Talk:Nairi

Names of the Nairi kings show definite Abkhazian/Migrelian/Georgian affinity

Anyone who has any knowledge of Abkhazian and Migrelian names (one of the constituent ethnic groups of Georgia historically and today) will know what I am talking about. I am surprised that professional ethno-linguists did not notice that before, and now we see this article flooded with some Armenian nationalistic bullshit, where they grasp at the heels trying to claim anything they can to try to prove their supposed, imaginary status of being "ancient". Where exactly does the notion of "ancient" begin? 5th century BC (first true attestation of Armenia as a province of Persia in Persian records)?? 10th century BC?? Stop with these nationalistic make-believe efforts to try to make your nation look more ancient than it is. 5th century BC is good enough, as most existing nations/cultures today cannot claim their origin even that far. Be content with that you have!! Naming your newborn girls Nairi after recently finding out that there was a historical polity called Nairi near your area doesn't prove any link between Armenians and Nairi, other than the latter possibly being one of the constituents of your current people. :rolleyes: 24.186.118.96 (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Like what? It's no more reasonable that Kartvelians (or Abkhazians) were present in Nairi than Armenians. There's no evidence of any of Kartvelians (including Mingrelians), or especially Abkhazians, that far south geographically at any time (heck, Abkhazians live in northern Georgia and were not even mentioned until the 1st Century CE--and even that reference is debated and uncertain). I realize that Kartvelians claim that they descend from the Kulha (which seems reasonable to me), in the extreme of what is now northeastern Turkey, but the Nairi tribes were mostly centered around Lake Van, hundreds of miles south of where the Kulha lived. Also, the names that we have recorded for the various Nairi groups are the Assyrianized versions of the tribal chieftains' names, just like Urartu is the Assyrian version of Ararat (which itself is Hebrew). So the tribes did not actually call themselves the names we know them as. THAT BEING SAID...many of the Nairi tribal (or kings') names COULD be Armenian--Uiram, Daiaeni, Ugina, etc. could all have Armenian equivalents (i.e. Aram, Daias, Haig). It's now generally accepted by most Urartologists and linguists that Armenians entered the region by 1200 BCE at the latest, and Urartians and Armenians (if Urartians themselves were not Armenians) co-existed for centuries, which is evident by mutual loanwords into both languages from the other. There were literally dozens of tribes that made up the Nairi confederation (I believe as many as 60 different tribes). There's no reason to believe that all these tribes were homogenous. If these tribes were not Armenian as a whole, it's not at all unreasonable to theorize that some of the tribes were Armenian-speaking, some were Anatolian-speakers (namely Luwians, possibly Hittites), some were Hurrio-Urartian speakers, some were Iranian-speaking, some were Semitic-speakers, and some could have theoretically been Kartvelian-speakers. As for your questions about Armenia's qualification as "ancient," we know Armenians have been around for 2600 years, at the very least--that's pretty ancient. The only other groups that are still in extent in the greater region that can claim a cultural continuity for as long, or longer, are the Assyrians, Egyptians, Jews, and Greeks. But even this is far from settled because Nairi encompassed lands previously known as Arme/Armani and Hayasa--connecting these kingdoms to Armenia (Hayastan) is an understandably attractive notion. If either, or both, Arme/Armani or Hayasa proved to be Armenian-speaking, the presence of Armenian-speaking tribal groups amongst the Nairi confederation would almost be certain, and Armenian history would be pushed back at least 700 years earlier than it is now to the middle of the 2nd century.Preservedmoose (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Nairi (First Name Origin and Meaning)

Armenian Female name

Not necessarily from Armenia, but was rather one of the ancient proto-Armenian tribes. Nairi is a trendy name among Armenians today. Rrendering it Nayiri (Na-YI'-ri) would be more accurate but alternates such as from 'Nairi' to 'Nayri' to 'Niree' to 'Niherie' have been used.

• Nairi is probably an Assyrian word. Nairi wasn't a tribe, but rather a confederation of tribes. The same goes for Urartu. These were not ethnically homogenous polities.Preservedmoose (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

On edit-war

I fail to see the need for two templates. I don't see how {{History of Armenia}} is relevant here, the connections look really tenuous and fringy. {{Armenia-related topics}} makes perfect sense, of course, because of the connection to Armenian nationalism, but there's no need for two of these miserable boxes, not when one is misleading. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 08:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Separate article suggestion

• Oppose. The article is very small and there is no reason to split it in two, because content of the two pieces is directly related to each other. `'Míkka>t 03:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The size of the article doesn't matter; the content matters. Armenian nationalism evolved in the late 19th century, while the entity of Nairi was considered a polity in late Bronze Age Assyria. Nicklausse (talk) 04:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is disputable whether it was polity. The "60 kings" conquered by Tiglath-Pileser most likely were tribal chieftains. There is simply not enough space for 60 kings around Van Lake. `'Míkka>t 05:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it was. The Assyrians considered it some sort of unity under the name "Nairi". "60 Kings" is merely the typical royal hyperbole of the day. Nicklausse (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

History of Armenia navbox

Nairi is very loosely related with "history of Armenia" . The article already has a navbox "Armenia related topics" at the botom. By the way, the article says absolutely nothing how exactly Nairi is part of the history of Armenia, forgetting pure geography. But if judge from geography, then Hittite Empire is part of the History of Armenia as well. `'Míkka>t 03:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the article says nothing about how Nairi is part of the history Armenia because it was not directly related to it, and pre-dates the first attested Armenians by half a millenium. And, as you know, the Hittite Empire wasn't directly related either. There is an Armenian topics navbox on the page, and I don't think this is the article for it. The Armenian - Nairi connection is an invention of the late 19th century. Nicklausse (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The talk page of template {{History of Armenia}} reasonably says that template {{History of Austria}} contains Hallstatt culture of Early Iron Age. `'Míkka>t 05:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Why derisive language, "invention"? Why not "theory"? Please get used to non-emotional, neutral language of wikipedia.

`'Míkka>t 05:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Notice that there are no {{History of Austria}} templates on the Hallstatt culture page.
2. Nairi itself appears to be an "invention" of the Assyrians.

Nicklausse (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Nicklausse has now reverted 4 times in one day.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 13:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you put back that administrator-removed template, so that it would necessarily be reverted, in order to say this? Nicklausse (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Relation to Armenia

Armenioan editors, please explain Armenian theories about Nairi as prehistory of Armenia in this article. Otherwise the Armenian navbox and categor must be removed. Thank you,Mukadderat (talk) 04:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Armenians call themselves hay and identify their homeland not by the term "Armenia" but as Hayastan or Hayasdan. The origins of these words can be traced to the Hittites, among whose historical documents is a reference to the Hayasa. In the Bible, the area designated as Armenia is referred to as Ararat, which the Assyrians referred to as Urartu. Armenians also identify themselves as the people of Ararat/Urartu and of Nairi, and their habitat as nairian ashkharh or yergir nairian. Is that clear enough for you? HyeProfile (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Query

Hiya, I see that this article is currently protected due to edit wars. I have no opinion as to the article content, but am currently gathering data on these kinds of things, and was wondering if I could ask a couple questions? This will help with my participation in the ArbCom-appointed Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars.

Specifically: This article seems to have been stable for awhile, and then about a week ago it "blew up". What do you think that the flash point was? I realize that there might be different opinions here, but I'd be interested in everyone's view. I'd also be interested in what people think is needed in order to get the article stable again? Also, do any of you participate in any of the reconciliation projects, such as the Wikipedia:Assyrian-Syriac wikipedia cooperation board? Would this article fall within that scope, or would it need something different? Sorry for the uneducated questions, I just don't know very much about this particular topic, so I'd appreciate some remedial help! Thanks, Elonka 21:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This is quite an obscure topic that has been stable since it was created except when it would undergo an attack along with several other articles by a banned User:Ararat arev who has the habit of spreading original and borderline mysticist research. The current edit war was initiated by two related (potentially the same user) users:[1]. The article is outside the scope of that particular project; however, this tribal confederation of sorts is only attested by Assyrian writings.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, this is actually not a conflict of different ethnic groups, such as Assyria/Syriac. This is archaeological history vs. modern nationalism, and in the case of this page, the block was placed simply to keep a banned user off the page.

Basically this page has been like this for a while, with editors and administrators occasionally poking at it and being reverted. I came upon it while working on the ancient Near East categories, although I had a pretty good idea what to expect here. The Nairi are a rather vague ancient group, known to us only from Assyrian sources. When we have groups for which little is known, this seems to open the door for some people to create their own histories, by filling in the blanks with what suits their agendas. In the late 19th century, Armenian nationalists came up with we-are-the-origen-of-everything theories, and rationalized all the poorly understood, and in some cases mythical ancient groups as their ancestors. There are some editors here who actually are trying to promulgate this stuff in this day and age.

The reason edit wars have flaired up is because there is a bit more insistance that we heed historical facts. Although the Armenians may have some issues with some of their neighbors, in my opinion the people called the "Nairi" didn't do anything to deserve having their history coopted by modern-day nationalists.

Nairi isn't within the scope of modern Assyrian-Syriac debates; the only connection is that ancient Assyrian writings give us our only information about a group they labled the "Nairi".

Sumerophile (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and editors aside, what do the secondary sources say? --Elonka 23:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I see there is a separate Nairi (Armenian usages) now. I am not convinced this is a good idea, since it holds a potential of becoming a pov fork, but as long as we do keep "Armenian usage" separate, it is clear that reference to Armenian Romantic nationalism should be kept to a bare minimum in this article. dab (𒁳) 08:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well all this nationalism *is* a POV fork, and I'd certainly prefer to keep it separate from ancient Nairi article. That way the nationalist editors can have a field day on their own turf and not disrupt the main article any more. Sumerophile (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that is a reasonable approach to keep documented facts apart from speculative theories and their consequences. Especially in this particular case when facts are very little, and the article may easily be drowned in speculative material. `'Míkka>t 20:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, this is the most reasonable post I've seen in all this. I do disagree with calling Nairi prehistoric anything, because we know of it from written, historic sources. And the templates also don't address this topic; we don't exactly know which people are referred to, and the "Nairi" don't have any archaeological sites per se. Sumerophile (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

it goes without saying that Romantic nationalism needs to be clearly separate from Bronze Age history. The question is, does "Nairi in Armenian nationalism" merit a standalone article? We should not give it more than passing mention here, but perhaps the details should be merged into Armenian nationalism and discussed in context there? The Armenian nationalism article needs attention anyway; there is a long-standing merge request with Armenian national awakening. The emergence of the "Nairi" idea in crackpot "Armenology" should be discussed in the context of the antiquity frenzy rampant in Armenian nationalism in general. The approach of "the nationalist editors can have a field day on their own turf and not disrupt the main article any more" is precisely what we mean by "pov fork", and what we want to avoid at any cost. It won't work anyway: you will note that nationalist editors never focus on articles about nationalism, they always go straight for the articles on ancient history. Any article on "$ANTIQUITY in $ETHNIC nationalism" is doomed to just be left lying to decay. dab (𒁳) 07:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be fine merged with the Nationalism article, and the less discussion in this article the better; the disambiguation link at the top of the page would suffice in my opinion. Sumeroduo (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Template and the linked pages

Im trying to add back the templates linked to the pages Nairi, Hayasa, and Urartu, which are linked pages on the Template:History of Armenia. These were there 2-3 years prior to removing and "perm locking" these pages, just for edit warring about the templates. Please allow the templates to be added back as this is not POV, see the appropriate pages linked on the template simply adding on the page. Compare with other peoples pages they have the templates of there pages. Harut8 (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please explain clearly why you believe the templates are relevant and should be included. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason I already stated they were always here for atleast over 2 years prior to removing them from the pages which are linked in Template:History of Armenia, just as Armens pages next to them, Hayasa, Nairi, and Urartu, is linked to the template. There should be no reason to perm lock these pages just for edit warring of template adding appropriate pages linked with them and associated with them. Harut8 (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

the article already has the "Armenia topics" footer. This is more than enough, since this isn't in any way a topic related to Armenia other than concerning the rough geopolitical region (give or take 500 km) where Armenia would come to be located centuries later. If this is an "Armenia topic", it is also a "Turkey topic", a "Georgia topic" an "Assyrian topic" and a "Bronze Age topic". --dab (𒁳) 17:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann, In an earlier comment you have made in wikipedia, you mentioned Hayasa, Nairi, Hurrians, etc associated with Armenians. So this is why those pages/names are in the template, and this is why the other links are in the template too. Harut8 (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

All 4 of these pages/names are in the top of the template: if Armens = in template, than Hayasa, Nairi, and Urartu = in template too. All 4 of them in template. Harut8 (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no Armens article. It's a redirect to Name of Armenia, which is very obviously an "Armenia topic". --dab (𒁳) 07:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Should not be "perm lock", should have expire date

In any case, these pages should be eventually opened, and not "perm locked". The only reason as I stated its perm locked just for putting the template to its proper page link, this is not a reason to perm lock a page. This is barely the case in other wikipedia pages. Harut8 (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

the reason it is permanently semiprotected is precisely your sock circus. you guys simply cannot understand that as long as you keep up your disruptive tactics you will not affect Wikipedia's content. Wikipedia is simply too well equipped to deal with bad faith editors. As it needs to be, this is the internet, has it ever occurred to you that you are not the only interest group trying to hijack Wikipedia? Your only chance of getting anything done is editing honestly and above the board, and settle for reasonable consensus within WP:ENC. --dab (𒁳) 07:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

NOT an Armenian tribe!

completely wrong!

I'm shocked to read here on wiki that Nairi was an "Armenian tribe". It was neither Armenian, nor a tribe at the first place. But apparently with an obscure non-academic source it has magically turned into an Armenian tribe! Roboskiye (talk) 11:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

No, the source is fine and used correctly about the extent of the 'Nairi lands'. But I've read page 27 on Amazon.com and it does not say there was an Armenian tribe of that name. It's possible we have an IP with a poor command of English, alternatively they've just copied the citation. Which needs fixing. Dougweller (talk) 10:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem continues. Redgate says "The extent of Nairi is elusive. There is uncertainty about the exact location of Dayaenu, twenty-one countries in Tiglath-Pileser's list are otherwise unknown, and some scholars interpret his statement that he chased the kings to the Upper Sea as a reference to the Black Sea, whereas others prefer Lake Van. However, the information offered by the king's account of his victories of c.\ 112 bc regarding the structure and economy of Nairi is more helpful. Nairi was small-scale, and settled, ruled by a number of kings, perhaps in some league or confederation." The IP is using her as a source for saying that Nairi means tribe, although she clearly doesn't say that.

Trevor Bryce, in The World of the Neo-Hittite Kingdoms... says "ine King eariy in nis reign, 10 ensure me security 01 ms Kingtiom. une or mese had to do with an assortment of fierce tribal groups inhabiting the Nairi lands. This was a mountainous region north of the upper Tigris, extending roughly between modern Diyabakir and Lake Van and then to the south-east, lo the region west of Lake Urmia. Nairi was made up of an array of small tribal principalities. We first hear of it in the reign ofTukulti-Ninurta I (1244-1208), who claimed to have fought, defeated, and imposed tribute upon no fewer than forty of its kings (RIMA 1: 244). But Nairi continued to threaten Assyrian territory, and Tiglath-pileser conducted further military operations against it early in his reign (RIMA 2: 21-2)—with a decisive outcome, according to his own account. After crushing a coalition of twenty-three of its kings (thirty in another account), he set about plundering their lands"[2] (sorry about the scan). Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Note that 'Nairi tribes' does not mean the tribes (plural) were called Nairi, it simply means that the tribes who lived in the region. There's also the 'Armenian' claim that is discussed above. See this earlier version[3]. Dougweller (talk) 07:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

POV

The other issue is calling this group Armenian. On what basis? Our article on Armenians says "Soon after the Hayasa-Azzi were the Nairi (1400-1000 BC) and the Kingdom of Urartu (1000-600 BC), who successively established their sovereignty over the Armenian Highland. Each of the aforementioned nations and tribes participated in the ethnogenesis of the Armenian people." In other words, the tribes of Nairi were prior to the creation of this ethnic group. Dougweller (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

As I can find a number of instances of the phrase "Nairn tribes" but not "Nairn tribe", perhaps we can say something like "the word Nairn" is used to refer to a geographical area....and to describe the tribes living there...." saying when, etc. We certainly can't suggest that it means only a tribe - or indeed without any sources that it is the name of a specific tribe. Nor obviously that it is Armenian, as I've pointed out above. That just seems to be nationalistic edit-warring. Dougweller (talk) 08:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Nairi' was the Assyrian name (KUR.KUR Na-i-ri, also Na-'i-ru) for a Hurro-Urartian speaking kingdom in eastern [[Anatolia], roughly corresponding to the modern Van and Hakkâri provinces of modern Turkey. The word is also used to describe the tribes who lived there, whose ethnic identity is uncertain. Nairi has sometimes been equated with Nihriya, known from Mesopotamian, Hittite, and Urartean sources. However, its co-occurrence with Nihriya within a single text may argue against this.

We also need to reconcile: According to mainstream opinion, the Nairi tribes were a collection of Hurrian peoples, long indigenous to Asia Minor. The kingdom's native Hurro-Urartian name was Biainili, also spelt Biaineli but prior to the 8th century BC, they also called their now united kingdom "Nairi" with "By some opinions, the Nairi tribes may have been a Hurrian tribe, related to contemporary Mitanni (Götze 1936). Others take this hypothesis skeptically; e.g., Benedict (Benedict 1960) points out that there is no evidence of the presence of Hurrites in the vicinity of Lake Van.

Other Authors have pointed out different views involving the indigenous peoples of the Caucasus. Professor Shestokov, a Soviet Russian historian, wrote in 1939, - The oldest states of the Soviet Union were founded 3,000 years ago to the south of Transcaucasia. The oldest among them, that in the Ararat area, by the Lake of Van, was called Urartu. Its kings ruled over Georgian tribes."

Benedict is indeed skeptical of a Hurrian occupation (his word) of the Lake Van area. Shestokov must be A. V. Shestakov. In 1937 " a new history text (A. V. Shestakov's Short Course on the History of the USSR) glorifying the Russian past appeared and was made mandatory in Soviet primary schools, Russian and non-Russian alike."[4] Clearly not a reliable source by our criteria. Petrovsky is Boris Piotrovsky. Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

References

Article topic

This is a topic of the history of Assyria. Its scope is the Iron Age. We get anonymous edit-warriors trying to make this about the history of Armenia or Turkey. For these, we have Nairi (Armenian usages), which explains how the term came to be used in 19th century nationalism. This page is not about 19th, 20th or 21st nationaism, it is about ancient history. Drive-by edits by random IPs do not make for a "dispute". --dab (𒁳) 17:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected

The IPs are clearly sock puppets of banned Ararat arev (talk · contribs), see for instance [5]. I've asked another Admin who has been involved with this user to review my semi-protection. I apologise for letting this go on, as I got involved with this article in the first place because of one of his socks. Dougweller (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the semiprotection, and observe that this editor has also been changing Shupria, {{Armenian language}} and {{Indo-European topics}}. I've renewed a rangeblock that I trust will be helpful. The recent edits from this range can be seen via rangecontribs. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)