Print Page | Close Window

Are Kurds Descended From the Medes?

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Ancient Mesopotamia, Near East and Greater Iran
Forum Discription: Babylon, Egypt, Persia and other civilizations of the Near East from ancient times to 600s AD
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=27787
Printed Date: 09-Jul-2020 at 19:31
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Are Kurds Descended From the Medes?
Posted By: Messopotamian
Subject: Are Kurds Descended From the Medes?
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2009 at 05:27
Prof. http://www.kurdistanica.com/?q=node/19 - M. R. Izady

A few years ago, I was given a letter from an American, non-academic individual, asking "Are Kurds descended from the Medes?" I responded as best I could avoiding the myriad of details which might well have diminished rather than enhanced interest in the topic. With the proliferation of printed matter on the Kurds since the Gulf War, this question-or presumption-increasingly arises in the media.

It is also difficult to set aside the political overtones attached to this otherwise academic question. Kurds and the Westerners interested in Kurdish topics--scholars, politicians, reporters, and the general public--have variously attempted to answer what is basically an academic pursuit. Unfortunately, the issue is too often raised to serve a political agenda and a scholarly pursuit. Consequently, this question can no longer be answered without crediting too much or denying too much of the Kurds history-a "history" necessary either to bolster or to deny Kurdish political claims. Apparently, there is an a-priori assumption that if Kurds descended from the ancient and illustrious Medes their claim to an identity, and therefore, to a modern homeland is more valid than would be the case had they simply appeared from nowhere on some auspicious occasion such as the advent of Islam in the 7th century. Admittedly and outside to the field of political gamesmanship, I can only attempt to respond to the question from an academic perspective.

Do Kurds descend from the Medes? Well, yes and no--the same "yes and no" response one might make to the question: "Are Italians descendants of the Romans?" Remember that the Italian peninsula (ancient Etruria) was well populated and boasted a sophisticated civilization before the coming of the Latin tribes who eventually established Rome and fostered what we know as Roman civilization. But they did not stop there. Latin-speaking Romans colonized and settled many lands in Europe and the Middle East. In the process, they imparted their language and many of their cultural traits to the local peoples. Linguistically, in addition to the Italians, the French, Romanians, Catalans, Corsicans, Portuguese, Spaniards (and all of Latin America) also speak Romance (Latin) languages. Thus at least linguistically, not just the Italians, but all these can claim to be the modern Romans.

After the fall of the Roman Empire, many other peoples (primarily Germanic, but Slavs as well) came to settle in Italy, superimposing new genetic and cultural material on what Romans left behind. Some of the most impressive examples of Roman art and architecture are found outside Italy in north Africa and the Middle East. The most important "Roman" thinkers and luminaries also came from outside Italy, from Greece, Spain, Anatolia, Syria…etc. If we were to honor the claim that the Byzantine Empire was in fact the "Eastern Roman Empire," the Greeks and the Anatolians (now Turkified) who spent 1400 years of their history under the "Roman" imperial rule and ran the region for all but 200 years, are more "Roman" than any one else. Italians ceased to be Roman subjects, when they fell outside the sphere of control of Constantinople-the "New Rome", after the 4th century AD.

If we were to call the Italians the modern descendants of the Romans, then it follows that we must also be ready to assume that the multitude of peoples and cultures that were there in the Italian peninsula before the coming of the Roman (Latin) tribes, and those who arrived after the demise of the Romans, all somehow vanished into the thin air. Are not the Italians the progeny of all these peoples and cultures and of the Romans as well? Of course they are.

Well then, are the Italians descended from the Romans? The answer still remains "yes and no." No, because linguistically and culturally, many other peoples share this Roman heritage, not just the Italians. All are equally right to assert that they are the descendants of the ancient Romans. Yes, because the Romans began their career in the Italian peninsula, and only then expanded out to form an empire and to cultivate their culture and language in other places. And when the Latin-speaking Romans were gone, their name and legend remained most tangible and concentrated in the region of their birth: the modern Lazio (ancient Latium), surrounding the city of Rome. On the question of Roman inheritance, Italians are therefore entitled to just a bit more, that which makes them first among equals-or prima inter pares, as a Roman might have put it.

The Italian example illustrates the complications that arise when attempting to apply simplistic questions to complex socio-cultural and processes. A more fundamental flaw in this line of questioning, i.e., Kurdish descent from Medes (or Italians from Romans), emanate from the common assumption that like movies, all peoples and cultures must have a "beginning." Presumably Kurdish descent from the Medes would then place their "beginning" with the reign of the first legendary Median king, Dioces, in 727 BC. But what was happening in 728 BC-a year before Dioces ascended the throne? Where were the Medes? Or were there any Medes before his coronation? Are we to presume that a populous ethnic group, a culture and a language-all appeared miraculously when Dioces decided it was time to crown?

Mesopotamian sources make reference to Medes nearly 500 years prior to this "beginning." Such sources also mention the Zagros and Taurus mountains teaming with other peoples, civilizations and governments with whom Mesopotamians conducted a bustling trade and cultural exchanges, or against whom they warred. What happened to all these sophisticated native populations and states in the area when the Medes "began"?

Median tribes first settled the areas between the modern Hamadan and Kirmanshah in southeastern Kurdistan--the very heartland of Media, and an area that came to be called in the Assyrian record, Medaya, in recognition of this settlement. Medes were a nomadic group who ventured into the Middle East along with other Indo-European-speaking nomads such as the Persians, Armenians, and Afghans. Soon, however, their fortunes eclipsed all others. The Medes first expanded from their heartland in southeastern Kurdistan and their capital, Hamadan (ancient Ecbatana), to cover the Zagros mountains, western parts of the Iranian Plateau and eastern Anatolia. This expanded territory is what the term "Media" meant to classical authors. From here the Medes would ultimately establish an empire stretching from Asia Minor to Central Asia. Their empire was ultimately eclipsed in 549 BC by the rising star of the Medes' cousins, the Persians.

Two thousand years ago, Strabo wrote: "The Medes are said to have been the originators of the customs for the Armenians, and also, still earlier, for the Persians, who were their masters and their successors in the supreme authority over Asia…" (Geography, XI.xiii.9). Strabo further asserts that the Median contributions included the costumes, ornaments, sports, court manners and the mode of kingship (Ibid.). To these Median contributions we also must add religion.

Now, where did the Medes acquire the sophisticated civilization they later passed on to the Persians and Armenians? Surely it could not have been a part of their primitive nomadic heritage that was shared with their fellow nomadic Armenians and Persians. At no time in history have nomads been known for civilized customs or cultural sophistication. And there is no reason to believe the Median nomads who arrived in the Zagros were any different. Most likely, Medes simply inherited the cultures which came under their suzerainty, and in time became their champions. Medes did however bring a language, which matters now, but in all likelihood did not matter then.

Modern Kurds speak a language akin to the Median, i.e., an Indo-European language of the Iranic branch. But so do most other ethnic groups in Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Baluchistan. In a more restricted sense, the language of the modern Kurds belongs to a group of languages (Northwest Iranic) which is concentrated, with the exception of the Baluchi, within the territories of old Media. We can only surmise that the Medes also spoke a language of this branch because, except for a few words and proper names, there are no surviving records of the speech of the Medians. What remains can only affirm conclusively the Indo-European, Iranic identity of the Median language-nothing more. But someone must have originated the Northwest Iranic group of languages, and the Medes remain the best, if not the only known candidates to have done so.

But linguistically, the Gilanis, Mazandaranis, Tats, Talishis, and Baluchis, all have as much in common with the Medes as do the Kurds: they all speak Northwest Iranic languages! In fact, the now Turkic-speaking Azeris, if they so choose, can also lay strong claim to the legacy of the Medes. In classical times, Azerbaijan was nearly always included as a part of Media. Moreover, the Azeris became linguistically Turkified only a few centuries ago. Their very ethnic name still remains Iranic.

Clearly, this matter cannot be settled linguistically, even if we knew precisely what the Medes spoke. Too many other ethnic groups share their linguistic past with the Kurds, and presumably all of them with the Medes.

So how about geography or ethnography? Median territories included mountains as well as the neighboring plains. Strabo tells us that most of Media is cold and mountainous, particularly "those mountains which lie above Ecbatana/Hamadan"; but he also recognizes the extension of greater Media into the balmier plains to the east where one now finds the bustling Persian communities and cities such as Teheran and Isfahan.(Geography, XI.xiii.7)

During the period of their ascendancy, all earlier peoples who inhabited the territories that came to be called Media were lumped together and called Medes by outsiders. On the other hand, when Strabo wrote his geography, the ethnic name "Mede" (if it ever had such connotation, particularly after the establishment of the empire), was already dead. Old ethnic names had re-emerged, or new ones had appeared in place of those that died out. However, "Media" as a geographical designator remained. And this geographical designator, like that of Rome after its political demise, kept shrinking until in Islamic times it had receded to were the ancient Median began their expansive careers in southeastern Kurdistan--the area between Hamadan (their ancient capital) and Kirmanshah. Until about eight centuries ago, that region in southeastern Kurdistan was still called Mah (i.e., Media). Like Latium and Rome in Italy--and their special place in the story of rise and twilight of the Romans--what little remains today of the old Medians and the name "Mede," is found densely concentrated in southeastern Kurdistan--the site of the rise and twilight of the Medes. In fact there are still some Kurdish tribes and clans who carry the evolved forms of the name "Mede." Among these are the Meywandlu, Meymand, Mamand, and the Mafi, to name a few. The largest plain in that entire region is still called, Mahy Dasht, "The Plain of Medes."

A composite past is virtually the norm for every old civilization. It would be very strange otherwise. The Persians, Arabs and (though they prefer not to admit it), the Turks--all have similarly composite pasts, as do the Italians and all other peoples and culture that have evolved in these, some of the planet's oldest civilized parts.

Considering this complicated picture, which ethnic groups can claim to be the descended from the Medes? If it mattered--and I do not believe it does--then Kurds along with a few others can make this claim. But like the Italians, who can claim a little bit more of the Roman legacy than the others on geographical and chronological grounds , the Kurds can do likewise in respect to the Medes. For like the Italians, they too are 'first among equals.'

The Medes added nothing of particular cultural value to justify fighting over their inheritance. The civilization and cultural lux ascribed to the elusive Medes they had adopted from the indigenous peoples and illustrious cultures they found already in place when they arrived in western Asia as nomadic immigrants in circa 1100 BC. Kurdish culture, which identifies the Kurdish people, has its native roots in the distinguished legacy of all those who preceded the Medes, but also includes the Medes. Only for a relatively short time did those mountains come to be called Media. And the Medes who settled in the Zagros brought little but they learned much from the local indigenous people with an ancient and sophisticated civilization. Before merging their identity with them, the Medes enriched the local cultures with one more layer of experience and one more addition of genes into their racial pool. And what they left behind after their ethnic name disappeared, continued to evolve through cultures and peoples who came after them, settled in the area and in turn disappeared into the local milieu.

Yes, Kurds as the descendants of the Medes inasmuch as they contributed genetically and linguistically to the formation of what the Kurds are today. No, Kurds are not descendants of the Medes as their civilized ancestors were already in place when the Medes appeared, flourished, and ultimately disappeared. Kurds need not have come at some given date from some other place into their present homeland; indeed they did not. They and their culture are the progeny of an evolution of native inhabitants and cultures of the Zagros-Taurus mountain systems, coming to us from remote antiquity. The addition of a Median ingredient was only one of countless many.

Let us conclude that neither Kurds or any other nation require ad discrete beginning. Only the most fanciful movie buffs can think of the intricate processes of the evolution of nations as one that needs a beginning, and an end.

Source: “Are Kurds descended from the Medes?”, Kurdish Life, Number 10, 1994




Replies:
Posted By: Messopotamian
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2009 at 10:11
Mittani ( Mittani)
Kardox(Cardochoi)
Xalde(Khalde)
Mad(Medes)
Hurrî ( Hurrians)
 
are Ancestors of Kurdish people...
 
edit: Kermanji Kurds direct descendents of Medes...


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2009 at 13:30
not medes. Meden origin dont known clearly. Like mittani and hurrians . You can call Kurds and persians relative, thats true but that ones arent.
Mittani ( Mittani)
Kardox(Cardochoi)
Xalde(Khalde)
Mad(Medes)
Hurrî ( Hurrians)




Posted By: Messopotamian
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2009 at 07:44
Originally posted by İskit

not medes. Meden origin dont known clearly. Like mittani and hurrians . You can call Kurds and persians relative, thats true but that ones arent.
Mittani ( Mittani)
Kardox(Cardochoi)
Xalde(Khalde)
Mad(Medes)
Hurrî ( Hurrians)


 
Look:
 
 Dry : Old Persian "ushke-", Median "fishke-" Kurdish " Wishk"
 
Median " Rojiya " Persian " Xorshid " Kurdish " Rojiyar/Roj"
 
Please dont answer with nationalist ideas.Kurds are Nortwest iranian people,Medes too. Persians Southwest iranians.
 
 
Mittani ( Mittani)
Kardox(Cardochoi)
Xalde(Khalde)
Mad(Medes)
Hurrî ( Hurrians)
 
They are Same origin ! not diffrent .They are ancestor of Kurdish people
 
 
Medes there are bible. I asked Bible experts, They say " They are diffrent.Medes and Persians."
 
Bible  say " Medes AND Persians!"
 
 
 
 
Persians call himself Rulers " Shah"
 
Kurds " Key"
 
KeyXusrew ( Cyaxares) Medean king...
 
in Turkish " Baska söze ne hacet.."


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2009 at 08:34
Originally posted by Messopotamian

Originally posted by İskit

not medes. Meden origin dont known clearly. Like mittani and hurrians . You can call Kurds and persians relative, thats true but that ones arent.
Mittani ( Mittani)
Kardox(Cardochoi)
Xalde(Khalde)
Mad(Medes)
Hurrî ( Hurrians)


 
Look:
 
 Dry : Old Persian "ushke-", Median "fishke-" Kurdish " Wishk"
 
Median " Rojiya " Persian " Xorshid " Kurdish " Rojiyar/Roj"
 
Please dont answer with nationalist ideas.Kurds are Nortwest iranian people,Medes too. Persians Southwest iranians.
 
 
Mittani ( Mittani)
Kardox(Cardochoi)
Xalde(Khalde)
Mad(Medes)
Hurrî ( Hurrians)
 
They are Same origin ! not diffrent .They are ancestor of Kurdish people
 
 
Medes there are bible. I asked Bible experts, They say " They are diffrent.Medes and Persians."
 
Bible  say " Medes AND Persians!"
 
 
 
 
Persians call himself Rulers " Shah"
 
Kurds " Key"
 
KeyXusrew ( Cyaxares) Medean king...
 
in Turkish " Baska söze ne hacet.."


Nationalsim, you are making this not mine.
You know nothing about Hurrians-mittani or medians etc. Yuo read somewhere bla bla is ancestors of kurds and you write it here.

At the other and dont use stupid linguist objects for define a people. İt means nothing to me. Dont come me with İE theory too. İts full of stupid linguistic too.

Mittani-hurrians dont live where medians live. We know a litte about them too. there are lots of thery about their origin. They can be Turk or Pers or Kurd or sumerian or sami(arab) origin. Or they have a mixed origin.

And medes most the follwer of ie theory belive they are persian people. İ dont believe any part of İe theory. Like this one too.

İf you ask origins of kurd they same with persians to the end of the sasanid period. After sasanids fall hey became apeear . But they have never have  indipendent nation. İf you ask the motherland of kurd ists Zorgos mountains in modern persia. Not anatolia. Kurds come anatolia in the peroiof of selim 1 (selim the grim) period.






Posted By: Messopotamian
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2009 at 09:04
Hehehe.medes are persian but they speak difrent languages ha? Okey, you know everythink.and its not zorgos. It is ZAGROS! MEDES LIVING ZAGROS AND ZAGROS AROUND.DONT SAY AGAIN STUPID FOR OUR LANGUAGE , ME TOO WILL Bad words! Reality is cruel...


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2009 at 09:32
Originally posted by Messopotamian

Hehehe.medes are persian but they speak difrent languages ha? Okey, you know everythink.and its not zorgos. It is ZAGROS! MEDES LIVING ZAGROS AND ZAGROS AROUND.DONT SAY AGAIN STUPID FOR OUR LANGUAGE , ME TOO WILL Bad words! Reality is cruel...


I don say your language is stupid. İ said not come with me supid linguistic.

Do you know linguistic?

Look i wil give a example to you.

İ talk about mittain/ hurrians. And you know nothing about them.

And about zargos;

The prehistoric origin of the Medes lies in the common http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Iranians - Indo-Iranian homeland in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_steppes - Eurasian steppes . The early Iranian expansion takes them towards the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Plateau - Persian Plateau and the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zagros - Zagros mountains during the later second millennium BC as part of the population movements associated with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age_collapse - Bronze Age collapse .

Eurasian steppes not equal zargos mountains. Zargos mountains not motherland of mittani/hurrians/medes.

İ think they have been any iranian at Eurasia steppes anytime in the world. Say again ı dont believe any part of the "stupid" İe theory  .Buts its a subject of another topic.






Posted By: Messopotamian
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2009 at 09:49
I said again, IT IS NOT ZARGOS! It IS ZAGROS.do u know kurmanji means? SON OF MAGI. Magi is Medean tribe. I said again, ask everybody,medes nrtwest iranian like kurds.Persians southwest iranian. Languages are diffrent... ALL historians acepted Kurds descendents of medes but nationalist say , kurds are monkey, they dont have ancstor. Look iran, Hamedan was medean capital,today kurds live ths region,


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2009 at 11:27
ok ZAGROS . Bu ıt brings no diffrence.

99.9 percent of this forum members believe İndia -euroan theory but ı not. So no need the ask anyone for me.

İ said my opinion here. Persians = Kurds to end of the sasanid empire. So to the end of sasanids Kurds have same history with persians.
Abuot medians ı dont believe they are ancestors of modern persians or kurds.

Achaemenids; who destroyed the medians and found their dynastasy are ancestors of them. After that some parthians assimilated in that. This 2 one are ancestors of modern Kurds and Persians.

Not; mittani/medes etc.

İ dont say anything about monkes etc. İs it ok?



Posted By: Messopotamian
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2009 at 12:57
Yes you dont say. Today kurds living cities of Medes.xiongnu are ancstor of turks.same as medes ancstor of kurds.it is Not only my idea.HISTorians says this


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2009 at 13:07
Originally posted by Messopotamian

Yes you dont say. Today kurds living cities of Medes.xiongnu are ancstor of turks.same as medes ancstor of kurds.it is Not only my idea.HISTorians says this


Todays Turk in Turkey live in  ancient hittian/lydian/ byzantian lands. This not makes turks ancestors them. Living in media not make them median.

About historians (most of them propogandist) said my ideas upper posts.


Posted By: Messopotamian
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2009 at 15:05
Hahaha Herodotus,Ksenophon are propagandist?


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2009 at 22:50
Originally posted by Messopotamian

Hahaha Herodotus,Ksenophon are propagandist?


İ didnt give any name to yuo. İt is a general opinion.


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2009 at 04:51

As I had said before Kurds (Sumerian Karda, Akkadian Kurti, Greek Kurtioi) have certainly a longer history in this region than Medes (Old Persian Maada, Assyrian Maadai, Babylonian Maadaaya), they have been menioned from at least the 3rd millennium B.C, while you can never find any mention of Medes in the western Iran before the first millennium B.C.

Maada/Maadai were probably an Indo-European people who originally lived somewhere in the Central Asia or southern Siberia, it is possible that they had to migrate to Modern Iran after the invasion by Turkic people, there are some ancient stories among the Altai people about Maadai.

http://journal.oraltradition.org/files/articles/15ii/3_harvilahti.pdf - Altai Oral Epic by Lauri Harvilahti :

The beginning of Maadai-Kara is a typical description of the mythical time and golden age. The epic begins with familiar elements from the mythical landscape, including the holy poplar as a symbol of eternal life. Maadai-Kara is an old hero who has already lost his power. He sleeps for sixty days. When he finally wakes up, he notices that a hostile kaan (lord or ruler) is approaching in order to seize him and capture his livestock, people, and property. When his wife gives birth to a son, Kögüdei Mergen, Maadai- Kara hides the boy in the black mountain and leaves him under the protection of the birch trees of Altai. The hostile Kara-Kula Kaan arrives and enslaves the white-faced people of Maadai-Kara.



-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2009 at 05:00
Maada/Maadai were probably an Indo-European people who originally lived somewhere in the Central Asia or southern Siberia

They have never been iranians at Central asia or altai region or siberia, or dest-i kıpcak.
İf you want to see iranians look toward to india not turk lands. This places homeland of Turks starting of the age. Not İranians.

And whats the diffrences of kurds and persians to acamenids to end of sasanids. How you define them.



Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2009 at 05:24
There is still a country named Tajikistan in Central and everyone knows that Iranian-speaking peoples like Sogdians lived in a large part of Central Asia from very ancient times, what do you want to deny?!!
Kurds are an Iranian-speaking people, there are certainly some differences between them and Persians, I myself as a Persian-speaking Iranian can't understand Kurdish language, Persian is similar to the languages of Afghans and Tajiks, of course there are a large number of similar words in Kurdish and Persian languages too.

-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2009 at 05:58
İn turkey most of Kurds understand persian. But you dont. İts ok. ( ım not kurd and dont know kurdish so cant say my own opinion)



What about siberia,altai region or dest-i kıpcak. Can you find İranians here? ( ı clearly know yuo will say ossetians, but their langugae is not persian)

İ said Turk lands as you now . İt means east and west turkestan for middle asia. Of course non turk nations always be in middle asia like tibetians. İn sogdinia Turks and persian lived togather most of times.


İ said;
İf you want to see iranians look toward to india not turk lands.
Todays pakistan belongs india in history as you know.







Posted By: Messopotamian
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2009 at 08:47
Hahahaha.No! Kurmanjis not understand Persian. (:


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2009 at 09:13
It sounds great that Kurds of Turkey understand Persian language, I think Messopotamian is one of them, I ask him: "Aya shoma az tarze negaresho khaneshe zabane Parsi agahie kafi darid?"
 
İskit, I think your username shows that you believe Scythians were not an Iranian people, whenas it is already a proven historical fact that they were certainly an Iranian-speaking people, their original land was where modern Turkic peoples live, so there could be some cultural interchanges between them and Turks who entered those regions several centuries later but it doesn't change the fact that Scythians were the ancestors of some Iranian people who still live in those regions, like Ossetians that you mentioned. I think it is more believable to say Turkey has been always the land of Turks, than Central Asia!

-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2009 at 02:33
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

It sounds great that Kurds of Turkey understand Persian language, I think Messopotamian is one of them, I ask him: "Aya shoma az tarze negaresho khaneshe zabane Parsi agahie kafi darid?"
 
Some of them that ı talked face to face they understand persian some.  But how many percent they understand ı dot know.

For example ı understand Azeri Turkish very well, but kazak or krgız Turkish much less understand.


And two type of kurds live in Turky not one. One type is kirmanji other ones are zaza.(some of zazas call themself Turk instead of kurd) . So asking mesopotamian bring us nothing.

İskit, I think your username shows that you believe Scythians were not an Iranian people, whenas it is already a proven historical fact that they were certainly an Iranian-speaking people, their original land was where modern Turkic peoples live, so there could be some cultural interchanges between them and Turks who entered those regions several centuries later but it doesn't change the fact that Scythians were the ancestors of some Iranian people who still live in those regions, like Ossetians that you mentioned. I think it is more believable to say Turkey has been always the land of Turks, than Central Asia!


Not a historical fact. You and others "believe" Scythians were an Iranian people. Me an other ones not believe.

İn Turkey in primary and high school books  show Scythians as a Turk. Most of populatin support this idea. Serius historians from Turkey other Turk countries and  around all the world (not propogandist ones) , like mirfatih zekiyev, orazak ismagulov,R. G. Kuzeyev etc shows real (not artifical or corrupt linguistic like İE historians show) historcal sources to support the idea. Not all the world accept İndia Europan theory as a fact. Because ıts not.

All the people who read here  must read the book ;

About origins of Turkic peoples Laypanov K.T., Miziyev I.M. ; you will see what truth is.

More  real sources and writings will come in 10-20 years. İE historians will see they were wrong.



İ hate to put large articles to forums.  but sometimes ıt needs. Read this article carefully cyrus ;

Scythians Ethnic Affiliation

The following discourse addresses the reasons for the current universal acceptance by the scientific community of the preposition that the Scythians were unambiguously Indo-European, and specifically Iranian speaking, and the methods to reach this conclusion. It does not address the attribution of the Scythians to a particular ethnic community. The acceptance of the Indo-European theory has a long history, and its history in itself is an interesting subject of study. The scholars of a number of nations were involved in the Scythian studies, because geographically, the Scythian area covers an enormous territory. The Russian politicians and scientists, who had a special interest in these studies, and the German scholars, who made decisive contributions to the subject, led the way in establishing the criteria, methods, and conclusions currently shared by the scientific community at large. Since I am more familiar with the history and attitudes in the Russian studies, I will mostly stay within the limits of the Russian science.

In pre-1700’s, the Scythians were known in the Western Europe, and from there in Russia, from the works of the ancient writers, principally Herodotus. At that time, the accepted wisdom was that the Herodotus’ Scythians were the precursors of Türks, with the Türks branching into Slavic, Mongol, Finnish, Baltic, Ugrian, and unspecified other variations. There was a millennia-long string of historical references linking Herodotus’ Scythians with the Türks, so there was no need to question this postulate. That is, until the Northern Pontic area fell into the lap of the Russian Empire, there was no archeology to contend with. And only when the kurgans and their contents became known in the West, the question of their attribution came to the attention of the Western scientists. The archeological excavations in the 19th c. showed that Herodotus and other historians faithfully recorded the specks of the history of the Eurasian peoples. The archeological excavations created a tremendous opportunity to analyze and absorb the newly found predecessors into the “We-world” of the Western Europe.

A Polish aristocrat in the service of Russia, Jan Potocki at about 1805 gave instruction to Heinrich Julius von Klaproth (1783-1835) for ethnographic journey to the recently seized N. Caucasus, who published the work "Reise in den Kaukasus und nach Georgien unternommen in den Jahren 1807 und 1808" (I-II, Halle and Berlin 1812-14); in an appendix, entitled "Kaukasische Sprachen", for the first time von Klaproth formulated a hypothesis of Scytho-Sarmatian origin of Ossetic. In his later work, "Memoire dans lequel on prouve 1'identite des Ossetes, peuplade du Caucase, avec les Alains du moyen-age" (Nouvelles annales des voyages 16, 1822, p. 243-56), von Klaproth completed the sequence Scytho-Sarmatians > Alans > Ossetes. http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/27_Scythians/Ethnic%20Affiliation%20Scythians%20En.htm#Agusti_Alemany - (9)

That hypothesis was furthered by K. Zeiss with a work published in the 1837 in Munich, that suggested to identify Scythians with the Iranian-lingual tribes based on the religion, territory of Iranians and the common Scythian and Persian words http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/27_Scythians/Ethnic%20Affiliation%20Scythians%20En.htm#Zakiev - (1) . At that time, in the Western culture the contemporary concept of racism did not exist, it was perfectly clear that the humans are divided into superiors and inferiors, and that anything worth of attention was produced by the superior races. The inferiors could at best only approach the superiors, and in the worst case were savages. The superior art and skills of the kurgan burials, brought to the attention of the Western European scientists, were undoubtedly civilized, i.e. European. The extent of the classification was matching the erudition and mindset of the classifier http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/27_Scythians/Ethnic%20Affiliation%20Scythians%20En.htm#Mullenchoff - (2) . This trend endured in the consecutive European research. The 2000 monograph that compiles sources on the Alans, is outstanding in bringing into the scientific fold a listing of 200 sources, but in a peculiar tunnel vision it ignores obvious non-IE etymologies, while repeating the improbable dainties of  count Vs. Miller in service of Russia, and http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/27_Scythians/OssetianLanguageAbaev.htm - V.I.Abaev in service of Russia http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/27_Scythians/Ethnic%20Affiliation%20Scythians%20En.htm#Agusti_Alemany - (9, a shy tiny footnote on page 2 is all it takes to base a scientific analysis of a major work) .

In the era when a peer review was not yet canonized, the flattering deductions of the urban dwelling sedentary Indo-European cabinet scientists were received with enthusiasm accorded to the reputation of the experts. There were alternate opinions, like those of K. Neumann, 1855 http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/27_Scythians/Ethnic%20Affiliation%20Scythians%20En.htm#Neumann - (3) , who came to differing conclusions. The alternate opinions managed to introduce a factor of inconclusiveness in the concept, but failed to impress the scientific community into revising the upsurging concept. Some scholars hedged their opinions by qualifiers. The others dropped the shades and selected sides, joining the universal acceptance by the scientific community of the Indo-European concept.

One of the reasons that unbalanced the scales was the geographical extent of the archeological artifacts. In the 19-20 centuries, though the most prominent kurgans were concentrated in the vicinity of the Northern Pontic, the European kurgan burials were found in the area that extended from the southern desert to the forest zone in the north, and from the German lands to Volga. The organized and civilized societies they represented were not savages, i.e. could not be Mongolian, Finnish, Ugrian, Türkic, Bask, Albanian etc., but definitely the civilized Indo-European. Europe could not be inhabited by the non- Indo-Europeans, not to that extent.

The “discovery” of kurgans coincided with the discoveries in the Russian historical studies of the times. Early in the 18th century, ruler of the emerging Russian Empire, Peter I, undertook to hire the best European historians to write a Russian history. At the time, the budding Empire was a quilt of recently subjugated nations, including Slavic and foreign. The need for a unifying ideology was urgent, and so was the need for the ideological justifications of the future acquisitions. The superiority of the Slavs was an axiom, but it needed a historical validation. After a much reading into the Russian Primary Chronicles, it was re-established that the Russian ruling class descended from the Scandinavians, and the Slavic folks came from the Carpathians. V.Tatischev, M.Lomonosov, and N.Karamzin suggested that the Slavs traced back to Scythians or Sarmatians. The Scythians at that time were regarded as Turkic, and the Sarmatians as multi-ethnic Indo-Europeans. Both classifications were mostly of a speculative nature.

Today, the search for the Slavic roots has a 300 years history. Among the main autochthonous theories is the Vistula basin, Dniepr, and Carpathians. The supposed historical predecessors are Veneds and Balto-Slavs for the folks, and Scandinavians and Balto-Slavs for the ruling class. Thousands of history books and encyclopedias were published in the past 3 centuries. The fabled Solovyev history is contained in 50-some volumes. To whatever detail went the search, it stopped down at the 9th century, taking a super vague view to the time before that. Up until now, the recorded facts related to the pre-9th century Slavic history do not exist as far as the Russian historiography is concerned.

The Russian historiography cannot reconcile the record about Slavs, serving in the Atilla’s army together with his German subjects, with the coming of Ruriks to govern the Slavs. The Hunnish period lasted for 130 years, from c. 420 to c. 558, impacting the Slavic tribes. The following 250-year period of life in the Avar Kaganate from 558 to 805 also must have shaped and impacted the Slavic tribes. In the Indo-European scheme of the Russian historiography this period does not exist. Did Slavs come out more indigenous after 250 years of Avaric rule than, say, Volga Bolgars after 250 years of the Slavic rule? There is no research on the Avar period, moreover, neither the Avar nor Hunnish periods ever existed in the Slavic history, as far as the Russian historiography is concerned. The following period of the Khazarian rule, when the Eastern Slavs were members of the Khazarian Kaganate, and their Scandinavian mercenary rulers were in the service of the Khazarian state, also conveniently does not exist. Also does not exist the Bolgar period, when the Eastern Slavs were members of the Bolgarian Kaganate and its remnant Beilyks. In the Imperial period, that ended in 1917, the history of the peoples did not exist, and the history of the territories started from the time of their conquest. In the Soviet period, the contents of the official Russian history remained about the same, with added spice of civilization benefits, generosity, and friendship that the Russian conquerors showered on the subjected peoples.

In the Soviet Russia the handling of the history on a number of occasions led to a country-wide crises, when the old books had to be expediently destroyed in all libraries, homes and schools in the country, while the new versions were hurriedly written or approved or published. By the time Orwell published his “1984”, it has already happened, and many times after that. The earliest records of the historical manipulations trace back to the 1500, when the emerging Moscow kingdom clamed the Lithuanian lands. In the Imperial period, the re-creation of the history became a full-blown trade. In the Soviet period, it reached a state of an art carried by industrial methods. The re-invention of the history was always inspired by the ruling officialdom, soon permeating the whole society, when the population was shaped mostly in the primary and secondary school systems. In the later Imperial period, the local historical and archeological societies had a chance to document facts inconsistent with the official historiography. In the Soviet period, any remnants of the independent thought were eradicated, usually together with their carriers. In these conditions, a concept of a peer review was distorted to a caricature. The heavy jelly of the official historiography gripped both the reviewed and the reviewer. In most cases, the rules of behavior were not stated, they had to be understood with the guts.

In the upper echelons of the scientific establishment, a heavy handed system of pre-qualifications, tests in the politically correct subjects, and august referrals remains to ensure that only conformist scholars had the opportunity for the scientific research. The ability to research and publish is rigidly linked to the ability to conform to the correct line. This is a backbone of the Russian historical science, and it encompasses the contributory sciences of archeology, linguistics, numismatics, anthropology, culture, literature etc. In the absence of a free research, the science industry was flooded by quasi-scientific research, which became an accepted norm for a scientific carrier. In the Scythian studies, the politically correct line is the Indo-European attribution, and any personal development is possible only toiling the correct path, facts or no facts notwithstanding.

Generations of scientists of all disciplines participated in the Russian Scythian studies. Initially, the Indo-European classification of the Scythians had a weak justification, and it had to develop against the accepted beliefs based on the evidence of the contemporaries. At the same time, it was fitting well into the German and Russian nationalist agenda, providing a pedigree of traceability extending beyond the Bronze Age. In the last 160 years, which passed since 1837, was developed the linguistical and anthropological evidence necessary to convert a maverick idea into a postulate widely accepted by the scientific community.

The 1949 work of V. Abaev was a cardinal contribution to the factual material http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/27_Scythians/Ethnic%20Affiliation%20Scythians%20En.htm#Abaev - (4) . The scientific value of the work is well defined by the words of the author himself, that in Scythian language "all we cannot explain with the help of Iranian, actually cannot be explained at all". Disavowing that work would send much of the Indo-European theory crushing. On the other hand, linking the glorious past of the ancient Great Power with a contemporary obscure ethnical group within the Russian multiethnic powder keg was a significant achievement by the ruling plutocracy. It was well timed with the politically correct task of the day, that is to substantiate scientifically the deportation of the number of ethnic, mostly Türkic, people from the territories conquered by the Russian Empire in the previous century. V. Abaev’s work was a living proof that from the ancient historical times the Indo-European population inhabited the Northern Pontic and Caspian territories, and the deported nations were late migrants who took possession of the territory belonging to the autochthonous population. It was published 6 years after the Russian rulers assigned to all Russian historians a task of re-writing the history, de-linking the population of the Northern Caucasus, Kama and Volga region from the ancient inhabitants, and re-associating with to the popularly hated Tatar-Mongol invaders.

About the scientific validity of the work not much can be said. Any notion of a peer review in Russia cannot be taken seriously. The obscurity of the Ossetian language, and a vacuum in the studies of its linguistic history, make it unlikely that peers will ever review the Ossetian theory. The Iranians, found to be speaking the Scythian language, are completely mum on the subject. The other significant Iranian speaking groups, like Pashtuns, are also silent. So, it is left to those Indo-European scholars of the Iranian languages to explain the etymology of the Ossetian/Iranian Scythian vocabulary, and provide the incontestable proof to the scientific community at large. And the mightily supported Indo-European theory, untested, unchallenged and un-peer reviewed, for now stands. The verdict reads "North-East Middle Iranian language". For a side observer, that should mean that a random contemporary speaker of the "North-East Middle Iranian language" should at least get a clue hearing another "North-East Middle Iranian language" speaker. Ossetians would not manage to squeeze in this category, with their 80% lexically non-IE language, and 100% phonetically, morphologically, and sintaxically non-IE language. Finns have better chances understanding Greeks.

The flow of quasi-scientific research papers linking the known Scythian vocabulary to this or that obscure language, found in some mountain valley with few speakers, still proliferates, without a chance for a second opinion due to the absence of experts in that language, or the studies of the underlying language itself. Frequently, these works tell more about the writer than about the subject of the work. I. Pyankov, for example, attributes to the Irano-Scythians the plural suffix ty/ta, evidently without having even a rudimentary acquaintance with the fact that this suffix, for example, is also a Türkic suffix. Specifically, in modern Turkish it is a place case suffix, denoting the case "where something is/has been/will be' or 'where something occurs/has occurred/will occur", and used after ch, f, h, k, p, s, sh, or t, as in 'kitapta' - in the book or 'jipte' - in the jip. So, even without the well-known uncertainty caused by the fluidity of the vowels, the linguistic argumentation is presumptuous. But I. Pyankov proceeds to classify the Scythian language as the Iranian type based on a presence in the contemporary group vocabulary of a single letter t http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/27_Scythians/Ethnic%20Affiliation%20Scythians%20En.htm#Pyiankov - (5) . This quasi-scientific process is mirrored in the science of physical anthropology, in Russian called simply the anthropology

Scythian images are known from the earliest historical times well into the first millennia A.D. Scythians looked European. They looked enough European to qualify for the Indo-European pedigree. And from here flows their ancestry. By a reverse projection, the Afanasevo, 2500-1700 BC, and Andronovo, 1700-1200 BC, populations are swept into the Indo-European fold, creating a cradle for all Indo-Europeans and filling in the blanks for the Indo-European dissemination. True, the Scythians did not look any more Indo-European than the European Finns, Basks, Albanians, Etruscans and other patently non Indo-European inhabitants of Europe. Here the historical linguistics comes to aid. The physical anthropology shows Scythians as Caucasians, and the linguistics shows them as Indo-European Caucasians. In other words, they are Iranian Ossetians. Iranian Ossetians from Sea to shining Sea.

The archeological expeditions uncovered sufficient remains to produce detailed anthropological studies. Some remains were found frozen and in perfect condition for the scientific studies. The Russian anthropology is built on the concepts of J. Blumenbach, 1752 - 1840, who proposed a system for classifying humans into five different races based on the anatomy, and E. Hooton, 1887 – 1954, who framed it in a very descriptive format with careful measurements and anatomical details. And the super task of the Russian anthropological and archeological studies is to show the autochthony of the Indo-European and, if a slightest hint can be found, of the Slavic population in the region of the study. In the Scythian region, the silent craniums are either Mongoloids and therefore Ural-Altaics, or Caucasoids and therefore Indo-Europeans. They cannot be non-Indo-European Caucasoids. The archeological dating and cultural classification make the Caucasoid finds to speak Iranian or Slavic. Thus the anthropology supports the Indo-European theory. Even in the cases when no faithfully described artifacts indicate an Indo-Iranism, the title and preamble of the publication invariably attribute the artifacts to the Indo-Iranism.

A crucial role in the Indo-Iranian attribution is given to Veda. Everywhere, where the Caucasian remains are found, works the irrefutable logical chain of the site-artifact-Veda-Iranian language. The Caucasians are determined by their noses. A flat face produces a Mongoloid, and a flaring nose produces a Caucasian, invariably an Iranian/Ossetian speaking. An Iranian Caucasian, taking a Mongoloid wife, produces a Caucasian Iranian/Ossetian speaking male offspring, and a Mongoloid daughter of unattributable descent. The expeditions, investigating the Scythian territories, like a lasting Khoresmian Expedition, invariably discover a layer of the Caucasian Iranian speaking stock, proving over again the Ossetian nature of the Scythians. Never mind that Ammianus called the Persians subnigri. Never mind that the definitely Europoid Scythians were often depicted with thin beards (H. Schoppa 1933, 21-22). In 443 AD the Alans of Sapaudia (Lyon) showed a Mongoloid strain. Never mind individuals of the South Siberian type were among the Sarmatians at Kalinovka in the Volga region. There must be Iranian black subnigri and white subnigri, Iranian Mongoloids and Iranian South Siberians. They've got to fit the Iranian doctrine. And like in the other instances, most of the Slavic ends were frequently produced using non-Slavic people in the service of the Slavic-dominated state.

The review of the politically correct scientific half-truths and outright falsifications would not be complete without addressing the treatment of the unsuitable facts.

Time to time the life brings to light a fact that contradicts the official theory. In Russia, the facts can be disposed of by explaining them away, silencing them, ignoring them, or destroying them. One example of explaining away is the attribution of a fact to an import, like the nomadic animal art copied from the advanced Iranian/Greek/Mediterranean settled population. The silencing is best done by hiding it, like the Scythian artifacts hidden in the storage of Hermitage, to hide the splendor and skill of the population preceding the Slavic migrants. The inscriptions can be ignored, to retain the concept of the illiteracy of the nomadic population, invariably repeated in every publication. And the destruction continues on an industrial scale, some by design, some by shear negligence. Cities and kurgans are being ploughed over, records and bones destroyed, samples not analyzed, results not published, the hand written records and collections of the pre-Soviet time archeological societies lost and destroyed. Whatever are the means, the official theory remains unscathed. The former USSR and now the Russian Academy of Sciences has a long history of never acknowledging the evidence that contradicts the official stance. Historically, it was not an enviable preposition for a Russian scientist: either silence, or else.

The dissenters, who exist in all societies and in all times, had to either remain silent, or pay a heavy toll. Here again existed a circus air, when even the loyal followers could be labeled dissenters upon a turn in the official position. Like in the Imperial times, in the Soviet time some dissent always survived in a camouflaged form, masked as poetry, novels, anti anti-official assertions, and other innocently looking works. Usually the camouflage was supported by a loyal lip service in the beginning paragraphs. Not infrequently, both the august referent and the author worked in tandem disguising the true substance of the work.

The Iranian/Ossetian Scythian theory has all the traits of a politically correct theory. It is built on a thinnest foundation of an obscure language, and is not supported by the evidence and foresight connected with what is usually called a scientific theory. The cultural heritage, traceable for millennia among other peoples of the world, has not been shown to display links between the Ossetian, Pashtu, or other Iranian speaking peoples, and the details of the Scythian life described by the ancient writers. No traces, specific to the Scythian nomadism of the historical period, found their parallels in the historically documented Indo-European societies. It is well shown in the work of a prominent export on nomadism A. Khazanov http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/27_Scythians/Ethnic%20Affiliation%20Scythians%20En.htm#Khazanov - (6) .

The extensive Indo-European ethnology documents such cultural attributes as dress, food, drinks, conservation of produce, family relationships, housing, sanitary traditions, military traditions, societal organization, cosmological concepts, literary traditions, mythological and folk tale traditions, art, and a myriad of other traits. In many cases, the prominence of these traits far exceeds the significance of the other characteristics. For example, the Scythian mercenaries were a major, if not the only, force in the armies of a number of the states, during almost a millennia period. The Scythian warriors in the Scythian conical hats, Scythian boots, Scythian pants, on the Scythian horses and with Scythian composite bows are shown innumerable times in the historical records and became a staple image of the generic Scythian. The Ossetian ethnography of the historical period would have to come up with at least a remote echo of these mercenary military traditions wearing Ossetian conical hats, Ossetian boots, Ossetian pants, riding the Ossetian horses and with Ossetian composite bows. In the absence of such ethnological links, the Indo-European theory would remain a murky propaganda myth. The so-called universal acceptance can become a scientific concept only when the multidisciplinary evidence converges to the same conclusion.

The anthropological studies of the ethnography should have traceable, statistically significant, links between the Scythian and Indo-European populations. The genetic make-up of the populations is a powerful tool that will be used for the http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/27_Scythians/s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/64%20Pazyryk/Pazyryk_gensEn.html - studies that are practically non-existent now. http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/27_Scythians/Ethnic%20Affiliation%20Scythians%20En.htm#cavalli - (7) . The http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/27_Scythians/s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/63%20Blood%20Type/Blood%20TypesRu.htm#Scythian%20enigma - blood type , predominating in the Indo-European people, should be visibly present in the Scythian population http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/27_Scythians/Ethnic%20Affiliation%20Scythians%20En.htm#fogazzid - (8) . The absence of such studies in Russia is explained by the insufficient funds and a shortage of specialists, to the convenience of the supporters of the status quo. The anthropological aspect of the archeological research should extend beyond the fossilized nose angle criteria anthropology, to be complemented by the dental, skeletal, foramental and other telltale traits of the physical anthropology. The absence of the multidisciplinary studies, which, in the vision of Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza would include the “paleoanthropology, archeology, ecology, history, demography, sociology, cultural and physical anthropology, linguistics, toponomastics and anthroponymy”, does not give much credence to the “universal acceptance” by the scientific community of the preposition that the Scythians were unambiguously Indo-European.

The search for Indo-European roots, whether explicit or implicit, is a substantial driving force subsidizing the expensive archeological research. Without a doubt, the Sakian and Scythian studies would have been on a much smaller scale if they did not have the Indo-European connotations. The financial participation of the Western scientific organizations in many cases was the major incentive in the planning of the direction for the archeological research. It is possible that the acceptance of the alternate concept would substantially dry up the research funds available with the Indo-European preposition, depleting the field from the specialists and damaging the progress in the field. In this regard, the half-truths, misinformation, and twisted facts are a good tactic to maintain the interest in the Scythian field. So far, not a single sentence had been translated, etymologically meaningfully, using any reincarnation of the Indo-European languages. If the search for the Indo-European roots results in a conclusion truthfully proving the Indo-European theory, both the partisans of the Indo-European theory, and its opponents will benefit. And if it results in a conclusion inconsistent with the Indo-European theory, once again both the partisans of the Indo-European theory, and its opponents will benefit.








-------------


Posted By: Messopotamian
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2009 at 08:17
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

It sounds great that Kurds of Turkey understand Persian language, I think Messopotamian is one of them, I ask him: "Aya shoma az tarze negaresho khaneshe zabane Parsi agahie kafi darid?"
 
İskit, I think your username shows that you believe Scythians were not an Iranian people, whenas it is already a proven historical fact that they were certainly an Iranian-speaking people, their original land was where modern Turkic peoples live, so there could be some cultural interchanges between them and Turks who entered those regions several centuries later but it doesn't change the fact that Scythians were the ancestors of some Iranian people who still live in those regions, like Ossetians that you mentioned. I think it is more believable to say Turkey has been always the land of Turks, than Central Asia!
 
 
Ofcourse , NO ! Kurds dont understand Persian. I am Member of Kurmanji ( Kur : Son, Manji : Magi ) from Turkey,Turks think kurds understand persian,because they are Persian :D
 
Perhaps Kurmanjis are descendents of Medes,they's dialect diffrent with other dialects.
 
 


Posted By: Azadi
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2009 at 15:37
Originally posted by İskit

İn turkey most of Kurds understand persian. But you dont. İts ok. ( ım not kurd and dont know kurdish so cant say my own opinion)

Most Kurds in North understand persian ? 
I think you missed a class or something, all Kurds, in a certain degree, in East-Kurdistan understand Farsi. In North they speak mostly Kurdish, Kurmanji being the most spoken, and Turkish. I've been in Urmiye several times, were I had to go though North-Kurdistan first - and almost nobody, except those on the artificial boarders knew Farsi.

A.


-------------


Posted By: Miller
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2009 at 22:40
Originally posted by İskit


İn Turkey in primary and high school books  show Scythians as a Turk.
 
Now that explains alot of what we see over the internet.
 
Turkish gevernment has picked a dangerous path trying to create identity and pride


Posted By: Miller
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2009 at 22:46

Kurdish and Persian are like German and Dutch. They are independent languages, but the structure is very close. Many of the words have the same root but have evolved differently and the only one that could tell the similarity is a person who knows both languages

People speaking different dialect of the same language can rarely understand each other let alone two different languages.



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2009 at 23:44
Originally posted by Miller

Originally posted by İskit


İn Turkey in primary and high school books  show Scythians as a Turk.
 
Now that explains alot of what we see over the internet.
 
Turkish gevernment has picked a dangerous path trying to create identity and pride


Saying them iranian is a very safe and holy  path. What a dangerous way we are in. Shocked

İ think our schools better than yours one. writing history how politics want it is a job of europan historians not us.



The review of the politically correct scientific half-truths and outright falsifications would not be complete without addressing the treatment of the unsuitable facts.

Time to time the life brings to light a fact that contradicts the official theory. In Russia, the facts can be disposed of by explaining them away, silencing them, ignoring them, or destroying them. One example of explaining away is the attribution of a fact to an import, like the nomadic animal art copied from the advanced Iranian/Greek/Mediterranean settled population. The silencing is best done by hiding it, like the Scythian artifacts hidden in the storage of Hermitage, to hide the splendor and skill of the population preceding the Slavic migrants. The inscriptions can be ignored, to retain the concept of the illiteracy of the nomadic population, invariably repeated in every publication. And the destruction continues on an industrial scale, some by design, some by shear negligence. Cities and kurgans are being ploughed over, records and bones destroyed, samples not analyzed, results not published, the hand written records and collections of the pre-Soviet time archeological societies lost and destroyed. Whatever are the means, the official theory remains unscathed. The former USSR and now the Russian Academy of Sciences has a long history of never acknowledging the evidence that contradicts the official stance. Historically, it was not an enviable preposition for a Russian scientist: either silence, or else.

The dissenters, who exist in all societies and in all times, had to either remain silent, or pay a heavy toll. Here again existed a circus air, when even the loyal followers could be labeled dissenters upon a turn in the official position. Like in the Imperial times, in the Soviet time some dissent always survived in a camouflaged form, masked as poetry, novels, anti anti-official assertions, and other innocently looking works. Usually the camouflage was supported by a loyal lip service in the beginning paragraphs. Not infrequently, both the august referent and the author worked in tandem disguising the true substance of the work.

The Iranian/Ossetian Scythian theory has all the traits of a politically correct theory. It is built on a thinnest foundation of an obscure language, and is not supported by the evidence and foresight connected with what is usually called a scientific theory. The cultural heritage, traceable for millennia among other peoples of the world, has not been shown to display links between the Ossetian, Pashtu, or other Iranian speaking peoples, and the details of the Scythian life described by the ancient writers. No traces, specific to the Scythian nomadism of the historical period, found their parallels in the historically documented Indo-European societies. It is well shown in the work of a prominent export on nomadism A. Khazanov http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/27_Scythians/Ethnic%20Affiliation%20Scythians%20En.htm#Khazanov - (6) .

The extensive Indo-European ethnology documents such cultural attributes as dress, food, drinks, conservation of produce, family relationships, housing, sanitary traditions, military traditions, societal organization, cosmological concepts, literary traditions, mythological and folk tale traditions, art, and a myriad of other traits. In many cases, the prominence of these traits far exceeds the significance of the other characteristics. For example, the Scythian mercenaries were a major, if not the only, force in the armies of a number of the states, during almost a millennia period. The Scythian warriors in the Scythian conical hats, Scythian boots, Scythian pants, on the Scythian horses and with Scythian composite bows are shown innumerable times in the historical records and became a staple image of the generic Scythian. The Ossetian ethnography of the historical period would have to come up with at least a remote echo of these mercenary military traditions wearing Ossetian conical hats, Ossetian boots, Ossetian pants, riding the Ossetian horses and with Ossetian composite bows. In the absence of such ethnological links, the Indo-European theory would remain a murky propaganda myth. The so-called universal acceptance can become a scientific concept only when the multidisciplinary evidence converges to the same conclusion.





.İ will give you an answer conversation writed by me.

S: Supporter of İndio Europan theory
M: Me

M: Why yuo indio- europize every people in the ancient world.
S: WE dont do. they speak indio europan language.
M: But your starting hypotesis anatolia or kurgan it starts them Bc. 5000 or 4000. Yuo got any linguistic source?
S: they speak indio europan language
M: At these hypotesis you made horse nomads, farmers, or hunter gatherers you make all of them İndio-euroapan; is it logic.
S:  they speak indio europan language
M: Your hypotesis says Europa, caucasia, north of black sea, anatolia, middle asia, altai region, syberia all of there populated by indio-europans from bc. 6000 to end of first age. there are huge differces at this regions, cultural, religional, economic, at every part of thier life. How yuo unite them İndio europanic.
S: they speak indio europan language
M: First writings found in the world, sumerian. But it isnt indio europan. How you examine this.
S: İt must be indio europan. More serius reseach will show it.
M: But most of research show its very similar to turkish.
S: No.  No Turks at anatolia, midlle asia , todays east and west turkestan, syberia no turks here to the huns. Ony iranians here. Ony iranians. İ-ra-ni-ans. ONLY İRANİANS. NO TURKS. Only hint europans, iranians. And Turks barbarian. They cant have civizilation like sümerians have. (This bold sentences said by most of indio-europan historians)
M: Turks and mongolians are horse nomad too. How yuo prison them to todays mongolia only. Why they dont go euroasian steppes?
S: Onlyyyyyy İraniiiiiiaannnn Noooo Turk or mongol. İranians speak indio europan. We indio europans at eveywhere. We create civizilation.
M: At 1000 Bc a viking from norseland,  a horse nomad from scytia, a people from india, how yuo unite them same. Yuo said laguage. When they came togather they dont understand each others language. Their culture, religion etc diffrent.
S: They are indio europan. Europans eveywhere.
M you call all white peoples indio-europan. Why?. İts totally ridiciolus and racial.
S: We are aryaaaannnnnn!!! We made civizilation.
M: but your theory isnt eurocentric. Right?
S: yes we hate eurocentrisim. but love indio europans. Turks are barbarian.






-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2009 at 23:50
Originally posted by Azadi

Originally posted by İskit

İn turkey most of Kurds understand persian. But you dont. İts ok. ( ım not kurd and dont know kurdish so cant say my own opinion)

Most Kurds in North understand persian ? 
I think you missed a class or something, all Kurds, in a certain degree, in East-Kurdistan understand Farsi. In North they speak mostly Kurdish, Kurmanji being the most spoken, and Turkish. I've been in Urmiye several times, were I had to go though North-Kurdistan first - and almost nobody, except those on the artificial boarders knew Farsi.

A.


İts ok. perhaps my freinds learn persian and know kurdish, so they understand each other. As ı said before ı dont know al the entire population.


-------------


Posted By: Miller
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2009 at 01:30

Sorry, I don’t have the time to read through all the cut and paste, but I think in general you tend to dismiss language as a mean to determine the identity of historical groups. Don’t forget that could cut both ways. The whole pan-turkic idea is based on language. Clearly today’s central Asian Turks and Anatolian Turks are not of the same ethnic group and you don’t need a DNA test to prove that. If you take language out on what basis can all these people be grouped as Turks. Does this mean that you also believe either Anatolians are not Turk or central Asians are not Turk



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2009 at 06:21
Originally posted by Miller

Sorry, I don’t have the time to read through all the cut and paste, but I think in general you tend to dismiss language as a mean to determine the identity of historical groups. Don’t forget that could cut both ways. The whole pan-turkic idea is based on language. Clearly today’s central Asian Turks and Anatolian Turks are not of the same ethnic group and you don’t need a DNA test to prove that. If you take language out on what basis can all these people be grouped as Turks. Does this mean that you also believe either Anatolians are not Turk or central Asians are not Turk



History needs reading. And to be  be open minded. not have prejudgement.

İ will write them more open to understand what are try to say.


1) İe theory is not a fact. some people can beleive it. Other ones not. you cant dont belive people pan bla bla , or racist, or stupid etc. You have no right to do it.

2) liguistic cant not use alone to define a people. İt must be supported by other sources. İf its not. Linguistic is nothing.

3) İe theory use ligustic ony. Why because it havent got supportive sources to theory. Ad most of sources , (writings arcelogical materials , etc) destroyed by ie supporters becausese they see the theroy wrong.

4) Turk history not ony build on lingust only. İf you makes some writings taht ı give other post yuo will see. But yuor aim is not to support linguistic. your aim is slander to turks.

5) how yuo know anatolian turks and asian turks havent got same etcity. İ can show nomeraus of source (not linguistic only) from divan-uligat it Tur to modern writings, to show yuor opinion is totally wrong, ridiciolus and racist. Thats yuo. İf  somebody show yuo ideas are wrong you always start to lie and to slande. YUo are one of this liers and to slandes. nothing no more.

6) i see all dna research for history (not only about Turks all of them) totally racist.


-------------


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2009 at 07:29
Iskit, it isn't important what other peoples say, Indians are Indian people and Europeans are European, you can't deny the existence of Iranian peoples because Iranian is also an Indo-European language, you know yourself that Turks didn't live in Turkey in the ancient times, it can be said about Iranians and Iran in an older time, we know in the ancient times some non-Iranian peoples, such as Elamites, Urartians, Lullubi, Mannaeans, ... lived in modern Iran, so Iranian-speaking peoples migrated from somewhere to this country.
 
You can't come here and say yesterday some Turkish scientists discovered that Scythians were a Turkic people, thousands Iranian sources from thousands years ago talk about Scythians as an Iranian people, Rostam, Iran's national hero, was a pure Scythian, not a Persian, in fact Ferdosi in Shahnameh talks about Scythia as the original land of Iranians, one of the highest titles in the Sassanid Persian empire was "Scythian King" (Sakan-Shah), ... the Iranian origin of Scythians is not a chemical element which can be discovred by scientists, this is a historical fact.


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2009 at 09:01
What about alp er tunga (afrasiab) . Scytian and Turkic. National hero o Turks

Scytian iranian war call turk iran wars too. Turan aganist İran. ()

Cyrus your words write here nothing to me. and other ones who think like me.
I put my sources here. You put your sources here.
You cant change my idea, i cant change yours.


-------------


Posted By: Messopotamian
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2009 at 09:08
This thread not Schytians. This threats Kurds and thems relatives with Medes!


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2009 at 09:21
It is better to stick on the topic, talking about Turan, descendants of Turaj (Middle Persian Tuzh), Tur-ik (Turk) or Tuj-ik (Tajik), ... needs another thread.

-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2009 at 09:47
ok. but ı want to say  last thing at this topic about scytians;  Real historians dont find new things. They are ameliorating the history knited by lies, fiction and  racism. They are showing the people what truht is. Not manipulating the people like made by İe historians.


-------------


Posted By: Miller
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2009 at 14:26

Iskit, not trying to offend you , but The point was not to argue about where Sythians and Turks came from.

There are tens of topic just in this forum covering that just search for them . The point was to show the general logic of thinking and what could have caused that.

This thread has picture of today’s central Asian Turks

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3007&PN=1

and you insist that they are the same ethnicity as people living in Istanbul . The only thing they have in common with Anatolian Turks is that they speak a Turkic based language but at the same time like to deny historical evidence because the language argument is not sufficient,

If you think today’s linguistics connections points to something the ancient connections are ten times more valid because people lived more sparsely and were isolated from each other.

Based on what you are saying it seem that Turkish government has created its own ultra nationalistic version of history and bombards the kids with that. Now the kids have grown up and try to fit realty that the rest of world believes in into what hey have been told rather than the other way around.

First Kurds didn’t exist and now other Iranians and Indian need to disappear from history. The danger is not toward you is toward the Kurdish kid that has to deny his/her identity just to fit the stories you have told all your life



Posted By: Messopotamian
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2009 at 06:41
For Medes ,
 
  • http://ku.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B%C3%BBsiyan&action=edit&redlink=1 - Bûsiyan ( http://ku.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurdox%C3%AE&action=edit&redlink=1 - Kurdoxî û http://ku.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%AEtan%C3%AE - Mîtanî )
  • http://ku.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S%C3%AAtroxatiyan&action=edit&redlink=1 - Sêtroxatiyan ( http://ku.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sagart%C3%AE&action=edit&redlink=1 - Sagartî û http://ku.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurmanc%C3%AE - Kurmancî )
  • http://ku.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B%C3%BBdiyan&action=edit&redlink=1 - Bûdiyan ( http://ku.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loran&action=edit&redlink=1 - Loran )
  • http://ku.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ar%C3%AEzantiyan&action=edit&redlink=1 - Arîzantiyan
  • http://ku.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moxan&action=edit&redlink=1 - Moxan
  • http://ku.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Partakaniyan&action=edit&redlink=1 - Partakaniyan
  • Medean Tribes in Kurmanji.

     
     
      http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Busae&action=edit&redlink=1 - Busae , the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paretaceni&action=edit&redlink=1 - Paretaceni , the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Struchates&action=edit&redlink=1 - Struchates , the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arizanti&action=edit&redlink=1 - Arizanti , the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Budii&action=edit&redlink=1 - Budii  and The Magi
     
    in English
     
     
     
    From Wikipedia:
     
    One other theory is that the term Kurmanji is believed by some scholars to mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medes - Median http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_people - Kurd . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurmanji#cite_note-0 - [1]
     
     

     The Magi Theory

    Other scholars dismiss the above theories as false. These scholars claim the term Kurmanji originates from the two distinct words, kur (“boy” or “child”) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magi - magi . Magi refers to one of the ancient tribes of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medes - Median Empire whose priests are referenced in the Bible and are commonly known as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Magi - Three Wise Men from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medes - Medya . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurmanji#cite_note-1 - [2] The direct translation applied to the term Kurên Magî is “Children of Magi”. Scholars say that Manji is simply a distorted form of the original term. These scholars also claim that the Magi tribe, or followers of the priests that were referred to as “Magi of the people”, may have been the original speakers of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Kurdish - Proto-Kurdish . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurmanji#cite_note-2 - [3] Indeed pre-modern documents write the name Kurmanj as Kurmaj; For instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masture_Ardalan - Masture Ardalan writes: ... the third group of Kurmaj are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baban - Baban ... Also there is a desire in Kurdish to add a n before j. (ex. Iranian taj in Kurdish becomes tanj.and " n" in some words is optional eg. "mi" English" i" can be spoken "min"). But probably it has more than one meaning as it is seen above since all these meanings fully related to each other and as many important names and countless words in Kurmanci/Kurdish has more than one meaning.Thus the name/word Kurmanc and Kurmanci has e few meanings

     

    From : http://www.ldolphin.org/magi.html - http://www.ldolphin.org/magi.html

     

    The ancient Magi were a hereditary priesthood of the Medes (known today as the Kurds) credited with profound and extraordinary religious knowledge. After some Magi, who had been attached to the Median court, proved to be expert in the interpretation of dreams, Darius the Great established them over the state religion of Persia. (2) (Contrary to popular belief, the Magi were not originally followers of Zoroaster. (3) That all came later.)



    Posted By: Messopotamian
    Date Posted: 11-Oct-2009 at 07:04
    in Cigerxwîn's poem,Shiwan Perwer's song:
     
    Kine Em ( Who are We )
     
    Em in ew Kardox Xaldêwê kevnar,
    Em in ew Mîtan, Nayrî û Sobar.
    Em in ew Lolo,
    Kardox û Kudî,
    Em in Mad û Goş,
    Horî û Gudî.
    Em in Kurmanc û Kelhor, Lor û Gor,
    Em in, em Kurd in li jêr û li jor
    We are Karduchians,Khaldis
    We are Mittanis , Nayris, Subarians,
    We are Lolos,Karducians , Kutians
    Wea re Medes and Goshians
    Hurrians and Guttians
     
    We are Kurmanji , Kelhorians , Lurians û Goranians ( Today's tribes)
    We are Kurd North and South
     


    Posted By: Messopotamian
    Date Posted: 11-Oct-2009 at 07:09
    Descendents of BedirKhan tribe, Writer Edip Bedirxan writed  Median history in :
     
    Kurmanji: BAZE MÊD FERWERTISH , Turkish : Med Kartali Fervertish , English Eagle of Medes Phraortes
     
    Medean Rebel King  "Phraortes"


    Posted By: Guests
    Date Posted: 11-Oct-2009 at 07:47
    Originally posted by Messopotamian

    Descendents of BedirKhan tribe, Writer Edip Bedirxan writed  Median history in :
     
    Kurmanji: BAZE MÊD FERWERTISH , Turkish : Med Kartali Fervertish , English Eagle of Medes Phraortes
     
    Medean Rebel King  "Phraortes"



    Big smile Big smile i thinks cycrus will find this book very scientific.
    Big smile

    -------------


    Posted By: Messopotamian
    Date Posted: 13-Oct-2009 at 10:07
    It's same as Dead of Wolves ( Bozkurtlarin olumu ) not Scientifiti ( anyway:D ) book !


    Posted By: Guests
    Date Posted: 13-Oct-2009 at 10:24
    Originally posted by Messopotamian

    It's same as Dead of Wolves ( Bozkurtlarin olumu ) not Scientifiti ( anyway:D ) book !



    Thanks for the info. Wink


    Scytho-Sarmatian ethnic roots of Türks ;

    http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=27833




    -------------


    Posted By: Azadi
    Date Posted: 15-Oct-2009 at 12:35

    Sarmatians were of ancient Iranian origin, you nor your manipulative leaders can change that. 

    This is, sadly for you, proven. Be happy with the history your people already re-wrote, and get on with your life.


    Have a nice day!


    -------------


    Posted By: Guests
    Date Posted: 15-Oct-2009 at 23:35
    Originally posted by Azadi

    Sarmatians were of ancient Iranian origin, you nor your manipulative leaders can change that. 

    This is, sadly for you, proven. Be happy with the history your people already re-wrote, and get on with your life.


    Have a nice day!



    Yo say bla ,bla and bla; but ı show scientific sources here. And ı already answered your pointless idea.

    http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=27833



    -------------


    Posted By: Azadi
    Date Posted: 16-Oct-2009 at 13:21
    Yesh ^^ Soon you'll give me scientific sources that prove the ancient Greeks and Egyptians were partly Turkish too. The Latin-Americans also have some Turkic blood, maybe you should annex their lands too. Aye ? Clap

    -------------


    Posted By: Messopotamian
    Date Posted: 06-Nov-2009 at 08:07
    Bra min, Anyway


    Posted By: Ince
    Date Posted: 24-Dec-2009 at 21:39
    I am Kurd from Turkey and my kurdish is not that good and understand maybe 70%.  So anway when a Persian speaks in Farsi I can understand 30-50% of the words they say.  Only problem is some persians speak in a accent that is difficult to understand.  But when ahmadinejad speaks it sounds like his speak Kurdish and I can understand a lot of words.

    Just look at this chart of the Iranian langues, I read somewhere else that Farsi was over 50% similar to Kurdish.  Going by the chart I think it is true.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_languages#Comparison_table


    Posted By: Messopotamian
    Date Posted: 25-Dec-2009 at 07:23

    F...k off! Kurdî not similar with Persian! You are not kurd!



    Posted By: Ince
    Date Posted: 25-Dec-2009 at 07:41
    Not similar? So why do I understand some of what a Persian says, even tho my Kurdish is not that great?, only big difference is the accent in which they pronounce some words differently.  

    Words that are similar, their are many more then I listed. 

    Her Kez?
    Chande?
    Chia?
    Shireen?
    Kune?
    Zan/Dan?
    Min/Man?
    Ruz/Roz?
    Zir/Zer?
    Dar?
    Dil?
    Gul?



    Posted By: SonOfIran
    Date Posted: 25-Dec-2009 at 17:13
    Originally posted by Messopotamian

    F...k off! Kurdî not similar with Persian! You are not kurd!

     
    I hope you're be sarcastic. If not, you are a fool. Persian and Kurdish both fall under the same language branch, so how can they not be similar?


    Posted By: Messopotamian
    Date Posted: 26-Dec-2009 at 08:30
    Originally posted by Ince

    Not similar? So why do I understand some of what a Persian says, even tho my Kurdish is not that great?, only big difference is the accent in which they pronounce some words differently.  

    Words that are similar, their are many more then I listed. 

    Her Kez?
    Chande?
    Chia?
    Shireen?
    Kune?
    Zan/Dan?
    Min/Man?
    Ruz/Roz?
    Zir/Zer?
    Dar?
    Dil?
    Gul?

     
    Her Kez? not her kez . "Her kes "
     
    Chande? not Chande . " Chend "
     
    Chia?  not chia           " Chi ye " ( What is )
     
    Zan/Dan?               ( zanin,danin)
     
    Min man      ( Min, Ez ;) )
     
    Ruz-Roz ( Roj )
     
    Zir zer ( zir )
     
    Dil ( Dyl - Dil )
     
    Kune ( Qun )
     
     
    you not know kurdish :)
     


    Posted By: Messopotamian
    Date Posted: 26-Dec-2009 at 08:31
    Originally posted by SonOfIran

    Originally posted by Messopotamian

    F...k off! Kurdî not similar with Persian! You are not kurd!

     
    I hope you're be sarcastic. If not, you are a fool. Persian and Kurdish both fall under the same language branch, so how can they not be similar?
     
     
    Language isnt similar. They says : " Kurds not are nation , They are Persian "
     
    and fool is yours


    Posted By: Messopotamian
    Date Posted: 26-Dec-2009 at 08:33
    Originally posted by Ince

    Not similar? So why do I understand some of what a Persian says, even tho my Kurdish is not that great?, only big difference is the accent in which they pronounce some words differently.  

    Words that are similar, their are many more then I listed. 

    Her Kez?
    Chande?
    Chia?
    Shireen?
    Kune?
    Zan/Dan?
    Min/Man?
    Ruz/Roz?
    Zir/Zer?
    Dar?
    Dil?
    Gul?

     
     
    Sayeh shoma sangine shoudeh
     
    it is persian. Do you understand it ? xD


    Posted By: TheGreatSimba
    Date Posted: 26-Dec-2009 at 09:22
    Originally posted by Messopotamian

    F...k off! Kurdî not similar with Persian! You are not kurd!



    Wow, pretty agressive reaction right here to a simple post....

    No one is saying that Kurds are Persian and that Kurds shouldnt have a nation...calm down. The user simply pointed out linguistic similarities, WHICH DO EXIST, because as stated, we fall under the same language tree of Iranian languages.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language - English http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zazaki_language - Zazaki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_language - Kurmanci/Sorani http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashto_language - Pashto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balochi_language - Balochi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazandarani_language - Mazandarani http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language - Persian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Persian_language - Middle Persian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_language - Parthian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Persian_language - Old Persian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avestan_language - Avestan
    beautiful rind rind/delal/cûwan ʂkulai/xkulai, ʂɑjista/xɑjista sharr, soherâ ṣəmxâl/ Xəş-nəmâ zibâ/ xuš-chehreh hučihr, hužihr hužihr naiba vahu-, srîra
    blood goyni xwîn wina hon xun xūn xōn xōn
    vohuni
    bread nan nan ɖoɖəi, nəɣɑn nân, nagan nûn nân nân nân

    bring ardene anîn/hênan, awirdin/hawirdin rɑ wɺ̡əl âurten, yārag, ārag biyârden âvardan/biyar âwurdan, āwāy-, āwar-, bar- āwāy-, āwar-, bar- bara- bara, bar-
    brother bıra bira wror brāt, brās birâr barādar brād, brâdar brād, brādar brâtar brâtar-
    come amayene hatin rɑ tləl āhag, āyag Biyamona, enen âmadan âmadan, awar awar, čām ây-, âgam âgam-
    cry berbayene girîn ʒaɺ̡əl greewag, greeten bərmə/ qâ geristan/geryeh griy-, bram-


    dark tari tarî tjɑrə thár siyo târîk târīg/k târīg, târēn
    sâmahe, sâma
    daughter/girl çena keç/kîj/kenîşk/dot lur dohtir, duttag kijâ/ dether doxtar duxtar duxt, duxtar
    duxδar
    day roce/roje/roze roj wradz roç rezh rûz rōz
    raucah-
    do kerdene kirin/kirdin kawəl kanag, kurtin hâkerden kardan kardan kartan kạrta- kәrәta-
    door çeber derge/derî war, daɺ̡a gelo, darwāzag bəli dar dar dar, bar duvara- dvara-
    die merdene mirin/mirdin mrəl mireg mərnen murdan murdan
    mạriya- mar-
    donkey her ker xar her xar xar xar


    egg hak hêk/hêlik hagəi heyg, heyk merqâna toxm toxmag, xâyag taoxmag, xâyag
    taoxma-
    earth êrd (uncertain origin) herd/erd (uncertain origin) zməka zemin zemi zamin zamīg zamīg zam- zãm, zam, zem
    evening shan êvar/êware mɑʂɑm/mɑxɑm begáh nəmâşun begáh sarshab êbêrag

    eye çım çav/çaw stərga ch.hem, chem bəj, Çəş chashm chašm chašm čaša- čašman-
    father pi bav/bawk/piya plɑr pit, piss piyer pedar pidar pid pitar pitar
    fear ters tirs vera, tars turs, terseg təşəpaş tars tars tars tạrsa- tares-
    fiancé washte dezgîran numzɑd nām zād xasgar nâm-zad - -

    fine weş xweş/baş ʂa/xa wash, hosh xaar xosh dârmag

    srîra
    finger gisht til/qamik/engust gwəta lenkutk, mordâneg angoos angošt angust

    dišti-
    fire adır agir/atir wor âch, âs tesh âtaš, âzar âdur, âtaxsh ādur âç- âtre-/aêsma-
    fish mase masî kab mâhi, mâhig mahi mâhi mâhig mâsyâg
    masyô, masya
    food / eat werdene xwarin/xwardin xoɺ̡ə / xwaɺ̡əl warag, warâk Xərak/ xəynen Gaza / xordan parwarz / xwâr, xwardīg parwarz / xwâr
    hareθra / ad-, at-
    go şiyayene çûn/çiyin tləl jwzzegh, shutin shunen / burden raftan raftan, shudan ay- ai- ay-, fra-vaz
    god heq xwedê/xwa xwdai hwdâ homa, xəda khodâ bay, abragar
    baga- baya-
    good rınd baş, çak, rind ʂə/xə jawáin, šarr xâr xub / nîuū xūb, nêkog
    vahu- vohu, vaŋhu-
    grass vash giya, riwek, şênkatî wɑʂə/wɑxə rem, sabzag
    sabzeh, giyâh giyâ dâlūg
    urvarâ
    great gırs / pil gir, mezin, gewre loj, ɣwara mastar, mazan gat, belang, pila bozorg wuzurg, pīl
    vazraka- uta-, avañt
    hand dest dest lɑs dast dess dast dast dast dasta- zasta-
    head ser ser, kep sar, kakaɺ̡ai saghar kalə sar, kalleh sar


    heart zerre dil zɺ̡ə dil, hatyr dil del dil dil
    aηhuš
    horse estor hesp/esp ɑs asp istar asp, astar asp, stōr asp, stōr aspa aspa-
    house keye mal, hoz, xanu kor, xuna log, dawâr səre xâneh xânag

    demâna-, nmâna-
    hunger vêşan birçîtî/wirsêtî lwəʐa/lwəga shudhagh veyshna gorosnegi gursag, shuy


    language (also tongue) zıwan / zon ziwan/ziman ʒəba zevân, zobân ziwân zabân zuwân izβân hazâna- hizvâ-
    laugh huyayene kenîn xandəl khendegh, hendeg
    xandidan xandīdan
    karta Syaoθnâvareza-
    life jewiyaene jiyan/jîn ʒwandun zendegih, zind
    zendegi zīndagīh, zīwišnīh žīwahr, žīw-
    gaêm, gaya-
    man merd mêr, piyaw saɺ̡ai, meɺ̡ə merd merd mard mard mard martiya- mašîm, mašya
    moon ashmê heyv/mang spoʐmai/spogmai, mjɑʃt máh mithra mâh māh māh mâh- måŋha-
    mother maye dayik, mak mor mât, mâs mâr mâdar mādar mādar mâtar mâtar-
    mouth fek dev/dem xwlə dap
    dahân dahân, rumb

    åŋhânô, âh, åñh
    name name naw num nâm num nâm nâm
    nâman nãman
    night şewe shew, shewn, nutek ʃpa šap, shaw sheow shab shab
    xšap- xšap-
    open akerdene vekirin prɑnistəl, xlɑsawəl pabožagh, paç vâ-hekârden bâz-kardan abâz-kardan
    būxtaka- būxta-
    peace kotpy aştî roɣa ârâm
    âshti, ârâmeš, ârâmî âštih, râmīšn râm, râmīšn šiyâti- râma-
    pig xoz beraz xug, seɖar khug xi xūk xūk

    varâza (wild pig)
    place ja cih/şûn dzaj hend, jâgah
    jâh/gâh gâh gâh gâθu- gâtu-, gâtav-
    read wendene xwendin lwastəl wánagh baxinden xândan xwândan


    say vatene gotin/wutin wajəl gushagh baotena goftan, gap(-zadan) guftan, gōw-, wâxtan gōw- gaub- mrû-
    sister wae xweşk xor gwhâr xâxer xâhar/xwâhar xwahar


    small qıc piçûk kutʃnai, waɺ̡ukai, kam gwand, hurd pətik, bechuk, perushk kuchak, kam, xurd, rîz kam, rangas kam kamna- kamna-
    son qıj kur zoj baç, phusagh pisser pesar, pûr, baça pur, pusar puhr puça pūθra-
    soul gan giyan arwɑ rawân
    ravân rūwân, gyân rūwân, gyân
    urvan-
    spring usar bihar psarlai bhârgâh wehâr bahâr wahâr
    vâhara- θūravâhara-
    tall berz bilind/berz lwaɺ̡, dʒəg bwrz, buland
    boland / bârez buland, borz bârež
    barez-
    three hire dre sey se se hrē çi- θri-
    village dewe gund, dê kəlai helk, kallag, dê deh deh, wis wiž dahyu- vîs-, dahyu-
    want waştene xwestin/wîstin ɣuʂtəl/ɣuxtəl lotagh bexanen xâstan xwâstan


    water owe aw obə âp ab âb/aw âb âb âpi avô-
    when key kengê/key kəla ked
    kay kay ka
    čim-
    wind va ba bɑd gwáth bâd wâd

    vâta-
    wolf verg gur/gurg lewə, ʃarmuʂ/ʃarmux gurkh varg gorg gurg
    varka- vehrka
    woman ceniye jin/afret ʂədza/xədza jan zhənya zan zan žan
    hâīrīšī-, nâirikâ-
    year serre sal kɑl sâl
    sâl sâl
    θard ýâre, sarәd
    yes / no ya / né erê (bale) (a) / na ho (wo) / na, ja ere / na
    baleh (âre) / na hâ / ney hâ / ney yâ / nay, mâ yâ / noit, mâ
    yesterday vizêri duh/dwênê parun direz diruz dêrûž

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language - English http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zazaki_language - Zazaki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_language - Kurdish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashto_language - Pashto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balochi_language - Balochi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazandarani_language - Mazandarani http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language - Persian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Persian_language - Middle Persian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_language - Parthian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Persian_language - Old Persian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avestan_language - Avestan
    however, can a regular Kurdish speaker understand a Persian speaker and vise versa? probably not because of accent differences and because most of the words are different. Maybe if they talked really slowly they could understand a few words here and there, which is what the user said.

    As you can see from the list i posted above, there are many similarities between Kurdish and Persian, just differences in pronunciation.


    Posted By: Azadi
    Date Posted: 26-Dec-2009 at 10:15

    Bra, this is a matter of where you grew up. Of course if you grow up in East-Kurdistan, you will understand and probably speak Farsi fluently yourself. But if you speak Farsi to Kurds from the other regions (not on the border), they will not understand anything at all. Yes, they will pick up "bra", "nan" etc. but understand ? Come on... let alone they being 50% alike.

    That's like saying people from Germany should be able to understand English, because 50% of the words probably are the same.

    -------------


    Posted By: Ince
    Date Posted: 26-Dec-2009 at 16:13
    Originally posted by Messopotamian

    Originally posted by Ince

    Not similar? So why do I understand some of what a Persian says, even tho my Kurdish is not that great?, only big difference is the accent in which they pronounce some words differently.  

    Words that are similar, their are many more then I listed. 

    Her Kez?
    Chande?
    Chia?
    Shireen?
    Kune?
    Zan/Dan?
    Min/Man?
    Ruz/Roz?
    Zir/Zer?
    Dar?
    Dil?
    Gul?

     
     
    Sayeh shoma sangine shoudeh
     
    it is persian. Do you understand it ? xD


    No I do not understand that, I also do not understand when Kurds speak in Sorani as well.  My point is Farsi is similar to Kurdish, the main differenec is they prounounce some words differently and have a different accent.  Some Iranians when they speak Farsi I understand something at times, but only if the accent is similar to Kurdish.  Other Persians I barely understand as the accent is different. 

    My next question is why do Some people in Iran speak Farsi in different accents? who are the ones that speak it in a way that Kurds can maybe pick up a few things their and then and the ones who speak in a way that I can barely understand a word?


    Posted By: TheGreatSimba
    Date Posted: 26-Dec-2009 at 21:06
    Well, in general i think Azadi is correct. Although there are similarities, I do not think that a Persian speaker can understand a Kurdish speaker and vise versa.

    However, there are different Persian accents the same way there are different English accents. In the United States alone there are 4 different English accents, Australian/American/Canadian/British/South African, etc... English all are spoken in different accents.

    it has to do with geography.


    Posted By: Ince
    Date Posted: 27-Dec-2009 at 05:21
    Originally posted by TheGreatSimba

    Well, in general i think Azadi is correct. Although there are similarities, I do not think that a Persian speaker can understand a Kurdish speaker and vise versa.

    However, there are different Persian accents the same way there are different English accents. In the United States alone there are 4 different English accents, Australian/American/Canadian/British/South African, etc... English all are spoken in different accents.

    it has to do with geography.


    Only about 50% of the words are similar and of that 50% is prounouced differently so it would be difficult to understand eachother.  For example when Ahmadinejad had a interview on TV and was speaking in Farsi, my parents told me they could understand a lot of words and some sentences but it was difficult to make out what he was saying most of the time. 


    Posted By: Azadi
    Date Posted: 27-Dec-2009 at 07:22
    50 % are the same ?
    Brother, Kurd or not, please do not give these fellow forumers false information. The reason I visit this website is because it's based on facts and scientific research.

    Like I stated above it's a matter of where you grow up, geography - thanks TheGreatSimba.
    What makes it even more difficult to understand Farsi (for our brothers in North, West and South) is our situation within our respective regions; Kurds now have VARIOUS words which mean the same, these words do not even look the same at all. Just take the English word "Live"; Zindi, Taze, Canli, Nwe +. 

    So, the next time please come with facts, proof, and not something you heard from your parents - which, I would like to add, didn't "make out what he was saying most of the time". People quickly believe something they read on forums, keko ;)


    -------------


    Posted By: Messopotamian
    Date Posted: 27-Dec-2009 at 07:30
    Of course words similar. But Kurmanjis not understand Persian.He says " I am Turkey Kurd ( Kurmanci ) and i understand Persian." I reject.  Maybe Iranian Kurds understand. But we not understand!


    Posted By: Ince
    Date Posted: 02-Jan-2010 at 18:56
    If you guys do not want to believe me then that is up to you, anyway here are more similarties that I found.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zazaki_language

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language - Persian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_language - Kurdish (Kurmanci)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language - English
    b / gb / g
    -
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b ād http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b ā
    wind
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b ārān http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b ārān
    rain
    āvāz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b ēj
    sing, say
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b ez- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b ez-
    run
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b ang http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b ang, dang
    voice
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b ayo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b uk
    bride, wedding
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b arre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b arx
    sheep
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b arf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b efr
    snow
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b īn- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b īn-
    see
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b ist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b ist
    twenty
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b īve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b ī
    widow
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b id http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b i
    willow
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G - g iyāh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G - g iyā
    grass
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G - g ul http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G - g ul
    rose
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G - g org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G - g urg
    wolf

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_language - Kurdish (Kurmanci) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language - Persian
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language - English
    z/sd/h
    -
    dil (loan) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D - d il
    heart
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z - z êrzar
    gold
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z - z an- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D - d ān-
    know
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z - z ava http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D - d āmād
    groom
    e http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z - z (min)e http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D - d - (man)
    I
    bilindbolan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D - d
    borough, high
    deh (loan)da http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H - h
    ten

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language - Persian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_language - Kurdish (Kurmanci)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language - English
    dd
    -
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D - d ar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D - d eri
    door
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language - Persian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_language - Kurdish (Kurmanci)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language - English
    ss
    -
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S - s e http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S - s e (loan) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zazaki_language#cite_note-A._Korn-5 - [6]
    three
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S - s i http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S - s i (loan) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zazaki_language#cite_note-A._Korn-5 - [6]
    thirty
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language - Persian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_language - Kurdish (Kurmanci)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language - English
    ll
    -
    bo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L - l andbi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L - l ind
    borough, high
    hi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L - l -he http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L - l
    sprinkle, throw
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L - l iza http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L - l ez
    dash off, stand up, fly
    seporzsıpı http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L - l
    spleen
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L - l sa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L - l
    year
    di http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L - l di http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L - l
    heart
    gu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L - l gu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L - l
    rose
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language - Persian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_language - Kurdish (Kurmanci)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language - English
    x(u)x(w)
    -
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X - x http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W - w āb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X - x ew
    sleep
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X - x http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X - x http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W - w
    sweet
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X - x ānd- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X - x http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W - w end-
    read
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X - x āhar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X - x http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W - w eh
    sister
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X - x ord- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X - x http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W - w ard-
    swallow, eat
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language - Persian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_language - Kurdish (Kurmanci)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language - English
    mv
    -
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M - m na http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V - v
    name
    (hāmīn) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V - v īn
    summer
    ha http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M - m bazhe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V - v al
    same
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language - Persian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_language - Kurdish (Kurmanci)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language - English
    ftt/wt/ft
    -
    ha http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ft - ft ḥe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wt - wt /he http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ft - ft
    seven
    ka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ft - ft ke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T - t /ke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wt - wt /ke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ft - ft
    get in


    Posted By: Messopotamian
    Date Posted: 15-Jan-2010 at 07:11
    Are u idiot ? or not ?
     
    You say " Kurdish a persian dialect "
     
    other turks too


    Posted By: opuslola
    Date Posted: 15-Jan-2010 at 16:00
    Most every post here is bathed in "hatred!" It seems almost every ethnic group in most of the world is brought up to "hate" most every one who is not a part of their "little tribe" or their "little linguistic group", or their "little religious belief!"

    You should all be chastised and spanked by your grand mothers! Of course they are probably the very ones who helped you learn your instincts to hate others?


    But, TGS wrote;

    "However, there are different Persian accents the same way there are different English accents. In the United States alone there are 4 different English accents, Australian/American/Canadian/British/South African, etc... English all are spoken in different accents.

    it has to do with geography."

    TGS, it seems either you were being very general of you know little of N. American language and especially accents! If you were trying to be "general" in your words, then OK! If not, you really need to speak to people in the USA that can recognize accents as I am want to do!

    As anyone of English background, and who has actually travelled withing the USA, and who actually has what I call an "observant ear", can tell you is that the USA is made up of literally hundreds of accents! And, in times past, possibly thousands!

    As a young boy, one (or at least I) could tell that people from 50 KM or 30 miles from my locality, spoke with differing accents! The further away from my area, the greater the accent differed from my own!

    And this in in a land where radio and TV and newspapers were very common!
    It is hard for me to comprehend what it could be like in areas that we, here in the USA, would consider that until the last 40 or 50 years, or so, basically lived in "third world conditions!"? That is, no radio, no electricty, no TV, and no newspapers!

    Hey I am describing the conditions that existed outside of most of the capital cities of your nations, or regions, until very recently! At least on the timescale of the majority of the USA, and even W. Europe!

    It seems to me, as an outsider, that most people in Iran, Iraq, Afganistan, Nepal, Azerbajan, etc., actually lived in conditions more similar to those last lived by most people in the USA in the 18th century?

    But, perhaps I could be wrong?
    Regards,


    -------------
    http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


    Posted By: TheGreatSimba
    Date Posted: 16-Jan-2010 at 15:52
    Originally posted by opuslola


    TGS, it seems either you were being very general of you know little of N. American language and especially accents! If you were trying to be "general" in your words, then OK! If not, you really need to speak to people in the USA that can recognize accents as I am want to do!

    As anyone of English background, and who has actually travelled withing the USA, and who actually has what I call an "observant ear", can tell you is that the USA is made up of literally hundreds of accents! And, in times past, possibly thousands!


    Yea, I know, I'm talking about the four main American English accents such as Midewestern, Southern, Eastern, and Western accents, of which other American accents fall under (I'm sure there are many different accents in Tennesse or Alabama but they all fall under the same general category of Southern accents).

    I'm not including the thousands of different accents, such as the Iranian English accent, or Chinese English accent, or Mexican English accent, etc...

    Originally posted by opuslola


    As a young boy, one (or at least I) could tell that people from 50 KM or 30 miles from my locality, spoke with differing accents! The further away from my area, the greater the accent differed from my own!

    And this in in a land where radio and TV and newspapers were very common!
    It is hard for me to comprehend what it could be like in areas that we, here in the USA, would consider that until the last 40 or 50 years, or so, basically lived in "third world conditions!"? That is, no radio, no electricty, no TV, and no newspapers!

    Hey I am describing the conditions that existed outside of most of the capital cities of your nations, or regions, until very recently! At least on the timescale of the majority of the USA, and even W. Europe!

    It seems to me, as an outsider, that most people in Iran, Iraq, Afganistan, Nepal, Azerbajan, etc., actually lived in conditions more similar to those last lived by most people in the USA in the 18th century?

    But, perhaps I could be wrong?
    Regards,


    I dont know about the other countries you mentioned, but most people in Iran have access to both radio and television.


    Posted By: opuslola
    Date Posted: 16-Jan-2010 at 19:46
    TGS, you wrote;
    "I dont know about the other countries you mentioned, but most people in Iran have access to both radio and television."

    Yes Great Simba, I understand that today what you state is so! But, as it seems you missed, I was refering to events of 50 or more years ago!

    Certainly you cannot tell me that most Iranians in 1955 CE or so, had either access to radio (unless by crystal units)or TV, or News Papers!

    That was my point! It seems, relatively, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc., are in essence quite new to these "media" methods! The only people in these nations in 1955 that had access to any of the above media sources,in mass, would have had to have lived within a few miles of a capital city!

    Certainly electricity, outside of capital cities, is a new comer to most all of rural areas of any of these nations! That is mostly acquired after the 1960's, and later!
    Regards,


    -------------
    http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


    Posted By: Ince
    Date Posted: 19-Jan-2010 at 16:18
    Originally posted by Messopotamian

    Are u idiot ? or not ?
     
    You say " Kurdish a persian dialect "
     
    other turks too


    Where did I say it was a Persian Dialect?? All I am trying to say is Kurdish is not that different from Persian and is a similar language.


    Posted By: opuslola
    Date Posted: 19-Jan-2010 at 17:30
    And, TGS, you wrote; "Yea, I know, I'm talking about the four main American English accents such as Midewestern, Southern, Eastern, and Western accents, of which other American accents fall under (I'm sure there are many different accents in Tennesse or Alabama but they all fall under the same general category of Southern accents)."

    Thus, I would guess that you whould consider a common accent found in New Orleans, La., whould be "southern?" But, you would be far from the truth! The accent that is found most commonly amongst the White population in the areas of New Orleans and vicinity, that were flooded whtn the levies failed, can only be compared to the same accent that still exists in parts of New York, NY!

    I.e., dis, dem, da and dos! I.e. a typical Irish accent from Brooklyn, NY, NY!

    I know, that you do not know! Some, so called Southern accents are derived from the English spoken in parts of GB, during the migration to the USA (American Colonies) and others are merely a figment of Yankee imagination, as well as those "carpetbaggers" who came South to steal a lot of the wealth of the loosing Southern familes, and then try to adopt a Southern accent, after only becoming Southern after 1866 or so!

    -------------
    http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


    Posted By: kalhur
    Date Posted: 23-Jan-2010 at 14:10
    Hi
    about the origin of kurds. well i am from kurdish population of kermanshah with some old paternal  roots from shiraz. i made a haplogroup test and i was surprised of the result (haplogroup T). i wonder how many ancient people has mixed to result actuall iranians or kurds.? which origin haplogroup T presents?i know many people in iran have beside R1a other haplogroupslike j and C , but it seems a few % does have T among  kurd and lors this group is find in highest % in kermanshah and isfahan and shiraz. i guess it belongs to an ancient civilization which mixed with aryans, but don't know which one?
    best regards


    Posted By: Shield-of-Dardania
    Date Posted: 06-Apr-2010 at 17:56
    Cymmerian, perhaps?
     
    If one considers that the Medeans, the supposedly widely-supposed ancestor of the Kurds, were only really in power from the sack of Nainawa (Nineveh) by Madya (Madius) in 612 BC to the defeat of Hastayaga (Astyages) by his half-Persian grandson Khouroush (Cyrus) in 549 BC, i.e. a period of merely 63 years, it sometimes makes one wonder if the Medeans were really a distinct, separate ancient Iranian tribe, or simply an elite, aristocratic offshoot subtribe of Scythians or Cymmerians.
     
    For, other than: (1) the Greek myth of Princess Medea, daughter of King Aeetes of Colchia, in the Greek legend, Jason and the Argonauts; and (2) the biblical legend, believed by Josephus, atrributing the Medeans as descendants of Madayu (Madai), son of Yafeth (Japhet); there is no solid historical Indo-European derived etymology for the name Mada/Madayu (Medes).


    -------------
    History makes everything. Everything is history in the making.


    Posted By: opuslola
    Date Posted: 06-Apr-2010 at 20:29
    Unless I am totally incorrect and mis-informed, it seems that American troops in Iraq, have repeatedly stood for the Kurds!

    At least we used to? Has the Obama administration changed it?



    -------------
    http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


    Posted By: Ince
    Date Posted: 07-Apr-2010 at 06:35
    Originally posted by Shield-of-Dardania

    Cymmerian, perhaps?
     
    If one considers that the Medeans, the supposedly widely-supposed ancestor of the Kurds, were only really in power from the sack of Nainawa (Nineveh) by Madya (Madius) in 612 BC to the defeat of Hastayaga (Astyages) by his half-Persian grandson Khouroush (Cyrus) in 549 BC, i.e. a period of merely 63 years, it sometimes makes one wonder if the Medeans were really a distinct, separate ancient Iranian tribe, or simply an elite, aristocratic offshoot subtribe of Scythians or Cymmerians.
     
    For, other than: (1) the Greek myth of Princess Medea, daughter of King Aeetes of Colchia, in the Greek legend, Jason and the Argonauts; and (2) the biblical legend, believed by Josephus, atrributing the Medeans as descendants of Madayu (Madai), son of Yafeth (Japhet); there is no solid historical Indo-European derived etymology for the name Mada/Madayu (Medes).

    I believe linguastically Kurds are descendeds of the Medes.  The strong similarties Kurds share with Persians and other iranians like Balouchi with Culture and langauge points to a Iranian Origin.  Genetically it could be a bit different as the region has been under different rulers and genetics can change a bit with mixing.

    What about Herodotus claims?

    and this

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article817707.ece - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article817707.ece

    October 26, 2002

    Briton unearths Herodotus' lost city of the Medes

    An archaeologist's model brings history to life

    < ="text/" =" http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/js/m24--browser.js - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/js/m24--browser.js ">
    By Simon de Bruxelles
    gSiteLife.Recommend("ExternalResource", "817707"," http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article817707.ece - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article817707.ece ");
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article817707.ece#none - Recommend?
    < ="text/"> div#related-article-links p a, div#related-article-links p a:visited { color:#06c; }
    A LOST city described by the Greek historian Herodotus has been identified by a British archaeologist in central Turkey.

    Geoffrey Summers has identified the vast mountain site as Pteria, the western capital of the Medes. The discovery may finally end the debate among scholars about the veracity of Herodotus’ account.

    Dr Summers’s work has provided the first concrete evidence of the long-forgotten Medean empire. Using the latest archaeological surveying techniques and computer graphics Dr Summers and his team have begun to reconstruct a “virtual reality” model of the ancient city which, according to Herodotus, was looted and burnt to the ground by the army of the Lydian King Croesus.

    In 1975, Dr Summers, 52, became fascinated by the fortified iron age city on the side of a granite mountain called Kerkenes Dag. The 2.5 sq km site is still surrounded by a 7km defensive wall with seven gates that can be seen from space.

    Beneath a 2,600-year-old shroud of soil everything is exactly as it was left when the inhabitants of Pteria were reputedly marched off into slavery. Because of the size of the site, conventional archaeological techniques could provide only limited information about the development of the city which, in its heyday in the fifth century BC, was home to 10,000 to 20,000 people.

    Dr Summers and his wife Françoise have spent the past ten years surveying the site using everything from aerial photography from a hot air balloon to ground-penetrating radar and GPS to map the ancient structures to an accuracy of 10cm. It is the first time such a large archaeological site in Turkey has been mapped in such detail.

    It was evidence of a great fire that convinced Mr Summers that he had found Pteria, the western capital of the Medes, who emerged from Ancient Persia in the sixth century BC to occupy what is now Eastern Anatolia.

    Although there are a few references to the Medes in later Greek and Assyrian records, there is little contemporary evidence of their existence, although the Kurds are widely thought to be their modern descendants. According to Herodotus, the war between the Medes and the Lydians culminated in the Battle of the Eclipse. As the battle raged, an eclipse blacked out the sun and the combatants laid down their arms and withdrew. The eclipse has allowed the battle to be dated to May 28, 585BC, when the city surveyed by Mr Summers would have been at its height.

    Within a generation Pteria had been sacked by Croesus and the site abandoned and forgotten. Dr Summers has uncovered evidence that it was looted and its fortifications toppled to prevent it being re-occupied. The archaeological account ties in precisely with that of Herodotus.

    Dr Summers said: “At the time we began studying the site there was a view that Herodotus’ account was at best inaccurate or at worst made up. There were even doubts about the Medean empire itself.

    “Archaeologically, we know nothing about the Medes. This project puts them on the map and it supports Herodotus’ accounts.”

    Dr Summers, who was born in London but has taught at the Middle East Technical University in Ankara for 18 years, said: “The size and complexity of the city are astonishing. It was built when the Greek city states were colonising the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, so it fills a gap in the history of city planning.”

    This week Dr Summers became the only British recipient of the bi-annual Rolex Awards for Enterprise. He will be presented with a cheque for $35,000 (£22,500) at a ceremony at the Royal Insitution in London on November 6. Dr Summers will use the money to rebuild the city’s main gates, which stand 5m high, and to excavate more of the palace complex. Norman Hammond, The Times archaeological correspondent, said Dr Summers’ identification of the city was important because it would shed light on the Medeans and allow artefacts to be dated to within ten years.

    Words of the 'legend'

    “Croesus, when he had crossed (the Halys River) with his army, came into Cappadocian territory, to what is called Pteria. Pteria is the strongest part of all that country and lies in a line with the city of Sinope, on the Euxine Sea. There he encamped, destroying the farms of the Syrians and he captured the city of the Pterians and made slaves of the people, and he captured all the neighbouring towns; moreover, he drove the Syrians from their homes, though they had done him no manner of harm.

    Cyrus, on his side, gathered his own army, and took on, as well, all the peoples who lived between him and Croesus (before he set out to march at all, he sent heralds to the Ionians and tried to make them desert Croesus. But the Ionians would not listen to him). So when Cyrus came and encamped over against Croesus, then and there in that land of Pteria they fought against one another with might and main.

    The battle was fierce, and many fell on both sides. At last they broke off at the onset of night, without either having the victory, so hard did the two armies fight.”





    Posted By: kalhur
    Date Posted: 11-Apr-2010 at 18:07
    for the sure the median has been one of the people groups that lived in kurdestan and most important one because they left behind both a dominant  language and their religion , but they can't be the only one who builds the origin of  kurds, because before the median arrived there has been a lot of older civilisations living there and surely they have been absorbed and assimilated with medians.
     the simmilarity between  kurdish words and persian's is obvious, but they are not the same language . like danish and swedish which have a lot in common, but still are different languages,


    Posted By: Ince
    Date Posted: 11-Apr-2010 at 19:39
    Originally posted by kalhur

    for the sure the median has been one of the people groups that lived in kurdestan and most important one because they left behind both a dominant  language and their religion , but they can't be the only one who builds the origin of  kurds, because before the median arrived there has been a lot of older civilisations living there and surely they have been absorbed and assimilated with medians.
     the simmilarity between  kurdish words and persian's is obvious, but they are not the same language . like danish and swedish which have a lot in common, but still are different languages,


    I once read somewhere(can't remember where) on a linguastic study on the Kurdish Languages Sorani and Kurmanji, where  the author believed that Kurds most likely originated further south/west Iran.   I am not sure how credible his assumption is.  Where others believe Kurdish was influced by Persian and hence leans towards South Western Iranian language group.

    Kurdish langauge has a lot of South Western Iranian elements in it and is nearly in between SW and NW.   Gorani and Zazaki by linguastics is a different langauge to Kurmanji and Sorani.   Kurmanji and Sorani share many similarties with Persian  that Gorani and Zazaki don't  For example the use of "W" for "X".   I am still trying to figure out Kurdish history and the relationships between the language groups that may hold a key to the Kurdish history.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zazaki - Zazaki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language - Persian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_language - Kurdish (Kurmanci)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language - English
    vb / gb / g
    -
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V - v ā http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b ād http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b ā
    wind
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V - v ārān http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b ārān http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b ārān
    rain
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V - v ācāvāz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b ēj
    sing, say
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V - v āz- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b ez- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b ez-
    run
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V - v ang http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b ang http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b ang, dang
    voice
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V - v eyv http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b ayo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b uk
    bride, wedding
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V - v arek http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b arre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b arx
    sheep
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V - v awr, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V - v or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b arf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b efr
    snow
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V - v ēn, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V - v īn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b īn- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b īn-
    see
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V - v īst http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b ist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b ist
    twenty
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V - v īyā http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b īve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b ī
    widow
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V - v iyāl http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b id http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B - b i
    willow
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V - v āš http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G - g iyāh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G - g iyā
    grass
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V - v il http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G - g ul http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G - g ul
    rose
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V - v arg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G - g org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G - g urg
    wolf

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zazaki - Zazaki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language - Persian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_language - Kurdish (Kurmanci)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language - English
    wx(u)x(w)
    -
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W - w itiš http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X - x http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W - w āb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X - x ew
    sleep
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W - w http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X - x http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X - x http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W - w
    sweet
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W - w end- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X - x ānd- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X - x http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W - w end-
    read
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W - w a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X - x āhar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X - x http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W - w eh
    sister
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W - w erd- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X - x ord- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X - x http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W - w ard-
    swallow, eat
     

    Heres a great article on the Kurdish Languages.

    http://www.iranica.com/articles/kurdish-language-i - http://www.iranica.com/articles/kurdish-language-i

    Altogether, the isoglosses show clearly that it makes sense to use the terms “NW” and “SW” not in a black-and-white sense, but in that of a “scale of SW- or NW-ness,” of which two or three historical phases may be distinguished. (The scale model, in the form in which I proposed in 1998, was rightly criticized by Korn [2003] for not adequately taking into account the historical sequence of the sound changes.) Kurdish and Balōči, then, are “less NW” than many other WIr. languages and dialects with respect to the oldest (pre-OIr.) stratum of isoglosses, but for the pre-MIr. isoglosses, Kurdish is “much less NW” than Balōči and most other WIr. idioms. For the most recent stratum of isoglosses, an inconsistent picture emerges, showing (for the first time) exclusively-Kd. sound changes like šm > -v/-w, besides others that Kurdish shares with NP. against all NW (*w- > b-), or with most NW against NP. and Balōči (*xt > t). Combining all this, one may call Kurdish “originally more NW and quite close to Balōči, but since pre-MIr. times inclining more towards the SW.”




    Posted By: Shield-of-Dardania
    Date Posted: 12-Apr-2010 at 02:35
    What about the Medes themselves, who were their ancestors? Could the Cymmerians have been a likely candidate?
     
    I pose that question because the Cymmerians suddenly 'dissappeared' from the scene about the same time that the Medes 'appeared'. Like, as if, the former, or at least some elements of them, decided to 'reinvent' themselves, then started wearing another 'label'.


    -------------
    History makes everything. Everything is history in the making.



    Print Page | Close Window

    Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
    Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com