Talk:Qanat/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Iran

The Iran per-country section looks very much like being lifted from some existing (academic) material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.57.20.8 (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Karez

I'm not sure if the origin of the word "Karez" is Pashtun, as is claimed by the article. The word Kariz was extensively used in old traditional Persian architecture.--Zereshk 10:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Falaj

Why is Falaj given as a reference unless to advertise the company? It should be removed. 145.253.108.22 06:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a coincidence. In the UAE a qanat is called Falaj → [2] -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge

I agree, it's clearly just two names for the same thing. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not merge this

It is part of a series of articles I am writing about Chinese architecture, the Silk Route, cities along the Silk Route, the geography/geology along the Silk Route, etc. Please let me change the name of the article. This is just one aspect of the city and the Silk Route. Plus, all the pictures are from the Turfan Water Museum, so those will have to be removed. --Mattisse 16:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I will rewrite the article

I am only interested in the Silk Route aspects so I will rewrite the article to focus on that more exclusively. I do not want any of the Qanat article in the one I wrote, as it is all irrelevant information to my article plan. I wrote this article because the Qanat article is long and confusing and does not serve my needs. It has so much irrelevant material for my interests that I cannot even make myself read it. I will also change the name of this article, if that will prevent this awful merge. --Mattisse 16:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

For some reason the two pictures that are supposed to adorn the very top of this article aren't visible. And when I click on them, it acts as if I'm trying to upload new images! John Baez (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but the diagram of the wind catcher appears to be incorrect. The wind does not flow in to the tower, air is drawn up through the house by the low pressure on the leeward side of the tower. Mr. Fosi, 10:11, 7 August 2009 (EDT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.89.218 (talk)

File:Qanat Zibad.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Qanat Zibad.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Kariz iran.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Dating

a farming technology known to have developed entirely in ancient Persia, Does this then mean "brought to an exquisite peak of technical perfection in Persia before it was even considered elsewhere?" I've seen the aerial photographs, too. But how are these ancient qanat systems dated? By fatwa?Wetman 00:09, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, by Bush's State of the Union Address. How else do you think they date archeological remains?

Even the name Qanat is Persian.--Zereshk 03:53, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Qouting Jona Lendering from his website * [3]: " As the ceramics of the farms at the exit of a qanat offer an indication of its age, it is possible to date the first qanats to the late second millennium B.C.E.; they were constructed in the country that was once known as Maka and is now called Oman. In the Late Iron Age, the irrigation technique spread to Iran; in the sixth century, many qanats were dug in the area east of the Zagros mountains" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.154.8.168 (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Tikrit argues a South-East Arabian origin for the falaj (or Qanat) and so I'm adding that to the article. To be honest, I think it makes sense for falaj to have its own page, specifically because of recent archaeological finds, publications and clearer understanding of these systems and their role in the early UAE (or Omana or Magan, or Makkan). It's a concept with its own name in Arabic and its own place in Arab (specifically UAE) history. I'd be interested in any views on this. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Article has been rewritten & renamed

I would have been disastrous to dump my specific article about a specific place into that huge wandering article on Qanat. I just went through a great deal of trouble to change the whole article (even though right now it is DYK) and to change the name to prevent such an awful event. Hopefully you can let my little article alone now. It would have been drowned in that messy Qanat article, and the point of it completely lost, as the article which has nothing to do with mine. --Mattisse 18:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I think you're right that it works well as it is now, though I have added at least a link from the Turfan water system‎ article to qanat. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I can make out from the qanat article, they are not quite the same systems, although the rambling description of qanat is unclear and the article is a grab bag article with everything but the kitchen sink thrown—it too long to bother to read and try to sort it out—so many inadequate descriptions of other countries thrown in, probably the result of your "merge at all costs" policy. And most of the qanat references are taken from two books on Iran (Persia) published by the University of Texas, so the qanat article seems POV. Plus why add more mess to the qanat article? Many of the pictures are misrepresentations of Turfan's system as it is. The whole article is misleading. --Mattisse 12:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - I'll bow to your greater knowledge of the subject as a whole. Presumably there ought to be a general article on "water systems fed by sloping tunnels from upland aquifers", but I'm certainly in no position to write it, or even to know what title it should go under. I agree that at present this one seems heavily skewed towards Persia. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 08:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

why a separate article?

Qanat / Qanaah literally means 'channel' in Arabic. This article should be merged with 'irrigation channel'. --212.9.126.1 (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Qanat > Canal !

canal: early 15c., from French canal, chanel "water channel, tube, pipe, gutter" (12c.), from Latin canalis "water pipe, groove, channel," noun use of adjective from canna "reed" (see cane). Originally in English "a pipe for liquid," its sense transferred by 1670s to "artificial waterway." cane: late 14c., from Old French cane "reed, cane, spear" (13c., Modern French canne), from Latin canna "reed, cane," from Greek kanna, perhaps from Assyrian qanu "tube, reed" (cf. Hebrew qaneh, Arabic qanah "reed"), from Sumerian gin "reed." But Tucker finds this borrowing "needless" and proposes a native Indo-European formation from a root meaning "to bind, bend." Sense of "walking stick" in English is 1580s. says: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=canal&searchmode=none Böri (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Turpan water system be merged into Qanat. The Turpan water system is karez or kariz, that is already been redirected to Qanat, and its Chinese version zh:坎儿井 is linked to qanat too.Hahahaha哈 (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree; the Turpan water system article is about a specific implementation of the technology (like Aqueduct (bridge) versus Aqueduct of Segovia). Turpan water system is long enough to stand on its own, and this article is incredibly long already and would suffer from a merger. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Qanat. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.edwardgoldsmith.org/1031/the-qanats-of-iran/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161018153716/http://www.gwp.org/Global/ToolBox/References/Capacity%20Development%20for%20Improved%20Water%20Management%20%28UNESCO-IHE%2CUNW-DPC%2C%202009%29.pdf to http://www.gwp.org/Global/ToolBox/References/Capacity%20Development%20for%20Improved%20Water%20Management%20(UNESCO-IHE,UNW-DPC,%202009).pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140429163019/http://amordadnews.com/neveshtehNamyesh.aspx?NId=6010 to http://amordadnews.com/neveshtehNamyesh.aspx?NId=6010
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609052009/http://www.ucm.es/BUCM/revistas/ghi/02143038/articulos/ELEM8484120249A.PDF to http://www.ucm.es/BUCM/revistas/ghi/02143038/articulos/ELEM8484120249A.PDF
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.qanat.info/en/colloge.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://scitation.aip.org/vsearch/servlet/VerityServlet?KEY=ASCERL&smode=strresults&maxdisp=25&possible1=Madani%2C+Kaveh&possible1zone=author&OUTLOG=NO&aqs=true&viewabs=ASCECP&key=DISPLAY&docID=1&page=0&chapter=0&aqs=true
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100326131646/http://www.destinationiran.com/Kariz_(Qanat).htm to http://www.destinationiran.com/Kariz_(Qanat).htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Tikriti and Arabia

I'm sorry, reverters, but Tikriti does indeed claim that and the source backs it perfectly. Al Ain's aflaj are precisely of south east Arabian origin and Tikriti does indeed argue as such - and that they are pre-Achaemenid. His paper, quoted in the citation, is TITLED "The south-east Arabian origin of the falaj system" - it can't really get clearer than that, can it? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I added a further source citing Tikriti's view (shared by Potts and others, BTW). Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Origin

I found this. Click on cited sources and compare with text. Both sources are paid-to-view and I think they're misrepresented or shouldn't be in the lead section per WP:WEIGHT. @Wikaviani: What do you think about it? --Wario-Man (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

This is blatant POV pushing by a disruptive editor who has been already warned by Doug Weller for the same kind of misconduct. The source does not say that this system may have originated in "south east Arabia", it just says that some scholars think its Persian origin is not indisputable. I would suggest to remove this WP:UNDUE sentence from the article and to post a final warning on the user's talk page (better late than never ...). Good catch man ! Take care.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

One source is a paid-to-view article and I don't have access to full version of it but still the abstract does not support the cited text on article. Another problem is the other source is just a link to a page about that book, no quote no page number. And this diff makes it more dubious. --Wario-Man (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Wario-Man: "The south-east Arabian origin of the falaj system" could be obtained by creating a free account in Jstor, which give you limited papers to view per month (5 in total). You could subscribe for unlimited papers. That said, I read the paper just now, 23 pages, and Tikriti statement is not misrepresented.

Tikriti goes into details on how this "misconception" of an Iranian origin of the Falaj system was accepted by prominent western scholars (such as J.C Wilkinson) at face value under the influence of ancient sources (Sargon's Annals, Arabic sources, Polybius). He goes to say; "Although his book is interesting, I would criticize Wilkinson for his complete acceptance of the hypothesis of a Persian origin of the aflaj" without taking into consideration that thousands of aflaj exists in Oman from the bronze age while, despite extensive investigations in Iran, there's no evidence that the falaj was known before the fifth century BC.. He further adds that the Persian dominantion of eastern Arabia is the reason "why this system, as well as other cultural features, have been attributed to Iran rather than to Arabia". He say that "archaeological evidence support this..and we believe therefore that the system was transferred to Iran from the western pediment of the Hajar mountains".

I think the next statement should be deleted and added to the first, with minor alteration, maybe giving the author's name, as I am not sure what this means;" A pre-Archemaed Empire Arabian origin is also argued by the Underground Aqueducts Handbook.". Maybe also include their perspectives and arguments. You could ask him to provide direct quote, since I wasn't able to access the second source. Best regards. Nabataeus (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nabataeus: Hi, fyi, i reverted the controversial edit, since such a claim sounds quite exceptional and as such, requires multiple high quality sources and a consensus on the article talk page. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not fringe theory, neither exceptional claim (the source from personal search is widely used as a reference by many archaeological specialists). Quick search on the origin of the Qanat system would give sufficient result that its dating is problematic. (for instance in "Papers on the Archaeology and History of Mesopotamia and Syria Presented to David Otes" evidence suggests an Arabian origin of the system). It's far from exceptional, my opinion is that we remove the origin from the lead and we add it in the body since the origin is contested (central Asian origin of the system is argued, maybe I will include it in the article). Nabataeus (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: If it is allowed to remove our discussion to the said talk page, it would be nice. As to give the issue more needed attention. Continuing the matter, I accessed the chapter of "the Underground Aqueducts HandBook" labelled Aqueducts in Saudi Arabia and it states the following:

• "These observations refute the generally accepted historical trajectory of qanāt technology, which states that qanāt irrigation systems were first invented in Iran in the eighth century BC (English 1968; Lightfoot 2000), from where these was transferred to Arabia and the rest of the Middle East during the period of the Achaemenid Empire (538–332 BC). In fact, the observation from the UAE and Oman suggest an inverse trajectory of qanāt diffusion, from Peninsular Arabia to Persia."

Ascribing the origin of the system to Iran or the Persians without including the various hypothesis is just wrong and uncyclopedic as it gives an illusion that the matter is settled, when in fact, from a quick research, it gave the opposite view. Its origin couldn't be more problematic. In Boucharlat (2016) view: "the hypothesis of radial diffusion from a unique center does not match with the archaeological evidence. The qanāt and falaj may well be a polycentric invention at different periods in different geographical contexts, especially for the first period, the first millennium BC.” Boucharlat finally concludes schematically that “the first generation of shafts-and-gallery aqueducts was very likely polycentric during varied periods of the first millennium BC. Much later the second generation might have been actually implemented in Iran around the middle of the first millennium AD and was soon spread elsewhere.". That's fairly reasonable and more probable. The article need a serious re-writing to be honest. Nabataeus (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this straight. An editor is adding some ?"Archemaed Empire"? and other information in the lead of the article? So since this isn't POV pushing, per Wikipedia:LEAD, where is this information in the article? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not discussing his conduct, frankly, neither his spellings ability. The contested origin of the Qanat system should be removed from the lead and added in the body: being of Arabian origin is not fringe theory, multiple authoritative sources support this hypothesis as other hypothesis such as central Asian. Nabataeus (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, if this isn't POV pushing, why hasn't this information been moved to the body of the article? I'm not interested in your opinion of this subject, frankly, or your interpretation of Wikipedia:POV. As for this particular editor's spelling, Wikipedia:Competence is required, "the ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles". --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Kansas, who said that I am throwing opinions left and right, and where did I disproved/approved that he was POV? so you could have a take on my interpretation? I am trying to resolve the issue before I make some edits. The supported Arabian hypothesis shouldn't be arbitrarily removed, and that's not an opinion. Nabataeus (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

WARD : "Apparently originating in pre-Achaemenid Persia, tunnel-wells spread to Egypt, the Levant, and Arabia in Achaemenid times (550-331 B.C.).".

Britannica : "The development of qanāts probably began about 2,500 or 3,000 years ago in Iran, and the technology spread eastward to Afghanistan and westward to Egypt.

LIGHTFOOT : "These subterranean, gravity‐driven filtration galleries, known generically as qanats, were transplanted across the Peninsula first by Persians, and later by others who borrowed their technology." and later : "This collation offers evidence of three distinct pathways of diffusion of qanat technology from Persia across Arabia, and discusses the current use and future of qanats throughout the region."

LIGHTFOOT (again) : page 217, a map represents Iran as being tthe area of origin of Qanats.

As far as i can see, an overwhelming amount of sources support the Iranian origin of this system. Only few sources are supporting an Arabian peninsula origin and they are often based on the sole Tikriti source. This is the precise definition of a fringe theory on Wikipedia : "In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field.".

As to moving this discussion to the article's talk page, LouisAragon can feel free to make the move. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

When Wilkinson wrote his book for example, no pre-Islamic aflaj was academically known. Only, relatively recently, that new data came to light as a result of extensive systematical archaeological diggings that challenged the old hypothesis. And no, the other two sources don't reference Takiriti for their claim of Arabian origin. The guy is literally one of the prominent scholars of south east Arabian studies in that field!

"More qanāts have been excavated in Southeast Arabia since the last 30 years than in any other region of the world. The origin of this technology is still debated'... (Groundwater management in Southeast Arabia from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age: a critical reassessment - Julien Charbonnier). In his paper Julien stated that:"In this paper, I aim to take a step back from the controversy about the origin of falaj technology" the issue is not simply Arabian origin, the system origin itself is disputed, stating that it was invented in Iran while you ignore the counterargument is simply wrong and definitely goes against WP:NPOV. Nabataeus (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

My concerns: Is Falaj system = Qanat? Or it's just a similar system? The reliability of cited source and its work? Plus since there is only one source about this Falaj system, it should be moved from lead to the body of article. Mentioning the author of that paper and his view in the lead is not neutral. Better to discuss this stuff on Talk:Qanat. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Qanat, Aflaj (plural of falaj), Kariz, generally are the same (see the alternative names in the article). Underground Aqueducts. As for the source, let's put it this way; you can't make a paper on south east Arabian agriculture history/installation/ or the aflaj system in general without referencing him. Surely the Journal of Arabian studies would be enough, however to get a perspective, in Boucharlat paper he write the following; " The definitive evidence for such an early date for the falaj in the UAE is due to the painstaking fieldwork of W. Y. al.Tikriti from 1983 until now". There are three sources so far that support an Arabian origin and one source consider it "disputed" and "controversial", while Boucharlat believe Iranian origin of the system don't withstand archaeological evidence, and instead he believe it to be polycentric invention occured in multiple regions.

It should be moved from the lead and added to the body as for example; "The origin of the Qanat technology is still disputed and controversial (Julien). The majority of scholars consider it an Iranian invention, while others dispute the hypothesis and argue for South-East Arabian development. Boucharlat in the other hand etc.". Something similar. Nabataeus (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

That's quite a violent reaction, @Wikaviani: - the content has been in the article for some months now and the cites back it up solidly. It's not POV pushing, as others have also argued, with some conviction, that there is now substantive academic opinion that casts doubt on the origin of the Qanat as undoubtedly Persian. You're not the first person to try and yank Doug Weller into a sourcing argument. The sources are good, the content is good, the argument is real and now accepted/made by a number of respected academics. You may not like it(clearly you don't) but there it is. We've got Remy Boucharlat (2003), in his paper Iron Age Water-draining galleries and the Iranian Qanat, (in Potts, Al Naboodah & Hellyer [eds.] Archaeology of the United Arab Emirates, Trident Press, London, who states: "We are left without any Iranian ancestor in antiquity for the qanat technique of draining from a deep water table. Until we have more definite information, it is best to consider the use of underground galleries in the Oman Peninsula during protohistory and antiquity as a local invention." p. 170

Earlier in his paper, he cites excavated falajes from the UAE Iron Age, e.g. one at Bida bint Saud. "Here too, are good indications of an Iron Age for the falaj, which is situated around 150 m from a very interesting building with a pillared hall (al-Tikriti et al. 2001: Fig.03; 2002: 349-351, Fig. 12). The Iron Age date for this gallery is provided by several hundred pottery sherds found in the well-defined archaeological context of the tunnelled gallery and the shari'a." (p. 167)

I'll add more tomorrow as I don't have access right now to all my books. The doubt as to the origin SHOULD be in the lead. More can follow lower down. I'm happy to keep piling on the content and respected academic sources. It's not WP:POV. It's not WP:UNDUE. It's just something that appears to upset your own personal applecart. But it IS a thing. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and someone asked about the Underground Aqueducts Handbook. You may find this instructive. I hope the quotes are OK under fair use:

"Concerning the first examples of these underground aqueducts, all the studies until the end of the last century firmly attributed their invention to the Iranians in the early first millennium BC, following H. Goblot’s book (Goblot 1979). This position cannot be longer maintained." Underground Aqueducts Handbook P. 280

"The chronology of the early falaj was rapidly set, thanks to several excavations of villages totally depending of the falaj. Moreover, an example in Oman was dated by radiocarbon of the ninth century BC (Cleuziou 2001, 3 quoting I.D. Clark’s PhD in Paris 6 University 1987, 173). The definitive evidence for such an early date for the falaj in the UAE is due to the painstaking fieldwork of W. Y. al Tikriti from 1983 until now. He published his first results in 2002 in Arabic and later an up-to-date English edition (al-Tikriti 2011)." P. 283

"The question of the date of these early aflāj is not disputed. Every excavated example is clearly linked to a settlement, and in three cases, together with a large building, each of them is securely dated from the Iron Ages II and, possibly, III. Iron Age II starts at the turn of the second and first millennia BC and ends around 600 BC." P. 287

"None of the Iranian qanāt can be directly dated from the pre-Islamic period and even from the following centuries, despite some assumptions put forward time to time, especially for the Khorasan province, corresponding to the NE quarter of the country." P 296

Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi to all of you. My concerns are about the WP:EXCEPTIONAL nature of such a claim since it goes against what the vast majority of the sources support. @Alexandermcnabb: : I would suggest you to follow WP:BRD since you're an experienced editor and as such, you're certainly aware of Wiki rules. As said above, since this "Arabian peninsula" claim goes against what the vast majority of sources say, it's what we call WP:FRINGE or WP:EXCEPTIONAL, this kind of claims requires multiple high quality sources and for now, you failed to provide them. Also, even if a disputed origin can be mentioned in the article (with multiple high quality sources), this certainly does not belong to the lead. I would appreciate other knowledgeable editors' opinion here. @LouisAragon, Kansas Bear, and HistoryofIran:. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

First off, I would like page number(s) and quote from this source,

• Angelakis, Andreas N; Chiotis, Eustathios; Eslamian, Saeid; Weingartner, Herbert (2017). Underground Aqueducts Handbook.

Also misrepresenting what a source states is tendentious editing, since Alexandermcnabb uses "The 4th Asian Regional Conference & 10th International Seminar on Participatory Irrigation Management" to show it supports Tikriti yet oddly it contains this paragraph;

• "Traditionally, however, the origin of aflāj in Oman has been attributed to Persian influence during Achaemenid times (eg English 1997). It is generally accepted that the technique was used in Persia from at least the end of the 8th century BC. During the mid-6th to mid-4th centuries BC. it began to be diffused more widely. This was a period of Persian expansion, especially during the reign of Cyrus the Great, and there is abundant evidence from archaeological and historical records of contact between Persia and Arabia(MRMEWR 2006). Much of Oman came under Achaemenid rule in the mid-6th century BC., and from 226 AD it formed part of the Sassanian Empire of Persia, until the Sassanians were finally driven out of Oman with the coming of Islam in the 7th century AD. It is possible that many aflāj were built in Oman in Achaemenid times, and it appears that it was during the Sassanian period that irrigation by aflāj reached its widest extent(Wilkinson 1977, 1983)." --Zaher bin Khalid Al Sulaimani, Tariq Helmi and Harriet Nash, The Social Importance and Continuity of Falajuse in Northern Oman, page 3.

Therefore, if this source is used it should show everything it states concerning aflāj, not simply information cherry-picked to show a certain POV.

As such these sentences;

• "This view is disputed by Tikrit[i], who argues a South-East Arabian origin for the technology. A pre-Achaemenid Empire Arabian origin is also argued by the Underground Aqueducts Handbook"

should be moved to the body of the article and sourced appropriately. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• "First off, I would like page number(s) and quote from this source, Angelakis, Andreas N; Chiotis, Eustathios; Eslamian, Saeid; Weingartner, Herbert (2017). Underground Aqueducts Handbook."

You could see it above in my post, Aqueducts of Saudi Arabia, page 214, make a case of Arabian origin Qanat system.

• "Also misrepresenting what a source states is tendentious editing, since Alexandermcnabb uses "The 4th Asian Regional Conference & 10th International Seminar on Participatory Irrigation Management" to show it supports Tikriti yet oddly it contains this paragraph"

It also contains the following; "There is archaeological evidence that the earliest period of falaj construction in Oman dates back to 1000 BC. (Al Tikriti 2002), suggesting a pre-Achaemenid origin and consistent with the legend.". Which should be included, the paper don't knock the doors of the problematic origin of the aflaj system. The traditional belief is as that, only with the extensive field work that this idea of the diffusion of the system from Iran to Arabia can't withstand archaeological evidence. The existence of Qanat technology in Arabia pre-date that of Iran by centuries. Which according to Boucharlat this system was not invented and diffused from Iran, he believe it to be an independent innovation in many regions.

• "should be moved to the body of the article and sourced appropriately".

Both should be removed or included. The lead cover "any prominent controversies", and since this is that "The origin of this technology is still debated.... I aim to take a step back from the controversy about the origin of falaj technology" (Julien Charbonnier). Then it ought to be included next to the various hypotheses.

• Per NPOV "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sourceson a topic.

So far there are 4 sources that support the hypothesis that it was an Arabian invention ("Papers on the Archaeology and History of Mesopotamia and Syria Presented to David Otes", "The south-east Arabian origin of the falaj system" by Tikriti, " the Underground Aqueducts HandBook, Acueducts of Saudi Arabia", and "Potts, Al Naboodah & Hellyer - Archaeology of the United Arab Emirates"). Nabataeus (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

At no stage, BTW, did I use "The 4th Asian Regional Conference & 10th International Seminar on Participatory Irrigation Management" as a source. Nabataeus above has done a better job than I could have in surfacing and explaining the sources here. Maybe we can now agree to reflect the academic change in - and lack of - consensus in the lead and also to change the 'Origins' section of the article which is currently badly sourced and written? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Concerning the 4th Asian Regional Conference, could you explain this edit where you added it then[4]? Nabataeus (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Good point, had forgotten it was there (was looking for it in the long text above). Just used it 'cos it cited Tikriti. Lazy, really, and not the most helpful thing I've done, TBH... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

This sentence : "There is archaeological evidence that the earliest period of falaj construction in Oman dates back to 1000 BC. (Al Tikriti 2002), suggesting a pre-Achaemenid origin and consistent with the legend" does not mean that the earliest Qanat was in Oman, rather it means that the earliest Qanat in Oman dates back to 1000 BC, not exactly the same. As Kansas Bear said above, this is a misrepresentation of what the source says.

"The existence of Qanat technology in Arabia pre-date that of Iran by centuries. " : POV not supported by any source, exept if i'm mistaken. The article's lead contains five 21st century sources supporting the Iranian claim for Qanat, but an editor said above "Maybe we can now agree to reflect the academic change in".

To make it clear, correct me if i'm mistaken, if you fail to provide multiple high quality sources explicitly supporting an Arabian peninsula invention for this system, you're under WP:OR and your inclusion will not gain any consensus. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The Qanat system and its origin and diffusion to Arabia is attributed to the Achaemenids. If you're skeptic of the source fine, no worries. As for the Qanat technology in Arabia and the claim that it pre-date those of Iran by centuries, you could see my first post.

In the meantime, you ignored the "high quality" sources that exists which support an Arabian invention, so let's track the sources so far;

• 1)"archaeological evidence support this..and we believe therefore that the system was transferred to Iran from the western pediment of the Hajar mountains". - The south-east Arabian origin of the falaj system.

• 2) "We are left without any Iranian ancestor in antiquity for the qanat technique of draining from a deep water table. Until we have more definite information, it is best to consider the use of underground galleries in the Oman Peninsula during protohistory and antiquity as a local invention." - Potts, Al Naboodah & Hellyer - Archaeology of the United Arab Emirates.

• 3) "These observations refute the generally accepted historical trajectory of qanāt technology, which states that qanāt irrigation systems were first invented in Iran in the eighth century BC (English 1968; Lightfoot 2000), from where these was transferred to Arabia and the rest of the Middle East during the period of the Achaemenid Empire (538–332 BC). In fact, the observation from the UAE and Oman suggest an inverse trajectory of qanāt diffusion, from Peninsular Arabia to Persia." - Underground Aqueducts HandBook, section Aqueducts of Saudi Arabia

• 4) "Our new evidence undoubtedly indicates the possibility that the falaj may have an Arabian origin" - Of Pots and Plans: Papers on the Archaeology and History of Mesopatamia and Syria Presented to David Oates in Honour of His 75th Birthday.

• 5) "It was held that the qanat must have originate in Persia, largely because that is where the larest numbers of qanats are found; and their origin has frequntely been attributed to the Achaemenids. More recently, several archaeologists working in the Arabian Peninsula have argued that qanats (aflaj) originated there, claiming to have discovered pre-Achaemenid qanats of early first millennium B.C. (Magee 2005)." - The Oxford Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World

Sorry, you can't shove the Arabian hypothesis under the rug, or the sources that dismiss an Iranin origin such as Boucharlat. This article is heavily biased. Needs some work. Nabataeus (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nabataeus: You know me and you probably know that i try to do my best to avoid being driven by any bias, otherwise you would not have pinged me in order to give my opinion in the past, right ? Thanks for the above sources and your efforts to provide citations. However, since sources are not unanimous about that system's origin, any rewording of the article should consider both claims (i'm able to provide numerous sources supporting an Iranian invention of Qanats). Will check the sources you provided above when i'll have some time for that. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Exactly! The origin is not simply Iranian or Arabian. The view of Boucharlat is more persuasive. That said, yes the article should consider both claims; "the origin of the technology is still disputed, however, the majority of scholars consider it to be an Iranian origin, while others...... etc." along the lines. And I didn't accuse you of bias, I was describing this article. Even when you said that "I failed to provide high quality sources" even though I did in my response to Kansas. Nabataeus (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

You know very well, @Wikaviani:, that I have a name. You could have pinged me rather than referring to 'an editor' above. You have consistently avoided engaging with me directly in this other than to throw accusations of POV etc., even going so far as to start this whole thread on a confederate's talk page under the heading 'POV?' before moving it here when you had established a bulk of conversation without the participation of 'the editor' you disagree with. For the record, I left the Tikriti observation here with the intention of coming back and adding more when I had time. The reference to Tikriti and his beliefs (not presented by my as an absolute, you'll note, but a 'view') was valid and sourced and still is. Nevertheless, I'm very glad @Nabataeus: came into this, with well reasoned reference to more sources - and I agree totally that the article should reflect both origins, which is why I brought Tikriti into it in the first place, to introduce balance to an article which lacked it. I am more than happy that Nabataeus proceed and introduce changes to that effect and am also happy to step back so that we can get beyond wild accusations of bias and POV and actually reflect, honestly, the academic consensus which has built up with the recent investigation of the origins of the qanat (the Arabic word for 'channel', BTW) and also its Arabian cousin, until now unfairly unrecognised (and reduced to a mere redirect), the falaj. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it is POV pushing to introduce information into the lead of an article that is not present in the body of an article. Therefore, Wikaviani's assessment of the situation was spot on. Seeing how you have been here 7 years you already know this and yet the information is still present in the lead. I have asked for quotes and page numbers for the aforementioned information, finally quotes have been supplied, but no page numbers.

• "which is why I brought Tikriti into it in the first place, to introduce balance to an article which lacked it."

If that were the case the information would have been placed in the body of the article not the lead. Per Wikipedia:LEAD, "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I have added the information you asked for into the article, under the section 'origin'. Somehow I don't feel you're going to be any happier, but there it is, backing up the lead and fully sourced and referenced, page by page. I haven't contested the unsourced assertion that "Qanāt (قناة) is the Arabicized of Persian Kanāt", which the next sentence itself contests, neither have I removed the badly sourced and frankly dodgy stuff about cotton and Persia. I'm out now, @Nabataeus: is likely more acceptable to you as a contributor to this article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alexandermcnabb: As i told you on my talk, i don't meant to offend you. If you felt so by my above "no ping", then my appologies. Let's talk about content now, you added a large paragraph to the "origins" section of the article that is exclusively based on the few sources supporting (Tikriti, almost exclusively) a "South-East arabian" origin of the system, ignoring that the vast majority of sources still support a Persian origin. WP:UNDUE for the least. You need to self revert and wait for the discussion to conclude. Also, your "I don't feel you're going to be any happier" toward Kansas Bear shows that you blatantly know your edit will not be endorsed, quite disruptive. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Kansas Bear was unhappy that the sourced assertion in the lead was not linked to text in the article. Now it is. I don't think you or he would be happy with anything less than going back to the original article pre June 2018, nothing blatant about that. But the facts are facts - there is significant academic support for an Arabian origin. We now have a Persian origin and a South East Arabian origin. Both asserted, sourced, cited. That's balance, no? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• "Kansas Bear was unhappy that the sourced assertion in the lead was not linked to text in the article."

No. Your addition to the lead of the article violated Wikipedia:LEAD, which I explained(more than once) and clearly you ignored and chose to make personal. Your continued comments about another editor's emotional condition clearly indicates you are not here to build an encyclopedia. I see no reason to continue any type of dialogue with someone like you. We are done here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

No, your edit is not well balanced at all. As said above, you're an experienced editor and you know you have to wait for the discussion to conclude before editing the article again and again. Nabataeus, who agrees with the legit inclusion of an Arabian origin, also said that it should be said that the majority of sources support an Iranian origin. How is your addition balanced ? You should self revert and be patient. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Guys please let's calm down and not edit the page while we at it. Tikriti and other sources I read say/imply that the majority of scholars support an Iranian origin, which is the case, but in their view, could not withstand recent archaeological evidence.

We need to first establish that its origin is disputed and a matter of controversy (according to julien) "however the majority of scholars consider the system to be of Iranian origin. According to a theory proposed by Richard W. Bulliet, when the cotton was introduced to the Middle East, it devastated the agricultural systems already in place there. Because Persia is too hot for the crop to be cultivated; to solve that problem, the qanat was developed ...... etc."

side note: I am not sure if Richard said that. But the argument could be changed to reflect reliable sources. You get the point. But please include it as the opinion of the author, his views, per WP:NPOV; "If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.". Best regards. Nabataeus (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

SO, we have this text, reverted:

The 2002 publication of a paper by archaeologist Walid Yasin Al Tikriti, The south-east Arabian origin of the falaj system, provided the first counterpoint to the long-accepted narrative, that the Qanat originated in Persia and was identified as such by accounts of the campaigns of the Assyrian King, Sargon II, in 714 BCE. Tikriti cites this and also accounts by the Greek second and third century historian Polybius as being the basis for academic attribution of the technology to Persia. He notes academics such as JC Wilkinson (1977) adopting an Iranian origin for the technology under the influence of Sargon's annals and Polybius, but points out at least seven Iron Age aflaj (plural for falaj, the word used to denote waterways of this type in the United Arab Emirates) recently discovered in the Al Ain area of the UAE have been reliably carbon dated back to the beginning of the first millennium BCE. Additional to finds of Iron Age aflaj in Al Ain, Tikrit pointed to excavations in Al Madam, Sharjah, by the French archaeological team working there, as well as by a German team working in Maysar, in Oman. Tikriti is at pains to point out that, despite long-standing efforts since the 19th century to excavate qanat systems in Iran, no evidence has been found for any such qanat there dated earlier than the 5th century BCE. He concludes that the technology originated in South East Arabia and was likely taken to Persia, likely by the Sasanian conquest of the Oman peninsular.

Others have followed Tikriti's lead. In 2016, Rémy Boucharlat in his paper Qanāt and Falaj: Polycentric and Multi-Period Innovations Iran and the United Arab Emirates as Case Studies, asserted that the attribution of the technology to Iranians in the early first millennium BCE is a position that cannot longer be maintained. He asserts that the carbon dating of alfaj in Oman and the UAE to the ninth century BCE by Cleuziou and evidence for such an early date provided by Tikriti are definitive. Additionally, Boucharlat maintains that no known Iranian qanat can be dated to the pre-Islamic period.

Given that every singe assertion in that text is sourced in the reverted copy, what would you like to add to balance it? The wobbly bunkum about cotton, supported by cites that talk about Indian cotton cultivation? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the text, it makes it "explicit" that the it is the author view, and sourced throughout. I will save it to be included as the argument of the Arabian hypothesis. In the meantime let's not edit the page as there's no point. Nabataeus (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nabataeus: For my part, i'm all calm. Just asked Alexandermcnabb to refrain from editing the article without consensus and in a WP:UNDUE manner. Therefore, i would suggest everybody to desist from editing the article without proposing his version on the talk first, as this is disruptive for Wikipedia. Hopefully, Wario-Man restored the statu quo. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The text itself follows WP:NPOV, nothing is stated as facts neither is there any OR. Nicely sourced with reliable materials. Your problem was that it was undue, in my part it should be stated clearly that the majority support the Iranian hypothesis. Then add the arguments, not as fact but as opinion. Both for the Arabian and Iranian claims. No need for the issue to take any longer. Nabataeus (talk) 11:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, my problem is that his version was under WP:UNDUE. However, as i said above, don't hurry and make your proposal on the talk before editing the article in order to gain consensus.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nabataeus:, you will excuse me if I have not tried to peruse the wall of text. Have you supplied page number for the quotes you have supplied? If so, I believe we can make a new section and start working on the origin section for the article.--Kansas Bear (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

YOUR problem? It was Wario-Man reverted the edit! So the text is given by me above, to be inserted in the origin section, that's my proposal. I'd suggest you might like to produce a better first para stating the Iranian argument: that bunk about cotton is badly sourced, unworthy and IMHO not credible. If nobody's got anything useful to say on this (there's been a clear position to establish consensus on here - that the article should be balanced - since the get-go), I'd suggest Nabataeus may choose to be bold. I'll not edit further for now... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alexandermcnabb: Yes, it was my problem and i asked you to self revert, since you did not, then Wario-Man legitimately reverted your edits. Anyway, Nabataeus, just like any other user, can feel free to make a proposal on this talk page, but not to edit the article without consensus like you did. Also, i would like to see the sources with page number(s) as Kansas Bear asked above. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

They were given, line by line, assertion by assertion, sourced to a tee, in the reverted text. Fill your boots. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Continuing

Let's continue it here. @Kansas Bear:, the page numbers of the sources above are;

1) The south-east Arabian origin of the falaj system p.135 in the Arabian Studies journal, Vol. 32.

2) Potts, Al Naboodah & Hellyer - Archaeology of the United Arab Emirates p.170

3) Underground Aqueducts HandBook p.214

4) Of Pots and Plans: Papers on the Archaeology and History of Mesopatamia and Syria Presented to David Oates in Honour of His 75th Birthday p.353

5) The Oxford Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World p.291

Wikaviani, the texts of Alexander are sourced with page numbers that you could check. Kansas was asking me for the quote I shared above. Only thing we could do now is to propose an Iranian version. Nabataeus (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I just read the Origin section and it's a mess. @Wikaviani:, would you be interested in writing a Iranian origin theory? Nabataeus, could you write up the Arab origin theory? Then we place both theories under the Origin section. Thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

My version would be that of Alexander, it is sourced and nicely written that covers the provided arguments by the authors, not as facts, but as their opinions. If Wikaviani need any help in writing the Iranian version I could help him. Nabataeus (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

When you start writing section "Origin" move these current stuff from the lead to there:

• "The qanat technology was developed in ancient Iran by the Persian people sometime in the early 1st millennium BC, and spread from there slowly westward and eastward.[1][2][3][4][5][6] A pre-Archemaed Empire origin is also argued by the Underground Aqueducts Handbook. [7] The Archemaed era Qanats of Gonabad is one of the oldest and largest qanats in the world built between 700 BC to 500 BC, and is still in use today."

Plus if this system was very common among different peoples of Near/Middle East and it had variations, the differences and varieties should be mentioned too. --Wario-Man (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes it would be, as the opinions of the said authors. Moreover, the Qanats of Gonabad date is not sourced, here or in the main article. Nabataeus (talk) 10:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

* Archaemenid Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I did notice that the stable version (since June 2018) that opened this whole discussion got lost in among all the reverting etc. I have restored that version, which includes the Tikriti argument that started this discussion (and which, as has been proven, stands as both reputable and influential academic work that is well sourced here in our talk).

This restored content is also the context for the following line regarding a pre-Archaemenid Arabian origin in the Underground Aqueducts Handbook.

This original lead would be stood up by the addition of the proposed and agreed content discussed above. Any alternative lead would be fine by me as long as it stated a) no origin or b) both origin arguments, FWIW.

The restoration is purely procedural: that version shouldn't have been changed until our consensus here had been reached - as per the argument behind the reversion of my suggested addition in the 'Origin' section, which was given as a validation of the lead. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the delay responding. Yeah, i can write the Iranian part, but i'll do a proposal here on the talk page before any edit to the article. Additionaly to the sources already in the article, here are some sources supporting an Iranian origin of qanât :

• http://hamed.mit.edu/sites/default/files/Qanat_WHC_2010.pdf

 In the abstract, page 1 :
 " By the increasing demand of water due to the increasing population, ancient Iranian invented a new system to bring the groundwater to  
 the surface using the gravitational force. "

• http://www.academia.edu/10767576/The_Origin_and_Diffusion_of_Qanats_in_Arabia_New_Evidence_from_the_Northern_and_Southern_Peninsula

 page 215 :
 " Qanats are most ubiquitous in Iran, where this technology was created sometime between the tenth and eighth centuries BC, and it is here 
 that evolutionary experimentation has created the greatest varieties with regard to lenghth, depth, and form. "

• https://www.britannica.com/technology/qanat

 " The development of qanāts probably began about 2,500 or 3,000 years ago in Iran, and the technology spread eastward to Afghanistan and 
 westward to Egypt. "

• https://books.google.fr/books?id=IOj5H_yL6W4C&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=qanat+origin&source=bl&ots=Xp0Sao0rt6&sig=XXg6lIutPW823jO9pCd4fCvuB9g&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwji9tKcrZbfAhVIzRoKHaqFBwk4ChDoATAGegQIAhAB#v=onepage&q=qanat%20origin&f=false

 chapter 8, page 125 :
 " About 2500 years ago, Persians invented a number of methods for harnessing groundwater, including a water management system called a 
 qanat. "

Here are some sources saying that the invention of qanats is older than 1000 BC :

• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239533205_Water_resource_management_in_Ancient_Iran_with_emphasis_on_technological_approaches_a_cultural_heritage

 page 583/584 :
 " To make use of the limited amounts of water in arid regions, as early as the fourth millennium BC, the Iranians developed the first man-
 made underground water channels called qanats. "

• https://www.e-sciencecentral.org/upload/eer/pdf/eer-18-2-57-2.pdf

 In the abstract :
 " More than 3,000 years ago, Persians started constructing elaborate tunnel systems called Qanat for extracting groundwater for  
 agriculture and domestic usages in arid and semi-arid areas and dry deserts. "

• http://universitypublications.net/ajs/0201/pdf/RHS362.pdf

 page 125, in the introduction :  
 " The  Qanat  technology  was  developed  in  Iran’s  arid  regions  to  make  use  of  groundwater  resources  for agriculture and 
 habitation. "
 and also:
 " The antiquity of Qanats is not yet exactly established but the Qanat of Jopar near Kerman city (which is associated with the worship of   
 Anahita the water goddess) is estimated to have existed as far back as 1200 BC. "

• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260292663_Traditional_Water_Tunnels_Qanats_in_Iran

 Abstract :
 " Qanats are subterranean tunnels ancient civilizations built to access groundwater that have been originated from rainwater.  
 The technique is a sustainable method of groundwater extraction and date back some 5000 years or more in Iran. "

To all involved editors here, would you be so kind as to take a look at the above sources and let me know if they can be used in the article. Then i'll write a paragraph for the Iranian claim here on the talk in order to gain consensus for inclusion. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The sources look fine to me Wikaviani. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your valuable opinion, i'm going to start writing the Iranian section. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Here is my proposal for the Iranian part of the "origins" section. I would welcome the eye of other editors before inclusion (if the article is unblocked) :

From the geographic and meteorological point of view, the Middle east is a dry region that has been always facing water shortage problems. Due to the population growth, a new water collection system, named Qanât, was introduced. According to most sources, this technology was invented in ancient Iran by the Persian people sometime in the early 1st millennium BC, and spread from there slowly westward and eastward. According to some sources, qanats were invented in Iran before 1000 BC and as far back as before 3000 BC.

The Archemaed era Qanats of Gonabad is one of the oldest and largest qanats in the world built between 700 BC to 500 BC, and is still in use today.

Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

References

I see no opinions presented as facts, fine by me. But "The Archemaed era Qanats of Gonabad is one of the oldest and largest qanats in the world built between 700 BC to 500 BC, and is still in use today" is not referenced and no source support that.

@Kansas Bear:, @Alexandermcnabb:, @Wario-Man:, any concerns or tweaks you want to propose or you all agree with Wikaviani version? Nabataeus (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Added two sources, however, i would welcome any opinion about their reliability. This sentence was already in the article, it was not part of my addition. I just copy pasted it.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes I know. But these sources doesn't pass WP:RS. Moreover, the date of the origin of the Iranian qanats should be followed by "However, Boucharlat maintains that no known Iranian qanat can be dated to the pre-Islamic period". Best regards Nabataeus (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the Al Tikriti article is unreliable because of flawed reasoning. On page 120 Al Tikriti finds the development of aflaj having no connection with mining and then says the origin can have neither, which is a non sequitur to me. Involving the legend of jinn sulayman in the debate on the origin (p. 135) sounds plainly unscientific to me. Indeed most sources place the invention in Iran or in close proximity, Kurdistan being a good possibility. That said, I don't believe an exact location can be given, mainly because of the distance in time and the absence of datable material in stone structures. And of course there is a certain level of politics in the debate, as Iran (yes, and others) claims the invention to be Iranian. A case in point, and particularly hilarious, is the debate on the origins of the puquios in Nazca valley: if they are qanats, they must have come with the conquistadores. If they predate the Spanish conquest, they cannot be qanats, because qanats are Iranian and can only have come with the Spanish.(David Fleming, The puquios of Nazca: A prehispanic invention or colonial artifact?) I think we should not be too specific on a particular origin, other than broadly the region of Iran-Kurdistan. As does Xavier de Planhol in the very much Iranian Encyclopædia Iranica. He doesn't say it's Iranian and not that it's not Iranian, but rather argues around it. SanderO (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC) (wrote the Dutch article)

Sorry, you seem to have misunderstood Tikrit "reasoning" on the legend of the jinn of sulayman, Wilkinson used the local legend as an evidence against local Omani origin, which is indeed unscientific and was dismissed by Tikriti.

As for the mining hypothesis, here the full quote of tikriti;

• "In his discussion of the origins of the Iranian qanãt (the equivalent of the falaj), Goblot suggested that the system of tunnels may originally have been the result of mining activities in the northern Alburz and Armenia ( 1 963). This hypothesis was cited by Wilkinson, who considers the falaj to be of Iranian origin (1977: 76). However, irrigation tunnels need to be carefully engineered with the proper gradient in the right direction before they can be connected to the water source. It seems unlikely that copper miners would bother considering such conditions as the slope of the ground and the direction of land which needed to be irrigated as they made their tunnels, something for which the defenders of the mining hypothesis apparently have no explanation. Indeed, despite repeating this hypothesis, Wilkinson himself has changed his view more recently (1983: 189). Thus, in my opinion, the development of the falaj was the direct result of a need to exploit underground water and had no connection with mining activities."

I see no flawed reasoning (maybe to you as you said). If the defenders of this hypothesis such as Wilkinson have changed their opinions on the matter. You could try WP:RSN if you have any concerns. Nabataeus (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Al Tikriti has origins and further development mixed up. Or perhaps: the basic idea and further development. It has been suggested, by De Planhol amongst others, that miners (already in the 3rd millennium BC) had to cut their tunnels sloping upward to get rid of waste water. Al Tikriti seems to argue that this cannot be the case because "irrigation tunnels need to be carefully engineered...etc". Goblot and De Planhol never suggested miners were building irrigation works. SanderO (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Nothing could be said with certainty on the basic idea of the Qanat system, whether it was the result of urging need to exploit the water from mountain aquifers, or as Goblot claimed that it was devised by miners to extract water via canals (I believe that qualifies as an irrigation work done by miners). Both are likely, Both are argued. Nabataeus (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nabataeus:
As for Qanat(s) of Gonabad.

• The Protection of Archaeological Heritage in Times of Economic Crisis, ed. Elena Korka, page 81-82, calls it more than two thousand years old.
• Underground Aqueducts Handbook, ed. Andreas N. Angelakis, Eustathios Chiotis, Saeid Eslamian, Herbert Weingartner, page 140, states the qanat of Gonabad is 2700 yrs old. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Cisterns: Sustainable Development, Architecture and Energy, Alireza Dehghani-sanij, Ali Sayigh, page 27, states the qanat of gonabad is dated around the arrival of the Aryans.--Kansas Bear (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The underground aqueducts would do. Thanks. Nabataeus (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear, Nabataeus, and Wikaviani: My whole point is writing a WP:NPOV revision especially considering WP:WEIGHT. For example, I don't understand why Walid Yasin Al Tikriti is so special?! Edits like this one are clear POV-pushing and biased approach. The opinion of that scholar has no special weight and it could be mentioned just like the other ones. Feel free to start editing and If I have more concerns after your edits, I write them on talk page. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, we established WP:WEIGHT by explicitly stating that the majority of scholars support the Iranian origin. And why Tikriti is special; maybe because he is renowned scholar who worked in that field for 40 years, plus he is strong advocate of the Arabian origin? Tikriti is the only one cited as a reference for the Arabian hypothesis. Remy in the other hand don't believe in unique center, Arabian or Iranian.

"Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint."

Unless, if you believe, Tikriti is not of equal prominence, well... It is probably for the lack of acquaintance. Anyway, his view could be summarized more to make it relatively short if you think it is necessary. Nabataeus (talk) 09:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: According to me this guy is not special and should be cited as a normal source, just like the others. Also, as SanderO rightly said above, i find his remark about the excavations confirming the "legend" quite strange for a scholar who is considered here as being a prominent expert.

@Nabataeus: Boucharlat or Tikriti (especially the latter) are not, as far as i know, more prominent than the other scholars who are cited here, therefore, i think that they should all be treated equally.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• "i find his remark about the excavations confirming the "legend" quite strange for a scholar who is considered here as being a prominent expert."

Go ahead, don't hesitate, please, point where he argued that the excavations confirms the legend.

• "Boucharlat or Tikriti (especially the latter) are not, as far as i know, more prominent than the other scholars who are cited here, therefore, i think that they should all be treated equally."

No one said they are more prominent, or less for that matter, than other scholars. There's no obscurity however that they are specialists and prominents scholars in their field. You could describe the opposing view more clearly, I have no problem. This has become more I just don't like it case. Nabataeus (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you meant with your above reply. you mean that Tikriti did not mention the Djinn legend ? Also, i don't see how my comment is under WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, maybe you could clarify ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I replied to Sander0, and explained how he just misunderstood Tikriti. The legend of the jinn building those underground aqueducs was used by Wilkinson as an evidence against the Omani origin of the Qanat. Which Tikriti believe that (the Qanat) was from remotely distant past, hardly any memory of the structures origin are alive. Thus he consider it intriguing legend, nothing more, nothing less. And should be treated as such. He explicitly states it.

I will shorten the version of the Arabian hypothesis and submit it here. Regards. Nabataeus (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

No worries about your removal of other users' comments, anybody can make mistakes, me the first. As to someone being a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT case, the only one i see here is Alexandermcnabb who just don't like some of the sources supporting an Iranian invention i posted above, while they have been endorsed by Kansas Bear, you and me (and probably by Wario-Man who did not contradict them). Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll go with it too, as most of the sources do. I may have misinterpreted the legend section, really sorry for that. I maintain my other criticism, but will be glad to let go of it for now, because I have new problems with the Arabian hypothesis. Bottom line: Oman seems to have three types of falaj, and only one qualifies as a qanat. Al Tikriti doesn't distinguish between them in the introduction, nor in the sections where he describes his finds. He seems to assume that any water channel is (part of) a qanat.

First, De Planhol in the Encyclopædia Iranica: "Far simpler techniques of water adduction involving underground channels must be clearly distinguished from kārēz, although they are often grouped together." Second, THE SOCIAL IMPORTANCE AND CONTINUITY OF FALAJ USE IN NORTHERN OMAN: see section 3 (TYPES OF AFLĀJ IN OMAN) on page 3. The first one is the qanat type. The Oman Water Society concurs: "Among these three types, only the da´udi Falaj is similar to qanat irrigation systems of Iran." And Aflaj’ Water Management in Oman states: "Omani authorities reported the existence of 4112 aflaj of which 3017 are live systems; about 1000 have underground qanats (dawoodi aflaj)".

Al Tikriti reports finding surface or near surface channels, often of the cut-and-cover type, and finding sherds in some of them. I understand from the sources that all three types may have such or similar channels, for instance in TOWARDS SUSTAINABILITY AND EQUITY IN ACCESS TO WATER: DESIGN AND PRACTICES FOR AFLĀJ IN OMAN, p. 26/27. Of the access shafts, a telltale sign of a real qanat, Al Tikriti found only one.

In pages 136 and 137 Al Tikriti argues that his aflaj are different from other (older) water harvesting techniques and that type 2 of THE SOCIAL IMPORTANCE AND CONTINUITY... is in fact a precursor of the qanat type falaj. Although I find some of his arguing and evidence strong, I can find no other source confirming this. In general, I think his theory is interesting and his evidence compelling. But one doubt remains: Al Tikriti dated something to the Iron Age, but was it a qanat or something else? I think we need more scientific voices (=other sources) in this matter. Regards, SanderO (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights. As for your concerns on the types of Aflaj, the paper of Tikriti discuss the underground qanats (using the local term aflaj). When he dismiss sulayman ibn daud (hence daudi aflaj) legend as an evidence against Omani origin, it becomes clear that the discussed technology is daudi aflaj, underground aqueducts (even if you didn't get that from the archaeological description, or the illustrations). He says in the paper that it is the equivalent of Qanats. The term is not used by Tikrit only, it is also used by other scholars who favour the term aflaj over Qanat, such as Julien.

• "In general, I think his theory is interesting and his evidence compelling. But one doubt remains: Al Tikriti dated something to the Iron Age, but was it a qanat or something else? I think we need more scientific voices (=other sources) in this matter."

Yes it was Qanat. Remy for instance made a new hypothesis (should we mention it?) that tapping water from underground, standard aflaj (or as you like Qanat) was not known in ancient Iran or Arabia. Tikriti's reply was that;

• "The new element in Boucharlat's hypothesis was the idea that Iron Age aflãj should be considered as underground water galleries, not proper aflãj. This however is not correct, as the archaeological evidence clearly demonstrates. As a field archaeologist involved in the excavation of several aflãj, most of them from the Iron Age, I am happy to present some evidence that contradicts this hypothesis; evidence which demonstrates that Iron Age irrigation systems are typical of 'the falaj and are not simply 'underground water galleries'. Apart from the exposed elements of Hili 15, i.e., the surface channels, the šarFah, the cut-and-cover section and the shaft hole, there is further evidence. In Area H, the last unit to have been excavated, the main section is orientated east rather than north-east, which indicates that the falaj was fed with water from the foothills of the mountain ridge located to the east. The topography of the area does not provide any evidence for a possible stream or for surface water situated between the last excavated point and the mountain ridge. We should also mention that the falaj at Hili 15 has an upstream secondary channel (sacïd pl. sawacid) to feed the main channel. This is a feature of a standard falaj and we believe that more of these sawãcid may have existed to supply the main channel with extra water. This secondary channel (sacïd) is oriented to the north-east, which means that a second water source may have fed this falaj. It is also worth mentioning that the existence of this secondary channel might have been due to its being dug when water dried up at the original source. It should be noted that most of the relatively recent dry aflãj in the Hili area originate at the north-east edge of the village. This is indicated by the spoil heaps, which form lines oriented in the same direction. Mother wells are still visible from the surface and according to the local inhabitants none of these aflãj were fed directly from the nearby wadi. It is known, however, that sometimes water can be diverted from the flooded wadis to the mother wells to increase the reservoir. Some shaft holes can also be designed to catch rainwater.." He further adds that "Additional evidence demonstrating that Iron Age aflãj were of the standard type, tapping underground rather than surface water"

According to Tikrit the shaft holes at al jabeeb falaj were too deep to collect surface water. As for sources supporting Tikriti, you could take a look above, I provided multiple sources. Best regards. Nabataeus (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

No I did not "get that from the archaeological description, or the illustrations". They could still describe either one of the other two types, as both can be underground too, if only shallow. Yes, I read Al Tikriti's reply to Boucharlat: it's the part I found compelling. Where Al Tikriti states that "Apart from the exposed elements of Hili 15, i.e., the surface channels, the šarī'ah, the cut-and-cover section and the shaft hole, there is further evidence" he seems to argue that surface channels, šarī'ah and a cut-and-cover sections provide proof of a daudi falaj. But they do not, as they can be parts of the other two types as well. Which leaves the access shafts, of which he found only one. And the deeper lying sections he describes towards the end of the paragraph on Hili 15, looking more like a real qanat. But these are not the sections where he found the sherds that can be dated to the Iron Age.

I still have doubts on Al Tikriti, but not to the point that I want him silenced. I'll be including the Arabian hypothesis in the Dutch article. SanderO (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, let's establish one thing first: the qanat is simply underground tunnels connected to a mother well. The first page of his paper describes the aflaj (which he, as many scholars, use as a synonymous of the qanat) as consisting of five parts, the mother well, the tunnel, the cut and cover section, sari'ah, and the surface channels. It is thus clear that his usage of aflaj, as his explicit description, designate the underground aqueducts rather than diverting the surface water. In a paper dealing with the qanats of the UAE, the author state the following; "The vertical wells used for the irrigation in the region during the Bronze Age was replaced by aflaj, which tapped groundwater in gently sloping tunnels since Iron Age". This is the "standard" aflaj.

Moreover, the sherds of Hili 15 are around the falaj which he dated to the period II of the Iron age. Not sure what you mean. But his dating of Hili 15, and other east Arabian aflaj, according to Boucharlat, are "definitive". Nabataeus (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

They are, indeed definitive - because they're based on carbon dating materials extracted from the aflaj, as well as evidence gathered from digs, rather than citing secondary 'historical' sources with no on the ground research or discovery, as earlier assertions have chosen. This is precisely why the more recent academic consensus has moved from the Persian to the Arabian origin. Tikriti is, by the way, acknowledged as authoritative by peers - and more importantly, his papers are not academically contested. They're peer reviewed, published in respected journals and I would humbly suggest our place is not to argue the academic merits of published papers, but to cite them in this encyclopedia as trusted sources. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexandermcnabb, your humble suggestion is right. I may have strayed from what gets us article content as my personal insights don't qualify. @Nabataeus: we seem to be in disagreement on what makes up a qanat, or there being such a thing as a standard falaj. In light of the previous I'll leave it at that, because it would take too much time and space to sort this out. Besides, that we disagree doesn't necessarily mean to me that I'm right and you're wrong, so I've got my work cut out anyway. Thanks for your time. SanderO (talk) 07:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

I've restored the last stable version (uncontested between July and November) and temporarily protected the page to stop any further edit warring. This discussion seems to have gone round in circles several times and I strongly suggest you seek outside opinions. – Joe (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Joe Roe, i think there is a misunderstanding, if you read this talk page, you'll see that there is actually a consensus and i was about to edit one part of the article while another editor wanted to edit the other part. Could you please unblock the article in order to let us edit it (without any edit war) ? Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

If there is a consensus for specific text then you can use {{FPER}}, or ping me, or wait for the protection to expire in a few days. But given the last round of edit warring was just a few hours ago, I think the protection should stand for now. – Joe (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift reply. As i said above to the other involved editors, i made my proposal of content with several new sources as requested by the template. If this addition is endorsed by the other editors, then i'll ping you, since the current version is, according to everybody on this talk page, a mess and is poorly written and sourced. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Joe, restoring the stable article while discussion is ongoing is precisely what I was trying to do. We have an agreed text for the Arabian origin but I have to say its tone is totally different to the Iranian origin argument, which rather than (as the Arabian) presenting academic opinion merely asserts Great Truths. The sources are less than stellar:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260292663_Traditional_Water_Tunnels_Qanats_in_Iran - this source gives no evidence of its assertion of a 5,000 year old origin whatsoever. It cites Goblot, who we have seen later researchers refute strongly. A date of 3,000 BCE for the invention of the qanat is, frankly, wild.

https://www.e-sciencecentral.org/upload/eer/pdf/eer-18-2-57-2.pdf - this source quotes the problematic Goblot and also Sargon and Polybius. The VERY trinity of sources which Tikriti et al have recently so successfully picked apart. I think we should note the provenance of the assertion which does not, in any case, pre-date the CARBON DATED origin of the Arabian aflaj.

http://universitypublications.net/ajs/0201/pdf/RHS362.pdf - This source uses a lot of 'estimated' and 'seems to' language - and cites no sources for its assertions. It variously states that qanats "date back 1200 years" but also that "The first recorded Qanats were dug in the north-western areas of Iran and date back to 800 BC." It also says, "Historical evidence shows that Qanats were in use in Iran during the Achaemenian era." (our old friend Sargon at work here). In other words, it's all over the place.

https://www.britannica.com/technology/qanat - We're citing Britannica in WP? Shame. And this article uses the magical word 'PROBABLY' when dating Qanats.

These sources are questionable. There's not a carbon date or archaeological find among 'em - it's all Sargon said this and Polybius said that - which is precisely what the Arabian consensus has asserted and, through careful archaeology and carbon dating, established. That's my 2p worth. Having said that, I have no objection to you saying Qanats were created by Iranian rabbits as long as we keep the balance in the lead (including the present reference to Tikriti and the handbook) and have both viewpoints placed in 'Origins'. Oh, and that we spell Archaemenid right, which was my fault to begin with. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alexandermcnabb: Kansas Bear said above that these sources were fine. Also, if you have any concerns about their reliability, let's just take them at WP:RSN.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: With respect to your decision; As I said on your talk page[5], How did you decide to choose that revision as the stable one? The whole discussion is about his edits and the current tone of the lead and the representation of sources. After reaching a consensus, we'll change them for sure. So why did you restore his revision? --Wario-Man (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Please see the reply on my talk page. Building a consensus for what version you would like to see would be more productive than arguing procedural points (and in this case there really is nothing to argue). – Joe (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Please see my comment on your talk. I think that Wario-Man is correct here. The stable version is the one before Alexandermcnabb's edit, not the one after, since it was his addition that triggered the content dispute. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Dutch Wikipedia has a template for just this situation. It reads something like "The admin has secured the wrong version. He/she is requested to secure the other wrong version." SanderO (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)