QuoteReplyTopic: Who are the Kurds? Posted: 09-Nov-2006 at 21:45
decreasing amount of R1a1 percentage when you move westward in Iran(30% to 5%) and high percentage of j1 between people of Zagros, showing that they are originally non Aryan. You should know that there are lots of words in Kurdish from Hurian language (not I.E.).
The isolation style of life in zagros, did not let Lurs and Kurds mixed enogh with Iranian genetic pool.
It is clear that Kurds are I.E. linguistically, but they look like more to Anatolian and northern middle eastern than Iranians. It is intresting that you can not make diffrence between an Azeri and a persian from Tehran, Isfehan or mashhad ( north of Iran) but can distiguish Kurds from other Iranian. Kurds should have the less amount of Iranian blood between the other Iranic groups.
After reading many pages of replies; still think I can add some points! But first have to mention the fact that a "Theory" can't be considered a "Fact" until established scientific institutions agree with them in the proven texts. So the theories about "Iran being the origin of the Semitic and IE race", "Turks being in the Middle East for 6000 years" and/or" Kurds are the ancient Gotti's" are all unproven and non-scientific.
The established theory about the Kurds is that they are from the Iranian group of People .They gather various dialects under an umbrella: 1) Zaza seems to be connected to Gilaki, Taleshi and old Azeri(for not to be mixed with today's Azeri that is a Altaic dialect we may call it Tati)2) Urami have common words with Avestaian 3) Kormanji- Sorani that has only it's original ties with Persian (maybe between 40-60%) 4) Gorani (Kermanshahi) that is more connected with Persian and Luri (60-80%) 5) Laki ,that is so connected with Luri that can't be said it is Kurdish or Luri [despite my effort I couldn't figure out is it true that the Feeli Kurds of the Iraq are Lurs or not!? But anyway they are so close.] 6) miscellaneous groups of the Kurds like the Izadies(Yazidi's), Lulu's, Jaff and etc.
It is not only written in the Shahnameh that the Kurds are the Iranian group of peoplethat who live in the mountains , but also still in many parts of Iran the mountainous people are called "Kurds": InMazandaran(central north of IR) we have "Kurdkooy","Kurdichal" and "Kurdmahaleh" , in the Chaharmahal (central east of IR) we have "SharKurd" , "Kulakchal" in Tehran and etc. Also in the local proverbs the word Kurd is being used as the people of the mountain: as in the Khomain and Golpayegan (Kurd be Kooh) means a "person who is wearing so many cloths that is alike he is going to highlands". The words "Kuoh" and "Kurd" may have some connections to each other in the original IE group.
I made it myself only a
few years ago based in the most modern and accurate archaeological
research I could find. I'm not expressing the opinions of others... nor
any fashion... but my own personal coclusions.
If you have
discrepances why don't you write about them? I will surely find them
interesting, specially if they are as sound and well researched as your
disqualification seems to imply.
Yet, bring your "ultimate" theories and the facts behind to the forum, please.
My links are enough and more than enough for rejection of your outdated theories.
You make me do all the work, what isn't very fair.
Still your links, thought interesting up to a point, give limited evidence, not to say none at all.
One relies
heavily in the theory that IEs originally dwelt in the Nord-Pontic
region, and also on written remains, which is obviously not much
relevant, as I pointed out before. I must remind you that languages
are, before anything, spoken languages
and writing is only a possible accident that can happen to some
languges at some times. Though written texts can be of great value they
proof nothing but the latest possible date of arival of a given tongue
to a given region, nothing more.
So the probable way of Indo-Aryan expansion could took place from Pontic
steppes - via the Caucasus - to the Middle East - and then via Iran and
Punjab to India. Else, they could reach India going crossing Central Asia,
but in that case the Mitanni subgroup chose just another way from the Black
Sea - to Mesopotamia.
Or they simply could have originally sprang from Central Asia. Also
the Mitanni, could well be just a branch of the main Central Asia ->
Iran -> India expasion of Eastern IEs, as I suspect most likely.
The Other is a hypothetical chronology of IE expansion based on what? Let's see:
4000 BC - 3500 BCProto-Indo-European
areal dialects
According to the comparative studies of all Indo-European languages,
their phonetic, morphological, lexical and syntactical similarities and
differences we can now judge about dialectal history within the community
which was only about to brake up.
The difference of certain languages in forming the medium voice of verbs
and the relative pronoun is considered to have marked the earliest division
of tongues within the Proto-Indo-European language. According to it, the
community was slowly breaking into two dialectal groups: one, including
future Venetic, Illyrian, Anatolian, Tocharic,
Italic and Celtic groups,
used the relative pronoun kwis (which) or its derivatives;
its medium voice markers were almost everywhere -r (Latin
datur, Hittite kittari, Irish tuigear).
The other group consisted of Indo-Iranian, Greek,
Baltic, Slavic, Germanic, Armenian and
Thraco-Phrygian languages,
which took up yos as a relative pronoun, and endings -oi
/ -moi as medium voice markers.
Well this just makes not much sense compared to what I know or think
I know. It seems quite clear for instance that the closer relative of
Latin is Germanic and vice versa.
I use the following tree, made up by the authors, based in the same
methods they used in Genetic studies (two different methods that gave
the same results, or so they say). Sorry but the text is in Spanish (I
think it won't be difficult to identify the English equivalents,
anyhow):
The only odd branches for my work-hypothesis (theory if you like)
are Albanian and Celtic. And, up to a point, the close relation between
Germanic and Latin. We must notice that, according to the info the
authors give, the possibility of mixture altering the apparent
chronology is not very likely (else each of the methods should had
given discordant results), so I guess there must be other explanations
and I have a couple of ideas about them. But I will let them for better
occasion.
But once again I ask you:
What's your explanation for existance of several common words between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Semitic languages?
What about the Nostratic hypothesis.
I must admit I don't have all the answers but the theory of the
Nostratic superfamily (gathereing not just Uralic, Altaic and IE, but
also Afroasian and Dravidic) could be your answer.
I like the idea of all those families migrating from Central Asia
(Iran largely included) one after the other, with Semitic and Dravidic
carriers marching first to the south (around 4000 BCE or maybe even
before) and IEs to the West mainly (around 3500 BCE), while Uralic and
Altaic groups would have remained behind by the moment.
I caress that hypothesis, specially liking the idea of Semitics
(Afroasiatics) coming first from Iran and not Arabia or Syria (where
evidence of any earlier Semitic tongue is just nul - and though
Egyptians did speak an Afroasiatic-Hamitic dialect already around 3500
BCE, we can't know what they spoke in earlier)... but I can't proof
anything and, thus, I only spoke because you asked.
Still, considering the cultural relationships between the
Paleolithic European and (partly) SW Asian cultures, I suspect that is
easier to believe these groups were somehow related linguistically
(though very losely) and therefore were not IE. As the Neolithic of the
Nord-Pontian area is ethnologically native (because archaelogy but also
because some genetic studies seem to confirm that too) and that
Neolithic (Dniepr-Don) lasts until 3500 BCE, I can't believe these were
the earlier IEs.
Its self-evident that Basque is the last Western European native Paleolithic tongue and I can think that Caucasic families are also the last Eastern European (and Anatolio-Mesopotamian) native Paleolithic ones, both being cornered against the mountains though only losely related among the two, if at all.
Meanwhile the evil Pathriarchal Nostratic tribes sprung from Central Asia, invading and assimilitaing gradually everyone else.
...
I know I'm ranting but it's your fault: you asked.
Anyhow, just several comon words aren't enough to proof a linguistic relationship: they could be loans and even coincidences.
Hushyar, you may be right, but the current Kurdish spoken in Turkey has not much difference with Persian, except its spelling which became closer to Turkish. It's no different than regular Persian except its vocabulary heavily influenced with Turkish and a little with Arabic.
It is no different to regular Persian? Kermanji which is the most widespread Kurdish language in Turkey and it is not comprehensible by Persian speakers at all. Sorani, if a Persian speaker is educated on a little etymology u can pick out about 40% of the words.
ArmenainSurvival you are only very little right and Tatar44 you are completely wrong. This is true answer:
Originally posted by Sharukin
The Assyrians did in fact record the name "Kurti" in the regions where the later Carduchi, Carduene/Gorduene, and the Kurds inhabited, to the north of Assyria. Some make the earliest reference to Kurds as the Guti of the Sumerian sources, inhabitants of the Zagros Mts., however the Assyrians knew them as the Kuti, at the same time they had knowledge of the Kurti.
Since the Assyrian references to the Kurti preceded that of the Median conquest of the region, we need to see Kurdish origins as a much more complex process. They inhabited a region which was linguistically Hurrian, a situation which was in evidence since the third millenium BC. They were perhaps Hurrians, or at least Hurrian-related. When the state of Urartu was conquered by the Medes, the Kurti, which were also part of the Urartean state were also conquered.
While Urartu was Armenianizing, the Kurds were with much resistance, Aryanizing. The process may have taken centuries since those mountainous regions were difficult to conquer, but even more difficult to hold. The Assyrians were always trying to pacify those mountainous regions, but they knew that these were temporary measures, and even the Persians found these areas difficult to hold. Xenophon, describing the penetration into the mountainous Carduchian region by the 10,000, related that a Persian army had been totally destroyed trying to subdue the region, and the region was thus independent when the 10,000 arrived.
and
Originally posted by miller
Kurds are a non-Arab Middle Eastern minority population that inhabits the transnational region known as Kurdistan, a plateau and mountain area in Southwest Asia including parts of Iraq, Turkey, and Iran and smaller sections of Syria and Armenia. They speak Kurdish, an Indo European language of a similiar lineage to that of Persian. They are widely thought to be descended of the Medes. Xenophon the ancient Greek historian recorded the Kurds in the Anabasis as "Khardukhi" a firece and protective mountain dwelling peoples who attacked his armies in 400 BC.
The Kurdish languages belong to the northwestern group of the Iranian branch of the Indo-European family; a close relative is Persian, which is in the southwestern group.
I don't know what I must add to these quotes.
Originally posted by Tatar44
the language "kurdish"is a persian language with a lot of Turkish and arabian words.
wrong!!!! the correct answer is this: Persian and Kurdish are both considered as Iranic languages this does not mean that they are dialects of each other or dialect of a common language, It does mean they have common ancestor.Kurdish is considered as a separate language and have its own syntax, grammar , phonetics and morphology which are specific to itself, by these standard Kurdish is considered as a separate language or separate language group
The area I told you about used to be an Armenian province. It was called Kordchaik, which basically means Armenian Kurdistan. The same area was called Beth Qardu by Assyrians and Gordyene by Romans. All of this is surely the equivalent of Kurdistan. I got my information here.
I made it myself only a few years ago based in the most modern and accurate archaeological research I could find. I'm not expressing the opinions of others... nor any fashion... but my own personal coclusions.
If you have discrepances why don't you write about them? I will surely find them interesting, specially if they are as sound and well researched as your disqualification seems to imply.
Yet, bring your "ultimate" theories and the facts behind to the forum, please.
My links are enough and more than enough for rejection of your outdated theories.
But once again I ask you:
What's your explanation for existance of several common words between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Semitic languages?
I made it myself only a few years ago based in the most modern and
accurate archaeological research I could find. I'm not expressing the
opinions of others... nor any fashion... but my own personal coclusions.
If you have discrepances why don't you write about them? I will surely
find them interesting, specially if they are as sound and well
researched as your disqualification seems to imply.
Yet, bring your "ultimate" theories and the facts behind to the forum, please.
Ardashir: I'm not Turk, I'm Basque and I strongly support the Kurdish cause. Still I can't agree with those theories placing IE roots in SW Asia only because the first written texts come from that region. This is self evidently due to the fact that written language was still unexistent in any of the other regions populated by IEs (or by other peoples, like Basques too). Written proof is proof of the fact that there were IE-speaking peoples there at the times you give and possibly before but it is not any proof of origin. For instance, Latin was first written in Rome and nearby areas, still Latins and other Italic peoples (IEs) had came from Southern Germany as archaelogical evidence shows quite clearly; Germanic was first written in France maybe but Germans came from Scandinavia and nearby regions, etc.
I say that the original IEs were most likely the carriers of the Jamnaja Kultura east of Volga (it seems that I am coincident with that Mr. Jain, whose name is the first time I read, by the way) and these can be perfectly traced from 3500 BCE to the Scythians of historical times.
Here is my suggested scheme of IE chronological evolution traced through archaeology basically:
Naturally, I have some doubts and blanks (like the origin of Albanians, Greeks and Thracians, or how come Latin is so close to German while so diferent from Celtic? Or what's the precise origin or the Kurdish language?) but for the main part of the issue I think I did a pretty good synthetizing archaeological data. Hope you can make some use of it.
Here there is a map showing the main steps of early IE expansion in
Europe and Asia Minor as far I know (from 3500 to 1500 BCE aprox.).
Notice that the Cholcidian culture (proto-Armenians) aren't derived
from the Jamnaja Kultura (Kurgans) but they seem to have got separated
earlier. This can also be the case of Hittites (thogh I admit I have
blanks in my knowledege of the archaeology of that area and philology
of the Hittite tongue).
Ardashir: I'm not Turk, I'm Basque and I strongly support the Kurdish
cause. Still I can't agree with those theories placing IE roots in SW
Asia only because the first written texts come from that region. This is self evidently due to the fact that written language was still unexistent in any of the other regions
populated by IEs (or by other peoples, like Basques too). Written proof
is proof of the fact that there were IE-speaking peoples there at the
times you give and possibly before but it is not any proof of origin.
For instance, Latin was first written in Rome and nearby areas, still
Latins and other Italic peoples (IEs) had came from Southern Germany as
archaelogical evidence shows quite clearly; Germanic was first written
in France maybe but Germans came from Scandinavia and nearby regions,
etc.
I say that the original IEs were most likely the carriers of the
Jamnaja Kultura east of Volga (it seems that I am coincident with that
Mr. Jain, whose name is the first time I read, by the way) and these can be
perfectly traced from 3500 BCE to the Scythians of historical times.
Here is my suggested scheme of IE chronological evolution traced through archaeology basically:
Naturally, I have some doubts and blanks (like the origin of Albanians,
Greeks and Thracians, or how come Latin is so close to German while so
diferent from Celtic? Or what's the precise origin or the Kurdish language?) but for the main part of the issue I think I did
a pretty good synthetizing archaeological data. Hope you can make some
use of it.
The Kurds were much smaller during Antiquity. They lived in what is now called northern-most Iraq and the Hakkari province of Turkey. They weren't as spread-out as Ardashir claims. Most of what is called 'Northern Kurdistan' was Armenian land.
I am of the rather serious opinion that IE tongues come from Central Asia (Kurgan theory). There are no references of IEs living in the Near East in ancient times before the arrival of Hittites and Mittani. Sumer was... Sumerian, Elam Dravidic, Akkad, Assyria and others Semitic (Afroasian), Hurrians Caucasic most likely, Egypt Afroasian too (Hamitic), Hatti non-IE (we don't know exactly what they spoke)... where do you get those IEs suddenly springing from precisely Kurdistan?
At the spring of Neolithic Age the area was divided in two cultural groups: those of the Levant (Syria, Palestine, etc) and those of the North (Anatolia and Kurdistan). The former seem to have been locally evolved, the latter could well have migrated from the North and even the West in earlier times (Paleolithic Gravetian culture). As I have no reason to think that IE was out of Central Asia at that time (see below), I tend to think that these, along with other groups of Eastern Gravetian background spoke maybe ancient tongues of the Caucasic families (as the Caucasus was also of Gravetian cultural background, as well as Ukraine and Russia). This is maybe too risky but at least makes some sense.
Recently several philologists seem to have concluded in separate but concordant studies (quoted by Cavalli-Sforza in Genes, Peoples and Tongues) that IE is clearly related in a linguistical superfamily with Altaic and Uralic families, well known to have sprang from Central Asia and Siberia. So I think this confirms pretty much the Kurgan theory of IE origins.
Also, please, show me the slightest proof of that map being real and just not a fancy imaginary artwork. IEs are not located in the Near East before 2000 BCE (Hittites), while they seem to have been (following the Kurgan theory) in Eastern Europe since 3500 BCE. This is not concordant with your funny map either.
Also, you can trace archaeologically the Jamnaja Kultura (original Kurgans) to the Scythes who were a IE speaking people, related with Persian and Medes (and probably directly with all the Eastern IE subfamily). They dwelt basically in Central Asia, expanding at times to southern Russia and Ukraine.
Additionally, you can trace archaeologically a related group: the Culture of Catacombs (the Caucasian-Russian one, not the Italian one of the same name) to the Cymmerians, another IE-speaking people known historically.
You can also trace a branch of the early Kurgan related expansion in Europe to early Germanic peoples (in Scandinavia and Lower Germany), another IE-speaking group well traced.
So everything points to the Kurgan theory having at least some serious weight and that means that IEs are originally from Central Asia, what also explains quite well their double expansion towards Iran-India (eastern branch) and towards Europe (western branch).
The Kurgan theory is an outdated Theory my Turk.Now,it has been proven that the PIE people's homland was in Western Asia and exactly in your own country: the Turkey,and probably in Eastern Turkey.
"As it is easily seen in the Indo-European Chronology, the first documents written in single Indo-European languages, appear around 1900 BC (Hittite), 1600 BC (Aryan), 1400 BC (Mycenaean Greek). "
As you see,2 out of 3 of the first Indo-european written documents (Aryan and Hittite) have been written by those IE's who were living in Western Asia and not in Central Asia.Even the Greece is much closer to Westeran Asia than to Central Asia.
Also we read that:
" All that helped the research very much, but still the matter is under discussion. Still another discipline which studies the issue is the comparison of Indo-European and other language families. Linguists already in the previous century tried to find common roots in Indo-European and Semitic languages, and not just words of common origin, but the loanwords, to show that some contacts took place between Proto-IE and Proto-Semitic peoples. They were a success, and today more than 20 words are found which can be a proof of ancient close language contacts between ethnic groups before they moved from their homelands. Among them, linguistics name IE *tauro- and Semitic *tawr- (a bull), IE *ghaid- (a goat) and Semitic *gadj- (a goat cub) etc. The same borrowed lexics were borrowed by Indo-Europeans from other Afroasiatic, Caucasian, Urartian, Hurrian, Sumerian languages. Building on this, Gamkrelidze and Ivanov believe that the Indo-European homeland lay in Northern Mesopotamia, between the Caucasus and Anatolia, in what is now Kurdistan and Armenia. "l
I ask you! where the Semitic peoples were and are living? in the Central Asia or in the Western Asia?
The map is showing the Aryan (=Indo-Iranian) homeland.Now, Where is the place number 2? Isn't it Kurdistan?!
And now,my winner card,the well-known "nature" magazine,accept that the PIE's homaland was in Anatolia,which was the home of the Kurds for thousands of years:
The Kurds were much smaller during Antiquity. They lived in what is now called northern-most Iraq and the Hakkari province of Turkey. They weren't as spread-out as Ardashir claims. Most of what is called 'Northern Kurdistan' was Armenian land.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum