Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naharin


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep (merge should be discussed separately at article talk page). Chick Bowen 01:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Naharin

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

There is already a clear reference in the Nairi article as well as the Mitanni article, which show that Naharin was the Egyptian name for Nairi. Thus, this article is unnecessary. Moosh88 03:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The term 'Naharin' is used by Egyptologists for the Ancient Egyptian reference for Mitanni. The word Naharin is also used clearly in this web site: Naharin was just the Ancient Egyptian term for this kingdom. Leoboudv 03:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As an Aside, the respected English Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen also employs the term Naharin for Mitanni in his paper here in honor of the memory of William Murnane here: see the bottom paragraph of page 5 here where he refers to "List A covers major powers and places from Assur, Sangara (Babylon) and Naharin (Mitanni) in the east through Syrian Carchemish..." If Kitchen can use the term Naharin, Wikipedia should permit it too. It is just the Egyptian reference for the Mitannian kingdom, nothing more. Leoboudv 03:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect with Mitanni; I concur with previous posts that this term should remain in Wikipedia, but the page will never grow beyond its current stubby nature, whereas the Mitanni article is long and lush. Pray let us guide people to that which is useful... Alba 04:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Change to keep; more pixels have now been spilled in defense of this page than the page contained. Take it to Talk:Naharin and improve the article, k? Alba 04:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Mitanni as alternative name. Certainly no reason to have a separate article, no objection to merge if someone sees mergeable content. --Tikiwont 14:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The page as currently worded does not fully encompass what Naharin is. This merits alteration, not deletion. Aram Naharin is a geographical entity referring to the northern part of Mesopotamia between the Tigris and Euphrates and not directly to the Political state of Mitanni, and certainly not to the neighboring region north of the Tigris named Nairi by the Assyrians. Deleting Naharin because there is an article on Mitanni would be somthing akin to deleting Anatolia because we have an article on Turkey. Naharin has notability beyond merely being the synonym of Mitanni in the Egyptian Language. It also shows up in academic literature as the area of an Assyrian vassal provence in post-mitannian times, as well as appearing in the book of Judges as the homeland out of which Cushan opressed the Israelites. Moosh's assertation that Naharin is mearly an egyptian word for Nairi is also demonstratably in error. Naharin refers to the area between the two rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates. Nairi, on the other hand, can be seen on any map to be the region due north of Assyria on the north side of the Tigris across the river from Subartu. George Roux's Ancient Iraq page 279 places it up there, as well as his map of Northern Mesopotamia and Ancient Syria in the appendix of his book. It is erronious to say that this is a synonym for Mitanni or Nairi, and a merge would be misleading. Thanatosimii 17:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Even the reference that Leobdv gave of Naharin, says "Mitanni was "Indo-European" (Hurrian) people, that Hurrian is not some different entity from Mitanni. He also said that Nairi and Naharin are the same people (see the Mitanni edit history). Showing that it was not just Indo-Aryans, but other related groups, such as the Armenians.  Also, the Mitanni names with "Arta" prefix like Artatma etc. are not Indo-Aryan; the majority of linguistics, including Colin Renfrew (Anatolian theory of Indo-Europeans professor), Ivonav and Georgian Tamaz, and many others, put the Greco-Armeno-Aryan group of Indo-Europeans together during the 3rd millenium BC, revealing that "Arta" was not just Indo-Iranian, but with the Ar root of Armenian and it was ancient Armenian, in the group that was Armeno-Aryan. That was the common language of that group together as Greco-Armeno-Aryan, they had the Arta prefix, before they split, So its not just Indo-Aryan. The distinct Kura-Araxes culture's (Aratta) pottery has been found in Mitanni and associated with Mitanni, and this culture excisted around the 3rd Mil. BC. So the Kura-Arax (Aratta) spread to the region of Mitanni earlier, and this all showing an Indo-European presence, cause Mitanni was Indo-European, and earlier Kura-Arax culture showing Indo-European links with Mitanni. With all this, we have the 3rd millenium and 2nd millenium BC, records of Armenians in Mitanni. However, I am not saying Armenians were the only ones there, but that they participated in the establishment of the kingdom. It's clear that some of the gods were Indo-Aryan, such as Indra. The Mitanni pantheon had many Indo-Aryan gods, but the kings were not Indo-Aryan for the most part, such as Artatama.

Also, the "Arta" prefix is no longer found in the Indo-Iranian languages, like Farsi for example, does not have Artar or Arta anymore as the word for "righteous". It was in Old Persian, but not in the modern language. This is contrasted with the fact that Armenians, to this day have that prefix Arta (being one of the most common prefix), as righteous and in many Armenian names and words. But Persians have ceased to use it now. Such an important word as righteous is not just lost, thus it shows that it doesn't originate in Indo-Iranians only, but if anything, in Armenian, an Armenian root or prefix. Also, it should be noted that the other words Persians have kept which Armenians share with them, for example mikh mekh, zang zung, tag taj, namak nameh, zambeegh zambooygh, modeed medod, These are nail, bell, crown, letter, basket, and pencil, but Arta has not been kept by the Indo-Aryans. Another interesting find was that the Indo-Aryans may have used Rita instead of Arta, which was/is used by the Armenians.

Furthermore, there is ample evidence that Nairi and Naharin were the same, both meaning "land of rivers", in that the Egyptian pharaoh Thutmose III referred to Armenia as "Ermenen", his reign was during the same time as Mitanni. The Assyrians used the term Nairi (land of rivers), which is a semetic word, for the people and land around and south of lake Van. On top of that, Naram-Sin mentions Armânum (Armenia) as part of the Diarbekr region, which had recently been taken over. To this day, Kurds and Turks refer to Armenians as Ermeni (Kurds) and Ermeniler (Turks). Another example is that Nairi is a very common male name in Armenia, and Naharin or Nahrine is a very common female version of Nariri name. --Moosh88 18:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Naharin isn't a people group, it's a geographic entity which specifically refers to the land between the two rivers. All that ethnic stuff may be true or false, but it hasn't got the slightest to do with geographical names. Thanatosimii 20:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Naharin and Nairi refer to the same people, as well as the land on which they lived. They lived in the "land of the two rivers" - Nairi, therefore they were known by that name too, as a people. I also presented even more evidence that the Armenians were involved with the establishment of Mitanni; so my question then is, are you trying to say that Armenians didn't participate in Mitanni?--Moosh88 21:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not the point of a deletion thread. The only relevent question here is, is naharin the same thing as either mitanni or nairi? The answer is, for the first one, not exactly; and for the second, absolutely not. Mitanni is a political entity, Naharin is a location with a history both before and after Mitanni. Nairi, both the people and the location, is/are located northeast of Naharin, across the tigris. Naharin and Nairi are distinct and different places, whose only similarity is the root nhr. Look at any map in a good book about ancient history and you will find Naharin squarely located in northwest mesopotamia, and Nairi sitting northeast of mesopotamia in the mountains. Thanatosimii 21:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep: Dear Moosh88, I respect your opinion and arguments--you are indeed knowledgeable on this matter. However, I must stress that the word 'Naharin' was applied by the New Kingdom Egyptians to the entire Hurrian state of Mitanni. In contrast, while the Nairi lands was certainly part of Mitanni, it did Not encompass all of Mitanni. The Nairi lands was located in the in the northeast section of the kingdom of Mitanni around the Tigris river. After Mitanni was conquered by the Hittites under Suppiluliuma I, the Nairi lands became a matter of dispute between Hatti and Assyria. A Hittite king Tudhaliya IV would later fight and lose a major battle at Nihiriya against the Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta I for control of the Nairi lands which were subsequently annexed to Assyria. But the rest of the former kingdom of Mitanni--the area west of Nairi--remained under Hittite control. So, Nairi and Naharin is not exactly the same piece of territory. That is why I ask if you can please consider allow this short Naharin article to stand. Thank You. Leoboudv 00:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Nairi (Armenians) invaded the lands that would become Mitanni, along with other Indo-European peoples. As early as Akkadian times, Hurrians are known to have lived east of the river Tigris on the northern rim of Mesopotamia, and in the Khabur valley. The group which became Mitanni gradually moved south into Mesopotami sometime before the 17th century BC. Eusebius, writing in the early 4th century, quoted fragments of Eupolemus, a now-lost Jewish historian of the 2nd century BC, as saying that "around the time of Abraham, the Armenians invaded the Syrians" The Naharin term was applied to Mittani by the Egyptians in reference to Nairi and on names of the Mitanni kings, such as Artashumara (righteous son) and Aratama, among others, who were Armenian, because Nairi was the semetic term used to refer to Armenians, the Egyptians based it off of this. But it is not all based on the Nairi, Nahrin similarity, as I showed in my last post, the kings names were Armenian, not to mention the other points mentioned above. Modern scholars, which does not equal Roux by the way, but the likes of Ivanov, Gamkrelidze, Renfrew, and Kavoukjian, among many others, have shown without a shadow of a doubt, that Nairi was one of the key peoples in the establishment of Mitanni. So we have ancient sources, as well as modern that attest to the role played by Nairi in the formation of Mitanni. I may be wrong, but it seems that you (Leoboudv) and Thanatosimii are trying to divorce Mitanni from Nairi and thus Armenian History. Am I incorrect in this?

Sources that prove the above points.

Vyacheslav V. Ivanov and Thomas Gamkrelidze, The Early History of Indo-­European Languages, Scientific American, vol. 262, N3, 110­-116, March, 1990.

Gamkrelidze, Tamaz V. Vjacheslav V. Ivanov (1995). Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans. Mouton de Gruyter. ISBN 3-11-014728-9.

Renfrew, A.C., 1987, Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins, London: Pimlico. ISBN 0-7126-6612-5

Kavoukjian, Martiros. The Genesis of Armenian People, Montreal, 1982. Kavoukjian, Martiros. Armenia, Subartu and Sumer, Montreal, 1989 ISBN 0921885008

And this list is incomplete since it only has English language books, there are many more on the subject in Russian, German, French, and Armenian.

Here is a good map of Mitanni --Moosh88 02:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep: Hi Moosh88, Yes, that's an excellent map of Mitanni. I don't know where you found it. However, it also shows that the area of Nairi was located in the northeast sector of the Mitannian empire..which I think was Thanatosimi's and my basic point. In contrast, the word 'Naharin' usually refers to all regions of Mitanni, not just Nairi. When Egyptologists like Kenneth Kitchen use the word Naharin, they refer to the entire empire of Mitanni too. That is why I believe the word Naharin should be kept--as a reference for Mitanni, nothing more. As for divorcing the history of Mitanni and Armenia, I don't know what to say here beacuse I don't know the answer. I would say that the kingdom of Urartu or the Orontids are closer ancestors to the modern Armenian peoples but I am not an expert here and this is off topic. Thank You Leoboudv 02:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Moosh, as I said, a deletion nomination is not the place for such a discussion. An editor presented these views last winter and the consensus that arose was that these theories are minority verging on fringe. If you want to change consensus regarding the connexions between Mitanni and Armenia, it isn't to be done in the AFD page for Naharin. My argument stands: Naharin and Nairi are not the same place, and Naharin and Mitanni have slightly different aspects like Anatolia and Turkey have different aspects. As such this page is not redundant, though it could use a good expansion. Thanatosimii 03:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I could see Naharin being kept, but strictly as the Egyptian term for Mitanni. However, one must realize where the name "Naharin" came from, it has its roots in Nairi. As I stated earlier, the Nairi (Armenians) invaded Syria along with other Indo-European groups, and Mitanni was formed. Urartu was Nairi, the name Urartu was given to the people living around lake Van, by the Assyrians. As early as Akkadian times, Hurrians, an Indo-European people are known to have lived east of the river Tigris on the northern rim of Mesopotamia, and in the Khabur valley. The Nairi were closely related to the Hurrians, most likely being a sub branch. Thus, Armenian and Mitanni history is interwoven and it is not "off topic" to bring up the relation. I pointed out many sources, ancient and modern, so before either of you say it's "off topic" or "verging on fringe" read carefully what I have outlined in the previous posts.--Moosh88 04:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Reading unconvincing sources has left me unconvinced. Your assertations are all from the minority position, which to my knowledge is has found little to no credence among mainline scholars.Thanatosimii 04:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Who says that these are "minority positions"? Or that no "mainline scholars" attach credence ot them? It seems that this is your opinion, and not the opinion of the majority of scholars. As I wrote earlier, the points I have mentioned have international support. Colin Renfrew, for example, are you saying he is in the minority camp? He is one of the main scholars on Indo-European studies.--Moosh88 04:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Moosh88, If you agree, let's resolve this discussion now by keeping the Naharin article as the Egyptian term or reference for the ancient kingdom of Mitanni as you proposed above. That is all I ever thought of when I created the entry...as you can see from my typed comments for Naharin. I used the word Naharin because various Egyptologists--not only Kitchen--web sites and the Ancient Egyptians use this phrase to refer to the Empire of Mitanni. I hope you concur here. With kind Regards, Leoboudv 04:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep We have an article for Hatti, rather than a redirection to Hittite. The article should be small though, with links out to other article for context. Markh 11:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As long as the article provides links to the Nairi (people) article and the Mitanni article, it can stay. And here are more links to sources showing the influence that Armenians had on Mesopotamia, as well as Sumeria.

This is what the other site I tryed to link says, (I provided the url on the edit summary).

Tracing the Origin of Ancient Sumerians By Ashok Malhotra

Contribution of Armenians to ancient civilization

In the Indus valley from which the Sumerians emerged there were other tribes that lived in close proximity of the Austric Sumerians. These were prehistoric indo-Aryan tribes of an Armenian origin – followers of the God Ara. The indo Aryans were fair skinned and light haired. Hence the reason for the indo-Sumerians to label themselves as dark headed in comparison to the Ara people who were shining. Sumerians also began using the word Ara for fair and bright and eventually they labeled all indo-Aryan people as Ara or Arya. The word Armenian has its origin in AR-MA, i.e. the children of Ara and Ma the fertility Goddess. Later indo-Aryan migrations of around 1500BC into the Indus regions were apparently of Hittite origin. Apparently, some intermarriage also took place between these indo-Sumerians and Armenians probably leading to a more vigorous community then would have been possible otherwise. A physical marriage also resulted in a marriage of the religious traditions of the Sumerian and Armenian tribes as well as the Sumerian language being influenced by Armenian. Such influences can be found by comparisons between the Armenian (or even Hungarian that emerged from ancient Armenian) and Sumerian language. Are was the Sun God and the roots of sun worship in the world appear to have an Aryan origin rather than a Sumerian one. Archaeologists refer to Transcaucasus region, including modern Armenia, as the earliest known prehistoric culture in the area, carbon-dated to roughly 6000 - 4000 BC. A recently discovered tomb has been dated to 9000 BC. Another early culture in the Armenian Highland and surrounding areas, the Kura-Araxes culture,(Aratta) is assigned the period of ca. 4000 - 2200 BC. Armenians are one of the oldest Indo-European subgroups. Therefore, it is not surprising that from amongst the Aryans it was the Armenians who spread around the ancient world of Mesopatomia and Indus valley first. The Hittite Aryans that became more powerful than the Armenians by 1500 BC were close neighbors and racial cousins of the Armenians, at times clashing with them and at times co-existing, yet probably gaining form the interaction at all times. Buxton and Rice have found that of 26 Sumerian crania they examined 22 were Australoid or Austrics and four armennoid. Further According to Penniman who studied skulls from other Sumerian sites, the Australoid Eurafrican, Austric and Armenoid were the "racial" types associated with the Sumerians. Certainly it cannot be confirmed without further investigation if the Sumerian-Armenian alliance took place on Sumerian or Indian soil. It is also not certain if it was a forced or voluntary one. The fair skinned Armenian ladies are likely to have regarded the dark broad nosed Sumerians as ugly. Nevertheless, it may be deduced that the earliest Sumerians who introduced civilization in our world were around 85% Austric and 15% Armenian Aryans.

(there is more, but this is good info)



 --Moosh88 18:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, then Moosh. The article can stay with the Mitanni link. Anyone who accesses the Mitanni site from the short Naharin article can then immediatedly see the linked articles on the Nairi peoples which you have enclosed. As for sources that Armenians were the descendants of Mitanni, I'm afraid a deletion forum is not the best site for this discussion. A talk page on Mitanni is a better site for this long discussions. Naharin should strictly be limited to the foreign (Egyptian here) word for the kingdom of Mitanni as you and I note. Leoboudv 19:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That works. However, note that I am not saying that the Armenians are/were the descendants of the Mitanni, they participated with the other peoples, such as the Indo-Aryan (Indic) peoples, in establishing the kingdom of Mitanni.--Moosh88 20:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep: Yes, then we agreed, Moosh. Regards, Leoboudv 21:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Before this discussion ends, did you take note of the points that I made? Or do you only agree that the Nahrin article should link to Nairi (people) and Mitanni article?--Moosh88 21:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I just agree with what the Egyptologists say: that Naharin was the term for Mitanni. As for whether the Mitannians were ancestors of the Armenians, anything is possible in the Near East. After Mitanni was conquered, it was reduced to a mini vassal state under Hittite control but once the Hittite empire was destroyed by the Sea Peoples, we don't know what happened to the remaining Mitannians. Were they destroyed by the Sea Peoples, or displaced to the highlands of Turkey/Armenia? No one knows but its certainly possible that some Mitannians were ancestors of modern day Armenians, Turks and Syrians--the latter two since the Empire of Mitanni covered parts of both Syria and Turkey. Thank You. Leoboudv. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoboudv (talk • contribs) 22:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I am beginning to doubt very much that you (Leoboudv) have read any of my posts or for that matter, whether you have even read any of the sources which I listed. How many times must I state that Armenians (Nairi), along with other Indo-European groups, the people that established Mitanni. There is no Mitannian ethnicity per se, it was a local melting pot (if anything), not an ethnicity. It may be possible that Syrians (Arabs) and Turks have some of the blood that the inhabitants of the kingdom of Mitanni had, but the Turks didn't come to the area until around 1100 AD, and the Arabs didn't until around 600 AD. Both of these dates are more than 1500 years after Mitanni's demise. The sources I linked you to show that Armenians existed before 1200's BC, as you see with Mitanni and earlier Kura-Araxes (Aratta) culture, which spread to region of Mitanni and helped form that kingdom. For example, Thutmose III during his reign (1500's BC), which was around the same time as Mitanni, mentioned Ermenen in reference to Mitanni, Ermenistan is now used by Kurds, Turks, and Azeri's as the name of Armenia. Thus, it's nonesense to say that the Sea Peoples were the ancestors of Armenians, when it has been established that Armenians were already a people by this time. Once again read my posts clearly, and read the sources I provided.--Moosh88 02:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have never once claimed that the Sea Peoples are ancestors of the Armenians and don't dispute for one minute that the Armenians are an ancient people. This discussion here is merely about whether the term Naharin should be permitted on Wikipedia, nothing more. Since professional Egyptologists and Egypt related web sites use the word Naharin for the Egyptian expression for Mitanni, I think it should. Its simply the Egyptian term for Mitanni, nothing more. Thank You. Leoboudv 04:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

But did you not say that "its certainly possible that some Mitannians were ancestors of modern day Armenians", when it has been clearly established that Armenians, along with other Indo-European peoples, were the founders of the kingdom of Mitanni. I understand that Naharin was used in reference to Egypt, but do not pass over the strong Armenian connection with Mitanni.--Moosh88 05:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. I may agree or disagree with your point but I do see where you are coming from. Thanks. Leoboudv 07:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And may I ask, what points do you disagree with?--Moosh88 07:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you discuss the ethnic origins of the Armenians on another page such as the Naharin or Mitanni discussion page. This site is not conducive for such discussions...only on whether Naharin as a word is acceptable as a reference for the Empire of Mitanni. Thank You. Leoboudv 00:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you disagreeing with the scholars or the historical records, cause I can understand you not seeing eye to eye with a scholar, but to deny ancient records is unjustifiable.--Moosh88 21:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

My specialty is Egyptology--not the ancient history of the Levant or Armenia. So, I don't agree or disagree with any particular scholar or historical record on Mitanni's or Armenia's origins since I don't have any specific position here. All that is certain is that Mitanni/Naharin was a Hurrian (ie. non-Semitic) state. But this page is only about whether the Egyptian word 'Naharin' is reasonable as a term of reference for Mitanni. I think it certainly is. Regards, Leoboudv 06:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.