From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ancient Near East (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Turkey (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


The tree from which the gum was derived is called stobrum by Pliny, not to be confused by strobum, a variety of pine, which is of North American origin.


Some scholars identify the Biblical Haran with Harran. Some sentences like this one certainly need to be verified. What kind of scholars? Do they mean that the Biblical Harran was inspired by Harran? And so on. Phizq (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

For example, the section on "Harran in Scripture" needs work. That first sentence about Adam and Eve? No Biblical sources for it exist; both the Tanakh and the New Testament are silent on that. First mention of the place is in the story of Abraham. How do we know Adam and Eve were there? Is this from the Talmud? The Kaballa? Josephus' collected legends? What? Citation definitely needed there. <Jerodian> (**Hailing frequencies open.**) 12:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Phizq, believe it or not, there's a user who claims that Haran and Harran are always identified together. Could be true; or not. It's a big claim that should certainly be sourced. SamEV (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

SamEV, please be reasonable. The burden is on you to show where anyone thinks Abraham's Haran / Charran is anywhere else. There is no way to prove a negative; it would similarly be difficult to prove "always" without trawling every single book ever written by mankind. (Note that I did not add the word "always" to the text either; I simply removed the misleading word "often". It is the wording that goes in the text that requires backup, so don't tell me I need to find a reference in order to remove a misleading

word.) All you have to do is find ONE theory placing Abraham's Haran elsewhere. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC) (N

First of all, please refrain from making personal attacks, as you did here: [1]. Review WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL if you must.
I didn't forget about Acts 7:2 (nor 7:4). The question is: did you forget about Genesis 11:32, 12:4&5, 27:43, 28:10, and 29:4? Not only that: even as used in Acts 7:2,4 it is spelled "Haran" depending on Bible version.
And no, the burden is on *you*, who's changing the existing content. The way to avoid having to prove a negative is to not claim such a positive as you have.
You don't seem to get it: if you haven't 'trawled' every book, every source, then your absolute claim is ipso facto *OR* and you should not make it. SamEV (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Please stop this puerilia, SamEV. I don't see you adding anything to this article, and you seem to be here only to cause a disruption. Every single source I have found states that Abraham's Haran = Harran and none states different. I cannot prove a negative. Meanwhile you have ZERO sources contradicting this unanimous viewpoint. If you find EVEN ONE dissenting viewpoint, then we can consider the word "often" may be justified. Please do not repeatedly blank out valid information such as the spelling Charran, etc. Also, the fact that it is spelled with one R in Genesis, does not obviate the fact that it is spelled with two Rs in Acts; what kind of logic is that? The next time you revert, I will take steps. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
EVERY single other source one picks up beside wikipedia states that Abraham's Haran is identified as this Harran. But it is only wikipedia that is not so sure? This is precisely the kind of thing that makes wikipedia look like a backwards mud hole compared with the rest of the world of sources. But not if I have anything to say about it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
It's like this, SamEV. I removed the word "often" because it is utterly unsubstantiated and misleading. I don't need any references to remove a word that is unsubstantiated and misleading. You should know that's how we work. If you want the word to stay, YOU must substantiate it - by showing that there are exceptions that would justify the use of the word "often". Get it? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I've just sourced the claim I make regarding how the Biblical toponym is spelled. You source your claim.
In fact, it's like this, Til Eulenspiegel: even if you scoured every source yourself, you still can't make the claim that Biblical Haran is "always" identified with Harran, because your word is not good enough; it has to come from reliable sources. So find reliable sources that say that the ID is "always" made, and your problem is solved. SamEV (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Wrong, SamEV. I am not adding any "claim" to the article. I am removing an incorrect claim that you have utterly failed / refused to substantiate in any way, shape, or form. Per wikipedia rules, no source is required for me to remove it. You keep on reinstating the error, and insist that I am required to come up with a source proving you wrong. That's just not how it works on any other article, nor will it work here. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
And another thing, repeatedly countering that the bad claim should stay just because it is "longstanding" doesn't matter a hoot. Bad claims don't solidify into concrete after a time just because they are "longstanding". They should still be removed, per policy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


This article needs a map showing Harran's actual location. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonyhcole (talkcontribs) 18:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I added a map request template. SamEV (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Harran founded[edit]

Tamara M. Green,The city of the Moon god: religious traditions of Harran, 1992, pg. 19, Chptr1, Line 10, clearly states without doubt that Harran was founded by Ur as a merchant outpost around the 19th century.

If there is some doubts about this statement, please provide sources and references.

Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Harran was there long before this as it is prominent in the Ebla tablets (2200 BC). As the article says. I have looked into as many primary sources as possible and believe that Ms. Green's statement is secondary conjecture based on both cities being centres of Sin, and that she ws not informed by the Ebla tablets. I therefore think her opinion ought to at least be attributed as such, not endorsed. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2010(UTC)
I do not dispute the Ebla tablets. However, before the 19th century, it was not a trading post. It became a trading post later by Ur. She says that it was founded as a trading post... It is the same concept as Christopher Columbus finding the new world. By step into the New World, a trade route had been solidifide... does that mean he was the original founder of the Americas? Hell no. Therefore... as a Trading Post, Harran was found by Ur. Obviously, someone else was also there before then by the discovery of the Ebla Tablets.Jasonasosa (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Harran's mythology.[edit]

I see the source given for the information in the section "Harran's mythology" is a book entitled The Chronology of Genesis: A Complete History of the Nefilim (2003). I haven't looked this one up yet, or checked to see how reliable it is. But, would you be able to tell what the primary source is for these alleged "myths"? If they are indeed recorded myths, they would seem to confuse the reigns of actual rulers who lived centuries apart, such as Ur-Nammu of Ur-III and Ishbi-Erra of Isin. There were a few rulers of Ur with names like Nannar, but I'm not certain what historical ruler would be meant by "King Marduk". It would also be quite impressive if it could be shown there existed an archaeological tablet as a primary source mentioning Abraham in connection with any of this. However, the absence of what would presumably be ground-breaking news on that in scholarship, makes that entire "Nefilim" source seem a little suspect. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I placed it under mythology just for those reasons really... I thought it was good info to start and get some brain juices flowing. I had hoped that there would be original sources, but he didnt provide any. Neil is a historian himself, but I dont know how he came to those conclusions. Its worth investigating though... and we can only treat it as mythology. This is a book published for the consumer... so we cant ignore it.Jasonasosa (talk) 04:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
It may be "mythology", but if it was mythology invented by one author in the year 2003, and cannot be traced before that anywhere, then that significantly reduces its encyclopedic value for us, you know. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Location of Biblical Haran[edit]

This is a POV fork you aretrying to make, because every source I have ever seen is of the POV that Haran = Harran and I don;t know where you are getting any other from. I have yet to see a source placing it anywhere else. Where else has any source ever placed it? --Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Harran may very well be Charan... however, there is no proof as of yet that it is. > Bienkowski & Millard. Dictionary of the ancient Near East (ISBN 0812235576, ISBN 9780812235579), 2000, p.140;
This is not about other possible locations. The fact remains that there needs to be evidence at Harran to support that it is in fact Charan (Hebrew). Since there are no references to support this, this location falls in the same category as the Sumerian City of Ur being/or not being Ur of Chaldees.
Additionally, since this section is not even properly referenced, it is subject to deletion... forget POV forking. Jasonasosa (talk) 06:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure finding sufficient references for it would be no problem for it at all... But in the case of Ur of the Chaldees, at least there are rival locations where alternate theories have placed it. This is not a comparable analogy as nobody thinks Abraham's Haran was anywhere but Harran as far as I know. Where do you think it was? Also I see you state on your user page that you think it was built by Terah. Keep in mind that is your own Original Research since there is no evidence in any book stating such. Note that two early sources already mentioned in the article state it was built by Nimrod, though, but I don't believe Terah being the builder has any solid textual support anywhere. And I'm pretty sure your recently-written source about Nephilim that we discussed earlier qualifies as WP:FRINGE, it seems to have a lot of novel inventions of its own regarding Harran. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 06:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
This argument is not about Terah. The nephlim section is published material by a historian and properly referenced. Harran probably was built by Nimrod... but where are the archeological references? None... as my reference holds that there is no proof that Terah or Nimrod had established Harran. For all anybody knows it was King Haran from the Ebla Tablet. They are all speculations until the excavations prove otherwise. The only difference between this category and Ur... are the other possible locations for Ur Kasdim, other than that, it is identical. Jasonasosa (talk) 06:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
OK I'm certain I can come up with umpteen sources speaking for the consensus view that Haran = Harran. In the meantime, please don't delete the section (but feel free to add a cn tag where you think cites ought to go) and also, please see if you can quote any refs here establishing that any other POV as to the identity intended by the biblical city of "Haran" even exists in scholarship. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Btw, as to the builder of Harran, ironically I was just reading Masudi the other day and according to him, Harran was built by Cainan (the father of Shelah in some versions) and named for a son of the same name... But at any rate, if you now agree it was "probably" Nimrod, will you be updating your homepage?! Regards, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

(B)CE vs BC/AD[edit]

Since this article is not necessarily about a Biblical place (for one, regardless of whether or not Harran=Haran, most of the info is certainly non-Biblical in origin), it seems more sensible to avoid the BC/AD style in favor of BCE/CE.

Any dissenters? SamEV (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I dissent. The BCE notation is newfangled and cumbersome, as opposed to simple BC which is still much more common, widely understood and recognizable. The policy worked out after a vast amount of debate says BC is perfectly acceptable, but is only a minority that seem to be pushing the E with a vengeance, not from neutrality, but only because it is somehow a flag-waving of some kind of so-called "PC" sentiments. This activism has even caused protests in Australia in recent years. The issue has proved to be highly contested on wp between large camps of editors who support one or the other filling up scores of archive pages to the tune of several MB -- which finally resulted in the compromise procedure we have now, along the lines of British v. American English. We should not look for rationales (which are lost on me and many others who dont share that POV) to add the E, when the E truly is unnecessary and nothing more than an unpleasant reminder of all the rancour for many readers. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I concur with BCE/CE. So to date, thats 2 editors in favor of BCE/CE to 1 editor BC/AD... :p Jasonasosa (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
"newfangled"? What are you, Til, 100 years old?
But seriously, 'it's new and people have disagreed about it'; that's what your argument boils down to.
Wikipedia is not against the new. For instance, it asks that we use the latest sources if possible; outdated info is a problem, as you know. There is a policy against neologisms, but I'm sure you'd have a hard time proving that BCE/CE falls under its scope.
Since Wikipedians have been known to disagree about pretty much everything, would anything ever change, in any article, if your argument were used?
I know, I know. You're saying that the date style issue has been especially contentious, in and out of WP. So? You've still not proved where it says that we should keep the status quo, even when proper procedure is followed, rather than make changes re: issues which ellicit passionate debate. SamEV (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Having just seen your last edit summary in the article, I think you need to be informed that consensus is not necessarily unanimity. SamEV (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
LMFAO!!! SamEV Jasonasosa (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Not that I'm an ageist or anything, but AFAIC that is such an antique word. Does it sound that way to you, too? SamEV (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, "newfangled" is about as Medieval now as it was when it was first conjured up in 1425 CE! or should I say AD? or will I get a slap on the wrist? LOL Jasonasosa (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Ooh, now you've done it. Medieval... :-) SamEV (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, that voice of young inexperience! Maybe if you traveled a bit more widely, you'd hear all kinds of words still in regular use that surprise your ears. Regardless of that red herring, this issue at hand definitely provoked a site-wide maelstrom only a few short years ago, as you may have recalled if you were around then. It would take you months to read all the archived debate, with all kinds of vociferous opinions and reasons from thousands of users, but it transpired that one thing remaining constant throughout was in every poll or vote, a very slight majority, like around 51%, were passionate for BC, and around 49% equally so for BCE. Since it was so close overall, it was finally arbitrated that both would be acceptable, and all articles should keep the status quo with a moratorium on edit warring (except to change it back to the status quo if someone just switched it) with individual articles being allowed to opt to switch, if there was a clear consensus among contributors for a preference. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
"young inexperience"... whatever.
Could you provide some quotations and a few links that bear out what you've just said? Links to poll results and the arbitration decision, for example. SamEV (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll try to dig that up when I get a chance, seems to me it was '05, or '06. In the meantime, if nobody else bothers to weigh in within a couple more days, then since it's not such a weighty matter after all, I am prepared to accept the principle of Nec Hercules contra plures here, though it might well be argued that two to one is still an awfully slim margin of consensus! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Til Eulenspiegel's vocabulary
"maelstrom":Maelstroms are composed of the stuff of the underworld - relics, Spectres and Tempest-stuff itself, ranging from rains of plasm to rains of soulfire [1]
"red herring": A swinger's club in Vegas
"vociferous": All we hear from Til Eulenspiegel everytime he has something to say.
"moratorium": What needs to be done to Til Eulenspiegel (LMAO)
Nec Hercules contra plures : Til Eulenspiegel surrounding himself with imaginary friends... even in the company of real people :/
Jasonasosa (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
PS. "rancour" (used earlier in this discussion) I believe that was the name of the giant monster from Star Wars: Return of the Jedi. :p - Jasonasosa (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Amusing, but personal attacks are never a substitute for logic. In case it went over your head, my reference to "Nec Hercules" was actually a concession that so far, you've vastly outnumbered me here (two contributors against one ;0) , and so with such a massive out-pouring of disinterest from the entire body of wp editors, I don't really care enough to drag this page into an all-out mud-slinging fest over a petty issue like BC vs. E. It'd hardly be worth putting up friendly notices all over the project pages alerting them to this crucial breathtaking decision... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for that, Jason. ROTFL. SamEV (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Til, that is so presumptious of you to think you can make your claims, expect us to accept them, and be this dismissive about your obligation to prove them. I've dealt with you before, and I have no reason to trust your word. So please, provide verification in a reasonable amount of time (what do you think is reasonable, Jason?), or the date style will be changed. SamEV (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I have already indicated twice above that I consider the matter of BC versus BCE to be entirely petty and not worth wasting my time on. I cannot tell whether you seriously consider this to be of the utmost importance, or are simply jockeying for any opportunity to score a vain and judgemental personal attack at my expense, borne apparently of ageist malice. I've conceded to you already twice that it doesn't really matter to me, as long as only 3 people are responding here and two of them like the E, fine, what's the big deal. Your response above is to haughtily lecture me down your nose and connivingly ask Jason to help make the final time determination as if I do not even belong on wikipedia or deserve any voice here. That sounds like a childish game for little girls - "everybody is invited to the tea party except you" kind of thing, I just cannot believe you are actually trying it here on wikipedia for some kind of cheap thrills. If you have nothing better to do than continuing to provoke and bait me with ageist personal attacks that only reveal your immaturity, and are against policy, I can cut to the chase now and file a complaint about it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Til, that's over the top and not worth a point-by-point rebuttal. Nevertheless: please don't accuse me of ageism or any -ism ever again, or I'll report you.
Regarding the reasonable time, yes, I should have addressed you, too. But perhaps I assumed that you'd chime in with your own proposed time limit, without needing to be asked.
"I've conceded to you already twice that it doesn't really matter to me, as long as only 3 people are responding here and two of them like the E, fine, what's the big deal."
Very well. I'll restore the BCE/CE style. SamEV (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Til, *quote* the policy. Otherwise, quit edit warring in what is otherwise a neutral argument (one vs. one, with policy favoring neither side). I.e., if you can't quote the policy, and if it doesn't unequivocally support you, you have no business edit warring in an attempt to impose your personal preference, especially since what you're seeking to do is to change content agreed to by three editors (you included) and stable for months. SamEV (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If you think it is still a one deadlock between us, we can try WP:3O or wherever else, but it seems certain that at least one other editor ( does prefer the original and more established format of BC / AD for this article. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Not so fast, sir. Am I correct to deduce that since you're not quoting the policy, it doesn't support you after all? SamEV (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
"Do not change from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors." Per the aforementioned policy, the dating format should not have been changed. Mannanan51 (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)mannanan51


150,845 (city)/32,114 (urban) in this poor village? Confused with the numbers for the district of Akçakale?--Dipa1965 (talk) 07:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


After the collapse of the Assyrian empire, Harran fell under Median domination, it's one of the parts of the former Assyrian empire wich was taken by the Median king Cyaxare:

French links:

English links: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Mistakes - Chronological disorders[edit]

This talk-page contains plenty of petty, useless arguments. The ARTICLE needs a few chronological corrections.

"It lay directly on the road from Antioch eastward to Nisibis and Ninevah. The Tigris could be followed down to the delta to Babylon." Antioch got her name in Hellenistic times. Babylon is far off the Tigris, nor is she situated in any delta. Plus Euphrates and Tigris form as little a delta, as do the Thames or the Hudson River. "According to Roman authors such as Pliny the Elder, even through the classical period..." Does not belong here, around 1800 BC. "... and the majority of people were Christian Assyrians." - No, they were not, as the text plays decades before Christ. Angel García, Nuremberg (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

" ... the majority of people were Christian Assyrians." is what I came here to check on. Shouldn't we just delete that, since it's clearly impossible? I hesitate to just do it myself, considering all the flak above. Freeman (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

More (severe) Chronological Problems[edit]

According to wikipedia the Seleucid_Empire lasted till around 63 - 53 BCE. This makes the statement in this article, under Saleucid Period "the majority of people were Christian Assyrians" rather tenuous. If not extremely metaphysical. Unless I'm reading it wrong (apologies if so). (talk) 02:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)