for now at least. I'm kind of in two minds about this article: it does have rather too much of a Georgianist slant but I'm hesitant about deleting it. I think it could be a useful article but it really needs a bit more research from other contributors. -- ChrisO 23:43, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Levzur is providing sources for his material, & I feel that it would not take much work to make this article -- or his other contributions -- suitably NPOV. BTW, am I correctly counting 5 keep votes & 1 delete? The formatting of this section is not helping the cause of this article. -- llywrch 05:13, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to Georgian WP and delete. The article is a mixture of documented facts, substantiable hypotheses, and unsubstantiated speculations, and the authors have shown no interest in sorting it out. Putting the Pelasgians, Etruscans, and Lusitanians in a list of Caucasian tribes, and then stating that these tribes are linked to the Basques, is misleading at best; the evidence, at present, for these statements is no more than tenuous and suggestive. I doubt that the appropriate modifications ("could be", "might be", "not widely accepted") can be put into this article, as User:Levzur has already gone to the trouble of promoting these speculations in the Etruscan civilization, Lusitania, and Pelasgians articles; this, I believe, is good evidence of an agenda. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:24, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Dear Wile E. Heresiarch, I say that Pelasgians were PROTO-IBERIANS. Before the Indo-European expansion, before the end of the 2nd millennium BC, in the 4th-2nd millenniums BC, the related Proto-Iberian tribes were inhabited Asia Minor, the Caucasus, the Aegean Basin (Pelasgians), Iberian Peninsula and Balkan Peninsula. As a result of the Indo-European expansion, after the end of the 2nd millenium BC happened assimilation of the part of the Proto-Iberian tribes on the most part of Asia Minor, the Aegean Basin and Balkan Peninsula. The Proto-Iberian tribes have kept their originality in the Caucasus (the Iberian-Caucasian peoples) and Iberian Peninsula (Basques). It is a well-known theory based on the results of historical, archaeological, linguistic and anthropological investigations. Levzur 20 Feb 2004
    • In its present form this article is unacceptable for an encyclopedia. It presents minority views--in fact views that have been considered and rejected by most scholars--as though they are established facts. A reader who knew little about linguistics would naturally assume from this article that the consensus view holds that Basque and Etruscan are related to these Caucasian languages. This impression would be entirely false. For example, to take the nearest book to me that weighs in, The World's Major Languages (B. Comrie, Ed. Oxford University Press (1990)) describes Caucasian languages as having "no known affiliations to languages outside the Caucasus". The standard take on Basque and Etruscan is that although people have tried to link them to a long list of languages (including each other), each is unrelated to any known language. Similarly, the implicit assertion of a connection between Caucasian Iberia and the Iberian Penninsula contradicts the scholarly consensus. Josh Cherry 03:51, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] VfD Additional comments (not a vote)

Hello. I have the following comments on the current revision (2004/02/17). Bear in mind that I will ignore attacks ad hominem; feel free to respond in a constructive way. (1) The authors should bear in mind that "Proto-Iberian" has a connotation, in English, of "whatever preceded the peoples of Spain and Portugal". If "Proto-Iberian" means something different in the article, it should be clarified. Please also clarify the repeated equation of "Proto-Iberians" and "Hetto-Iberians". Wile E. Heresiarch 17:31, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that Levzur is the expert and I am just someone with a casual interest and cannot answer all the questions. The reason for this connotation is why I chose the term Hetto-Iberians which is still an acceptable alternative term though the number of hits on google was only a few. Perhaps Hetto-Iberian is a better alternative since the other alternative Caicasian-Iberian does not conjure the right extent of the theoretical location of the peoples.Zestauferov 02:37, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(2) The claimed connections of peoples of the Caucausus with the Lusitanians and Etruscans seems fanciful; the origins of those peoples is, at best, very uncertain. Claiming to know the origins of the Lusitanians and Etruscans is a very strong claim indeed; you will need to give it a strong foundation. (3) Citing Herodotus as a reference is problematic. (4) Stating a list of references ending in "etc." is not helpful to the reader, who will not know what has been omitted. (5) As this is the English Wikipedia, you should give references in English if there are any; my guess is that Georgian is spoken by few readers of this WP, and Russian and German by not many more. For what it's worth, Wile E. Heresiarch 17:31, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dear Wile E. Heresiarch, please see my last addition. Please note, that the work of Herodotus is one of main sources of the history of Iberian-Caucasian peoples and Proto-Iberian tribes.
I don't know the term Hetto-Iberians I know the Russian form is more like Hatto-Iberians. Levzur - Dr. Levan Z. Urushadze 19 Feb 2004 & Zestauferov 17:19, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
Unfortunately no form of Hatto Iberian shows up on any web-search which is why I used the spelling Hetto-iberians which at least seems to have enjoyed some usage on the net in the English language.Zestauferov 07:36, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional information. I have voted above. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:24, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Problem Users

We tried to reason with Levzur & Zestauferov but Zestauferov listed me Wetman & Llywrch on Wikipedia:Conflicts between users. RickK 04:01, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC) & Zestauferov 17:19, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Rick please can you give me the details of when you have ever tried to reason with me? Since all pages on wiki have a dated & user-IDentified history it should be easy to find them. I promise I will erase my listing you at Wikipedia:Conflicts between users andpost an appology wherever you like if I have missed your attempts to reason with me so please give me the relevant page links ASAP. :o) Zestauferov 16:29, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Note to readers User:Levzur has his very own page among the Problem Users: Wikipedia:Conflicts_between_users/Levzur will give an idea. His own user page will also give the reader a clear picture of this contributor's agenda. Wetman 12:56, 20 Feb 2004

I don;t think that the location is really about problem users because Llywrch also has his own page Wikipedia:Conflicts_between_users/Llywrch and he works very hard for Wiki. Zestauferov 17:19, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cults

Some members of extreem groups believe that the Peoples mentioned in the article are actually descended from Magog via a descendant of his called Heber mentioned in Celtic and Anglo-saxon traditions. Have a look at the "The Peoples of the North" section in the history pages of the following messianic site http://www.imninalu.net/2imninalu.htm. User:203.240.170.109 04:53, 7 Feb 2004

Ibero-Caucasian peoples are indigenous, autohthonous peoples of the Caucasus! Levzur.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../z/e/s/User_talk%7EZestauferov_Iberian_Problem_a0d3.html"