Talk:Šuppiluliuma I

Suppiluliuma I and Hippolyte
If Amazons were Hittites then Hippolyte, queen of Amazons, must identified with Suppiluliuma I, king of Hatti.

Take account this note:

1) There was a town Amasia or "Amaseia" in Pontus in Eastern Anatolia.

2) The Amazons were supposed to be daughters of god Ares (in Greek mythlogy).

However, there was an river "Iris" (or Thermodon), in their land.

--Ionn-Korr 09:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Sources?
This article does not cite any of its sources. Would someone who is working on it please add some cites? If not, I will have to tag it, but want to give an opportunity to see it sourced first. Larry Dunn 13:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources are needed for this article, and controversial data (such as family tree) should not be presented as true without discussion or comparison merely for the sake of convenience or to fill in blanks. As is, looks too much like original research from someone whose major influence is Bryce. As presented in this article, the family tree section's data is misleading as to its certainty and inadequately sourced. In the "family tree" section the citations go primarily to Bryce, throughout. Bryce's 2-queen family tree data presented here is arguable, not necessarily factual, and really shouldn't be presented here unless Kitchen's 3-queen conclusion and other experts on this topic are also cited, and other variant family trees included. Saying as if it were a certainty that Suppiluliuma I had only 2 queens is misleading. Suppiluliuma's parentage is also as yet not definitively known. See Kitchen and others, such as: Concerning the order of Suppiluliuma’s queens, see Goetze (1952: 71); Kitchen (1962: 1f.); Otten (1968: 18f.; 1994: 253f.); Bin-Nun (1975: 167, 261f.); Houwink ten Cate (1995–1996: 54); Bryce (2005: 159f)

Suggest this family tree data not be presented as true, but as Bryce's position, and be compared with other expert work on the details of the topic. Until reworked with citations from other experts with differing theories as to parentage, queens, and offspring, family tree should be admitted to be yet uncertain.

Name standardization
The possible spellings of Hittite names are too numerous to list all of them. The most popular methodology today is to use 's' for 'sh', and 'h' for the laryngeal. (In the past, these have been normalized as 'sh' and 'kh', but this has fallen by the wayside over time.) A third approach, but more difficult to achieve, is to use 'š' or even 'ş', and a character that isn't available in Wikipedia for the laryngeal (an 'h' with a cupped diacritical under it). It is also standard to show the root stem without the nominative 's' ending. This corresponds with how the Hittites themselves wrote names when they were not attempting to indicate case. Thus 'Mursili'. Variants such as 'Suppiluliumas', 'Shuppiluliumash', 'Suppiluliuma', etc. are easily recognized as the same name. Complicating matters here is that Hittite cuneiform does not distinguish between 'p' and 'b', resulting in even more possible variations. 208.97.196.5 (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, 'p' and 'b' are distinguished in Hittite word-internally--'p' is written with double  while 'b' is written with a single 'p' (though some claim the distinction is something other than voice/non-voice). Johundhar (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Statue is false
The statue of a supposed Suppiluliuma is actually that of a ruler with the same name from a Neo-Hittite city. This king ruled in the 800's BC and the statue is dated from 1000 - 700 BC. So in conclusion this is not the same Suppiluliuma and the part on the statue should be removed.==Statue== "In 2012, a colossal 3,000-year-old statue of King Suppiluliuma was located in Turkey. " here is what I removed.

Cauca50 (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Short Chronology
I'm a bit concerned by the use of short chronology for most of the dates in the Hittite articles I've seen. I'm not a specialist by any means, but it's my understanding that the short chronology has been largely rejected in favor of the middle chronology. Should that be changed in the articles?

107.143.141.0 (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)RT

Quotation mark confusion in 'Sources' section
The initial quotation mark is clearly in the wrong place, but I can't tell where it's supposed to be without doing more work than I care to right now. Someone should feel free to look up the actual source and correct this.Johundhar (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)