When did Kurds and Persians first names use ?

No Putty19, I am not suggesting any such thing!

Cannot you or your opponents name one very famous "Kurd" who became the ultimate ruler of both Egypt as well as the rest of the Levant?

Edited by opuslola - 29-Jun-2010 at 14:35

OF course! Probably the most famous or infamous "Kurd" ever?

Or can any of you find another?

  @Ince i think what putty19 was trying to say is not that we are not of iranic stock. He only just wanted to show that we have geneticly a big distance to other iranic-indoiranic people. What is right. The only Iranic People who are geneticly near to us are the Iranians mostly from west-central and North Iran. But he is also right that we have many caucasian elements but thats normal.What he says is that we are normal north middle eastern people than beeinf central asian like pakistanis. And Also the genetic relationship between kurds and persians is not higher than the genetic relationship between kurds armenians or turks. Thats what he is saying and thats why i don´t understand why so many racistic kurds try to make a big "aryan" nation while there is no aryan race ! The genetic near of kurds and persians is so high like the genetic near of persians and armenians kurds and turks turks and persians. most of them are geneticly related. Only Southeast iran with border Pakistan is geneticly a bit different. Vene the real tajiks and Afghans are geneticly much closer to Kurds than persians! in Fact i don´t use and of those words like iranian iranic but it is better to use iranic than iranian. I don´t want to free from turkey to be a part of big persia. I want to be a part of a kurdistan not an aryan "Persia " or an pan turanic   Turkey. But you are also right that the People of corduene were for sure of Iranic stock by language and mostly by DNA and not assimilated assyrians that can´t be when we think about that the assyrians had to came from south the only can be of J1 or J2 origin for real assyrians assimilated many other nations. And some of them were even kurdish  

Edited by Xorto - 30-Jun-2010 at 02:43

Originally posted by Putty19 Originally posted by opuslola OF course! Probably the most famous or infamous "Kurd" ever? Or can any of you find another? Yea Saladin was a Kurd, but what does that have to do with anything?Actually I think Saladin was one of the best Muslim rulers, unlike the other Arab Muslims he was tolerant, even the Christians welcomed his rule.

Yes, it seems many in the West admired him?

But, here was a Sunni Muslim, that became Emir, in an area full of Shia!

Hardly a place to be loved by the majority of Shia Egyptians! Being a Kurd, and not a native Egyptian, he (and his Kurdish assitants, etc., seems to very closely resemble a group of "shepherds", of which the Kurds evolved, and thus their rule seems in many ways to emulate the ancient rule of a group, that for most of our written history, have been called "Shepherd Rulers!"

You might well notice also, that the rule of Egypt by this family of Kurds, was quite brief in the scheme of things, much like the Hyksos!

I can even suspect that all of the Sunni's in Egypt were driven out of Egypt when Shia rule was restored?

Maybe just another case of "History repeating itself?"

Edited by opuslola - 30-Jun-2010 at 09:02

Xorto, I don't know what your read above, but I distinctly described him as a Sunni!

Read it again, and then apologize!

MAYBE YOU NEED TO READ EVERYTHING ABOVE AGAIN?

Edited by opuslola - 30-Jun-2010 at 19:44

Just kidding guy! I make similar mistakes all of the time!

Here are my exact words from above; "But, here was a Sunni Muslim, that became Emir, in an area full of Shia!"


Regards,

Edited by opuslola - 01-Jul-2010 at 08:55

Originally posted by Putty19 Let me ask you a question, what if you great great great great grandfather was a Mongol who carried haplogroup C3, but all the other ancestors you had were Kurdish, would that make you Kurd or Mongol? Please answer the question and don't go in circles.

 

First of all, identities such as Mongol or Kurd are by no means defined in accordance with genetic characteristics. It is only your ignorance to perceive the stuff in such a stupid way.

 

Mr. Know-It-All you only talk like a single forebear's genes are supposed to overwhelm the entire gene pools of the respective progenies to the point that it would not be possible to recognize the rest of ancestors at all!

But it is not the case because genetic characteristics evolve ceaselessly and every ancestor just leaves specific impacts. If not so, then we all were carrying only Adam's Y-DNA as the most noticeable one ever! That is definitely implausible, nevertheless an individual such as you who foolishly dare call Y-DNA and MtDNA as "nonsense" should be expected to repeat his folly in different ways.

 

Originally posted by Putty19 Then stop using the Y-DNA argument, if you're not gonna take it in that manner there's no need to use it.

 

That is for sure peoples are not defined based on Y-DNA, it was only you who brought genetics on the table to nonsensically prove that Kurdish people are not an Iranic people.

 

Originally posted by Putty19 Agreed, I never said because you're closer to us genetically that means you'll have to stop being or doing the things you want to be or do, it's simply a discussion based on facts, that's it.

 

Are you that much stupid to contradict yourself like that?! You exactly meant so since you senselessly asseverated that Kurds are not Iranian because they are closer to us [Assyrians] genetically.

 

It is simply your nationalistic prejudice and personal ignorance to uphold such nonsense ideas.

 

But if you want to compare genetic facts between Iranian peoples (Persian, Kurd, Lur, Azari, etc.) and their neighbors, such as Semitic peoples (Arab, Assyrian, Aramean), just provide a comprehensive data pertaining to them all and then discuss in terms of genetics.

 

Originally posted by Putty19 That's fine, but the point was genetically the Kurds are middle eastern, this has nothing to do with trying to separate you from Iranians and what not, what I'm trying to say is your genetics does not match the genetics of an ancient Scythian found in the steppes of Central Asia, on the other hand it could match and ancient Armenian dna found in the mountains of Urartu.

 

Why are you that much mean-spirited? Should you be reminded that it was you who stupidly did dare say Kurds are not an Iranian people based on genetics?

 

By the way a Scythian from Central Asia is not gonna represent the entire body of this ancient Iranian people since Scythians did not live only in Central Asian steppes. Go and read meticulously about their history. They are supposed to get settled in many various places from Eastern Europe to Western China, and from Kurdistan to Sistan (< Sagzestan ~ Scythian Land).

 

Mr. Know-It-All first provide comprehensive genetic data regarding to Iranian peoples and other Middle Eastern folks, and then talk about genetics.

 

 

 

Originally posted by Putty19 The modern Kurds bare their name from these Qardu people, if you were Medians you should call yourselves Medes, not Kurds, Qardu/Carduchi/Corduene is your heritage.

 

We share Medes as one of our ancestors in common with other Northwestern speaking folks of Iran including Azaris (originally speaking Tati language but later went thru Turkification linguistically), Central Iranian folks, Semnanies, etc.

 

You, nationalistic moron, cannot remove the Medes just like that. Medes were originally referred to as Aryans (< Old Iranian "eyre*") which means "The Nobles". Probably this is why no modern Iranian folk calls itself any thing resembling Mede (however some suggest Kurdish toponyms such as "May" to be a cognate of Mad ~ Mede). Today Kirmanji Kurdish is the only modern Iranian language, to my knowledge, that represents this Old Iranian word: "hír" ~ "noble". Also, for your information Mr. Know-It-All, an old Christian text is found over Caucasus which contains a praying written in, if I am not mistaken, Armenian, Persian, and (as the Armenian text refers to) Mede (Armenian "Maday*") languages. The most worthy of mention point is that the language which is referred to as Mede is nothing outside of Kirmanjí Kurdish (particularly in Northern dialect aka Kurmanjí).

 

Originally posted by Putty19 Modern Iranian people were born with the Indo-Iranians in Central Asia, from there waves started to spread around,

 

That has nothing to do with the fact that Iranians (such as Kurds) are Iranians.

 

 

 

Originally posted by Putty19 the Iranians were already spread all the way in the steppes of Eurasia long before there was such thing as Median empire.

 

Yes and on the other hand so-called Akkadian people were originally settled within central and southern Iraq before they brutally invade northern parts of Iraq and subsequently any Assyrian (Akkadians who were named after Ashur) empire being founded by their rest in the occupied lands such as Ashur.

 

Originally posted by Putty19 Of course there are a lot of areas within this territory that were not Iranians mostly, on the same token, the big majority of the eastern parts which included Scythians for most part were not covered by the Medes.

 

Right and there is definitely the same thing to be conceived of Assyrian empire including areas of Asshur, Nineveh, etc. which were indisputably non-Akkadian territories invaded and occupied by Akkadians, who were later named after Ashur as Assyrian.

 

Originally posted by Putty19 In my opinion the Medes were the start of the Western Iranians, not the entire Iranian people, the Eastern Iranians were less mixed while the Western Iranians mixed in very heavily with other local populations.

 

Median (~ Aryan) Empire commenced Iran (<Eyran < Eyre- > Land of Aryans). By the way Eastern Iranians got mixed with local peoples as well. A considerable percentage of Central Asian Iranophone folks might seem Mongoloid nonetheless still you could find Iranian appearances over there for sure.

 

Originally posted by Putty19 What about Kurmanji? You know language can spread and people can adopt

 

Mr. Know-It-All Kurmanji is not merely a linguistic term.

 

Originally posted by Putty19 That's the exact point I'm trying to make, the Kurds for most part are more related to Anatolian populations more than they are to Persians, this may not be important to you but we are working on personal projects in 23andMe to see where everyone fits, so far we have a good number of Assyrians, Armenians, Iranians (Mixed Persians and Azeris for most part), Anatolian Turks, Arabs, Jews, and so on, it would be nice if we had a few more Kurds to compare with, but from the few Kurdish individuals that exist, they are closest to Armenians, Assyrians, and Anatolian Turks, and a bit more distant to Persians,

 

Your exact point has already been proved to be an idiotically Assyrian nationalistic pretension which began over here by a foolish utterance "Kurds are not an Iranian people" based on truly incomprehensive genetic data.

 

So far you have been maintaining that Kurds are closer to us [Assyrians-Semitic], now how come Anatolian Turks and Armenians (both non-Semitic peoples) are included? Probably you may say after all we all are Middle Eastern (and obviously implying Iranians are not Middle Eastern!!), thus it would be your fatal ignorance being unable to understand that the term Middle East encompasses which places and what peoples!

 

By the way where are your so-called Assyrians from (central Iraq, Iraqi Kurdistan, Urmia, Hamadan, Syria, etc.)? Ancient Assyrians are racially supposed to be a Semitic people. But now you indicate that modern Assyrians are in a genetic relatedness with Kurds, Anatolian Turcophone folks, and Armenians (that all together outnumber Assyrians as well as are not Semitic peoples). Thus only one conclusion could be inferred: maybe the people who are known as Assyrian are originally a blend of non-Semitic peoples and therefore are related to ancient Assyrian Akkadians by no means!

 

Also your nationalistically biased point is again elucidated when you confess you got a few Kurdish individuals' data as well as God knows how much the rest of data (Armenian, Persian, Assyrian, Azari, etc.) are incomprehensive. Meantime you foolishly affirmed, based on the aforementioned incomprehensive data, that Kurds are not an Iranian people and even are close to us [Assyrians]. 

 

 

Originally posted by Putty19 so whether this matters to you or not that's not the point I'm trying to make, I'm just saying in terms of genetics,

 

No reasonable individual is gonna mind genetic facts. But nationalistically biased and foolish utterances based on incomprehensive data are despised to every single wise person.    

 

Originally posted by Putty19 from what I have seen the Kurds seem more similar to the Near East than anything else, I just hope more Kurds sign up so we can get the proper picture.

 

Again your ignorance is obvious over here. You stupidly disregard the fact that Iranians are Middle Eastern too (since you have already asseverated that Kurds are Middle Eastern and not Iranian).

 

Edited by Quaere Verum - 02-Jul-2010 at 09:16

Originally posted by Putty19 I dare you, sorry, I meant to say I challenge you to show me one source where it speaks of a Semitic migration of a folk named Assyrians outside norther Mesopotamia, just show me one simple source, that's all I ask.   I agree that the Iranians, Romans, Arabs, and so on were all later arrivals, but the Assyrians themselves take their name from the city of Assur, here's where the city of Assur is located:   http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/m/images/mesopot_assyr_map_lg.jpg The green part in the middle is where the original Assyrian originated, as this was the land of the very first Assyrian kingdom and the name they bare is there, for your information these same Hurrian Caucasians you speak of are also our ancestors, so I'm not gonna stand for your stupid lies sir, but I don't need to, I simply asked you to find me a source where it speaks of a folk named Assyrians that arrived later, it's a simple challenge and I would like a legitimate source please, not some Kurdi guy saying Kudish agenda.

 

You are definitely one of the most senseless persons I have ever bumped against. For your information Mr. Know-It-All Assyrian people are originated from a Semitic folk that are known as Akkadian who were concentrated on the central Iraq. By the reign of Sargon and surmounting Sumerians, Akkadians just started off their military invasions towards north (where they occupied cities such as Assur) northwest, and east. After the fall of Akkadian Empire those Akkadians who were settled over there were named after Assur (Ashur) as Assyrian. From then on they operated new invasions and occupied other territories located on the modern Iraqi Kurdistan, and so on. To the ancient people of Northern Iraq, Akkadians were definitely brutal invaders from the south. For further information on Akkadians homeland you may check out all available and authentic sources (e.g. The Ancient Iraq, Dr. Georges Roux.) Here is a map about Akkadian military invasions:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orientmitja2300aC.png

 

 

Originally posted by Putty19 In fact, the name Assur has been there before the arrival of the Semitic speakers, explain this to me please

 

It is for sure. When Akkadians invaded there and then parts of them got settled, they were named after it-Assur. But still they were certainly Akkadians from the south that had arrived later. If you want to imply that Assyrian Akkadians were original people of Assur and related to Hurrians, you are wrong again. Every thing is to witness that as a matter of fact Akkadians who were named after Assur were nothing outside of Akkadians. You have to get ride of such whimsical notions for your own good.

 

Originally posted by Putty19 There's no source that the people in Adiabene were Kurds, once again show me your proof, on the other hand, Corduene existed north of that and surely, that's where you Kurds bare your name from, if Adiabene was Kurdish, surely there would be one province named Corduene, not two separate provinces.

 

You ignorant, did I say there is any direct mention to the identity of Adiabene during its kingdom? So far the earliest direct indication is made by Arab geographers who referred to Adiabenese people as Kurds. But for sure we know that Adiabene had an ethnically mixed society. But when we put all authentic materials regarding to Adiabene we could presume that there was a Kurdish majority over there.

 

By the way Sassanians didn't mention Assyrians to resist them, but Kurds are mentioned so. And as a matter of fact we know that Adiabenese people resisted Sassanians too.

 

   

Originally posted by Putty19 A) Rulers do not explain the people, a good example is the Royal House of Mitanni, they were Indo-Aryan similar to those Indics with the Vedic background, but the population of their empire were known to be Caucasian Hurrians.

 

That is true ruling class might not represent the entire nation, always. But when you have the vaguest idea about the people, the rulers' names could serve to solve the puzzle indeed.

 

 

Originally posted by Putty19 B) The rulers of Adiabene had a Hellenic element, not Iranian, their queen's name was Helena for God's sake, and their capital was named Arbella which comes from the ancient name "Arba-Ilu", again, not an Iranian name at all but rather, a Semitic name, in any case, it is accepted that they were Greeks.

 

Unfortunately you are stupider than what I could ever imagine. Mr. Ignorant a Hellenistic name such as Helena at that time is associated to the previous Seleucid reign over Iran. It is even noticeable by now in an Iranian name such as Helina. Should I tell you on some Greek loans within Kurdish, Persian, or Parthian vocabularies due to the Hellenistic era?! On the other hand Izates, Meharaspes, etc. are definitely Iranian names (respectively Ized/Yezed and Méhrasp* in modern Kurdish). Since Helena was allegedly sister of his husband, Bazeus, and both were Izates' children; then an Iranian origin would be indisputably presumable based on etymology of their names.

 

Originally posted by Putty19 my question to you is where did the Kurds come up with speaking an Iranian language?

 

Iranian peoples (Medes and Scythians) had invaded and later settled the respective areas long before any presence of Adiabene and for sure they continued to live over there, as their various elements are to be observed amongst Kurds, who constitute the majority over there, to the present time.

 

Originally posted by Putty19 Mind you, while the main language of Adiabene was indeed Aramaic, the language of Corduene was Iranian (Based on Greek records), seems to fit the Kurdish bill quite nicely, Kurds in Corduene and Assyrians in Adiabene, makes much more sense to me than your theories.

 

I am really sorry to perceive your certainly profound ignorance over and over. That is all wrong since there is no direct indication to the native language of Adiabenese people. Aramaic was only the official as well as lingua franca of the entire western parts of Persian empires, including Adiabene.

 

For sure such a biased and nonsensical interpretation would make much more sense to you who cherishes nationalistically biased notions and often dare demean himself by disregarding obvious facts which refute his nationalistic ideas.

 

Originally posted by Putty19 Sure I believe it, that was only around 1200 years ago

 

It was at least up to 1300 years ago.

 

Originally posted by Putty19 the question is did the Sassanid Persians say that? Did the Greeks say that? Did the Romans say that? Be fair and answer the question properly.   Btw, please show me the source for reading sake, I'm pretty sure it's an interesting read.

 

They did not for sure as well as they did not mention Assyrian or any other ethnicity over Adiabene. Otherwise there would be no disputation about it. But from some accounts we are sure that Adiabenese society was a mixture, most likely of Iranians and Semitic folks. But the other materials; such as its rulers' etymologically Iranian names, its resistance against Sassanid empire (which Sassanians refer to as a Kurdish resistance); Judaic sources witnessing massive Kurdish (rather than Assyrian) conversions into Judaism and meantime historical accounts on Adiabenese conversion into Judaism; historically exceptional connections between Kurdish Muslims and Kurdish Jews in the respective area (for instance the term "gewr" ~ "goy" in Central Kurdish is traditionally referred to Christians and not Jews, whilst to Muslims both Christians and Jews should be considered "goyim" and not only Christians; the earliest historical indication to ethnicity of Adiabenese people refers to them as Kurds; from the on in accordance with all historical accounts on the demography of respective area we just face Kurds as a prevailing ethnicity, as well as in the earlier indications (prior to Adiabene) we face Hurro-Urartian speakers as well as Lullubi people as the earliest people settling the area which later became subject to Akkadian, Mede, Scythian, etc. invasions. Now as a matter of fact the prevailing ethnicity is Kurdish which is an Iranian one (similar to Medes and Scythians) as well as their languages represent both Scythian and Median characteristics with presumably a grammatical Hurrian background.

 

For the earliest indications to ethnicity of Adiabene, you may check out post-Islamic geographical sources as well as Diakonov's Roman and Byzantine Campaigns in Atropatene.

 

Originally posted by Putty19 Show me one source where the Adiabene dynasty called themselves Kurdish

 

Seemingly your nationalistic partiality has literally blinded you. Did I say Adiabenese dynasty referred to themselves as Kurdish? Read meticulously you biased. I say the only dynasty that named themselves after Adiabene, were merely the Kurdish dynasty of Hadbani. 

 

Originally posted by Putty19 clearly they were Greek, but hey if you say they're Kurds, show me the proof.

 

It is your deep ignorance to asseverate they were clearly Greek, and it is your fatal lack in knowledge regarding to the history of Middle East, particularly Iran to believe the hypothesis that suggests a Greek origin for Adiabenese rulers based on a single forename such as Helena, which for sure is to be observed amongst Iranians even to the present time. If based on forenames, so for sure Helena, daughter of Izates, and sister/wife of Bazues was as much Greek as a girl named Helina, daughter of Mehrdad, and sister of Maziyar is!

 

Originally posted by Putty19 Well the region was ancient Assyria for most part

 

You are truly an ignorant one for I should tell you that it was also wholly a part of Median and Persian empires.

 

But neither Iranians nor Akkadians were the original inhabitants of the area indeed, but Hurro-Urartian speaking folks and, to some degrees, Lullubies.

 

Originally posted by Putty19 the city of Arbella was one of the earlier Assyrian cities, maybe that's why scholars tagged Adiabene with Assyria,

 

That is definitely irrelevant. Because the first time ever the name Assyria got tagged on Adiabene was when Romans toppled its kingdom and annexed it into their Province of Assyria. From then on some western, if I am not mistaken Greek, historians appeared to use Adiabene and Assyria as synonyms. This western misconception has turned into one of the biggest historical blunders that westerns still may consider Adiabene to be the same as Assyria.

 

Originally posted by Putty19 you obviously seem to ignore that a lot of these towns like Assur, Nineveh, Kalhu, and so on were the heart of the Assyria, and even today there are villages that are located in the Ninwa and Duhok provinces that are pure Assyrian based on their names, I mentioned Alqosh as the most Assyrian village and it's located on the border of Ninwa and Duhok province, even the name of it (Al-Qosh) literally means "The God of the Bow" which implies to the ancient God of the Assyrians (Assur), I don't understand, you wanna erase all that and call it Kurdish? Sorry buddy, no can do.

 

No one is attempting to delete the history, but you the senseless ignorant. You obviously do not know the very fact that Akkadians (whose northern groups later were named Assyrian after Assur, a city which they had invaded and occupied) were not native to the northern Iraq at all. Even a city such as Assur was certainly conquered by Akkadians, let alone further northern areas such as those of Nineveh, Erbil, Duhok, etc.

 

 

Originally posted by Putty19 Originally posted by Quaere Verum Y-DNA and MtDNA are not nonsense.   In proving recent ancestry, it is, so like your buddy answered me, please don't beat around the bush and answer this question straight:   - You great great great great great grandpa was a Mongol that carried haplogroup C3 or R1a1. - Most of your other ancestors were Kurds. - What are you? Kurd or Mongol?   If you say Mongol, then I'll agree that Y-DNA is not useless, but if you say Kurd, clearly it is useless.

 

It is probably my mistake trying to discuss with such a senseless ignorant as you who stubbornly insists on his ignorance and again asseverates that the usage of Y-DNA and MtDNA (which are inevitable in case of revealing genetic facts) is nonsense. When you disregard such an obvious scientific fact in such an obvious way, then it would be easily perceivable how ignorant you generally are.

 

Originally posted by Putty19 No, but the usefulness of Y-DNA to prove your Kurdishness does not exist, it's useless, bringing up Y-DNA argument to prove you're Kurdish is like bringing a water gun in the battlefield.

 

You ignorant did I try to prove my Kurdishness based on genetics? You foolishly described Y-DNA results to vary in an era starting from up to 10,000 years ago, and I just remind you the very fact that it is used even to reveal earliest ancestories.

 

Originally posted by Putty19 Originally posted by Quaere Verum The concept of people is not defined by genetic characteristics.    Agreed.

 

Ok, then end of discussion about your nonsensical pretension that Kurds are not Iranian, based on biased conclusions resulted from incomprehensive data.

Quaere Verum,

It is most obvious that you have come to consider yourself as the "Only expert" available to query!

That is most rude, and in keeping with the attiude of the personages who at one time ripped this very site into!

My view, however, is very much in line with the so called theory called "Occams's Razor!"

My view, does in fact, use the "razor" to cut to the most simple explanation of almost "anything!"

If, however, you have a better explanation of the origin of the word or descripion of a group of people in certain areas of the world over many years, then the "razor" seems to point in my explanation!

So, I have shown you mine, now you must show me yours?

So, go ahead, leave those others behind! Let your true self be shown?