The Persians came from the same area as the Elamites, but clearly they were later arrivals (From South Central Asia) since their language and their culture was an Iranic one while the Elamites was not, so in my opinion I think the first Persians were the Achaemenid crew.
The Kurds are a little complicated however, for example they claim the Medes to be the ancestors, but I see a few problems with this claim:
- The Kurds seem to have an Iranic language but there are other northwestern Iranic languages that likely also came from Median, so it's not like Kurdish is the only northwestern Iranian language out there.
- Kurdish unlike the other Iranic languages shows unique words from ancient Caucasian languages (Hurrian probably), which shows their Caucasian background rather than Iranian one.
- The Kurd identity is not a new one, they've been mentioned before Christianity as Carduchi by the Greeks, Courdene by the Romans, Qardu by the Assyrians, and their location has always been Eastern Anatolia where ancient Urartu was (Eastern Turkey) where it used to be populated by Caucasian tribes before the arrival of the Iranians such as Medes and Parthians, not to mention that the term Kurd has been around the same time as Mede and Parthian, meaning we're talking about two different groups here.
- Some scholars are now saying that the Kurdish language arrived from the southwestern part of Iran rather than northwest, so through the same area where ancient Persians came from, it sort of makes sense since Baluchi which happens to be one of the closest languages to Kurdish today is located on the other side between Sindh and ancient Persia/Elam in the southern parts.
Basically here's what I think, the Kurds have an Iranic element but are Caucasians originally that are native to the middle east rather than Iranians that migrated from South Central Asia like other Iranians to the middle east.
The Persians came from the same area as the Elamites, but clearly they were later arrivals (From South Central Asia) since their language and their culture was an Iranic one while the Elamites was not, so in my opinion I think the first Persians were the Achaemenid crew.
The Kurds are a little complicated however, for example they claim the Medes to be the ancestors, but I see a few problems with this claim:
- The Kurds seem to have an Iranic language but there are other northwestern Iranic languages that likely also came from Median, so it's not like Kurdish is the only northwestern Iranian language out there.
- Kurdish unlike the other Iranic languages shows unique words from ancient Caucasian languages (Hurrian probably), which shows their Caucasian background rather than Iranian one.
- The Kurd identity is not a new one, they've been mentioned before Christianity as Carduchi by the Greeks, Courdene by the Romans, Qardu by the Assyrians, and their location has always been Eastern Anatolia where ancient Urartu was (Eastern Turkey) where it used to be populated by Caucasian tribes before the arrival of the Iranians such as Medes and Parthians, not to mention that the term Kurd has been around the same time as Mede and Parthian, meaning we're talking about two different groups here.
- Some scholars are now saying that the Kurdish language arrived from the southwestern part of Iran rather than northwest, so through the same area where ancient Persians came from, it sort of makes sense since Baluchi which happens to be one of the closest languages to Kurdish today is located on the other side between Sindh and ancient Persia/Elam in the southern parts.
Basically here's what I think, the Kurds have an Iranic element but are Caucasians originally that are native to the middle east rather than Iranians that migrated from South Central Asia like other Iranians to the middle east.
It is still debated on the origins of the Kurds, their are many different theorys out their. Some believe the modern term Kurd to describe the current Kurds appeared after the Sassanids. Where as others believe much earlier. Like you said some even believe Kurds came from futher south.
Kurds have many different elements in them mainly Aryan(Mittani,Medes..ect) and also scythian. All over Iran their used to be Native people before the Iranians tribes came south Iran was the Elamites.
َAlthough there are various speculations over some historical terms, such as Carduchi, Guti, etc., to be earlier forms of Kurd, but th term Kurd in its present sense appears in the history, to my knowledge, in Karnamagi Ardashiri Babagan (approximately 1800 years ago) for first time.
Regarding to the term Persian (< Persia) it is in use since some 2500 years ago, if I am not mistaken.
Google Persian Translation is not bad, Click Here:
Originally posted by Dehkhoda Persian Dictionary
Kurt scheme. [K b] (Hams ink) Krdbndy.Into farms and gardens to almost equal parts.(From Persian culture specific).Divisions of agricultural land to garden and limited to the boundaries of rectangular pieces emerged from the soil.And will go to Crete.
Pars (Persia) also means "Segment, Part of a land", the name of Parthians could mean the same, in fact the Persian word Para means "part of a whole", the name of Scythians, like the English word Scythe: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=scythe&searchmode=none, comes from the verb "to cut", the Persian word for "chisel" is Sekana, the famous Scythian weapon Sagaris had certainly the same origin, like the English words Section, Segment, ...
Assyrian documents around 1000 BC call the people living in Mt. Azu or Hizan (near Lake Van) by the name Kurti or Kurkhi. The country of the Kurkhi included regions of Mount Judi and districts that were later called by the names Sophene, Anzanene and Gordyene. The Kurkhi fought numerous battles with Tiglath-Pileser I who eventually defeated them and burnt down 25 of their towns.[6] According to the British scholar G. R. Driver, the ethnonym originates even earlier, in 3rd millennium BC Sumerian records, as the name of a land called Karda or Qarda. This land south ofLake Van, was inhabited by the people of Su or Subaru who were connected with the Qurtie, a group of mountain dwellers.[7]
The term "Kurd" is first encountered in Arabic sources of the first century of the Islamic era[8]. The term seems to refer to variety of pastoral nomadism and possibly a set of political units, rather than linguistic group[8]. Books from the early Islamic era, including those containing legends like the Shahnameh and the PahlaviKarnamak Ardashir-e-Papkan and other early Islamic sources provide early attestation of the name Kurd[9]. However, it is likely that the "Kurds" in Fars[10] were not true Kurds, but spoke South Western Iranian languages related to Persian[10]. The Kurd in the Middle Persian documents simply means nomad and tent-dweller and could be attributed to any Iranian ethnic group having similar characteristics[11]. In the early Islamic Persian and Arabic sources, the term Kurd became synonymous with an amalgamation of Iranian and Iranicized nomadic tribes and groups[12][13][14] without reference to any specific Iranian language[8][15]. By the 16th century, Sherefxan Bidlisi states that there are four division of Kurds: Kurmanj,Lur, Kalhur and Guran. However, according to Vladimir Minorsky, only Kurmanj and possibly Kalhur come under the heading of Kurds, where-as Lur and Guran stand apart for both linguistic and ethnological reasons[16][17]. Despite the opinion of Minorsky and other linguists, the Kalhur and Guran speakers do not use linguistic differentiators. Rather they use cultural differentiators and consider themselves as Kurds, along with all Kurmanji, Sorani speakers and many Zazas.
I know this one But There is something I don`t know how much is true During Sumerians Kurds were present There is the place Land of Karda
Etymology
The region was known with various cognates of the word Kurd (meaning land of Kurds) during the ancient history of the Mesopotamia. The ancient Sumerians referred to it as Kur-a, Gutium, or Land of Karda, the Elamites as Kurdasu, the Akkadians as Kurtei, the Assyrians as Kurti, the Babylonians as Qardu, the Greeks and the Romans as Corduene. One of the first records of using the term 'Kurdistan' is by Sultan Sanjar the Seljuk King in the 12th century. He formed a province namedKurdistan centered at Bahar situated to the northeast of Hamadan. This province was located between Azerbaijan and Luristan. It included the regions of Hamadan, Dinawar, Kermanshah and Senna, to the east of the Zagros and to the west of Sharazur (Kirkuk) and Khuftiyan, on the river Zab.
I am somewhat of a "simpleton" on this site! But, with no bad intent meant, I just had to state that it might well be that the most "simple" answer as to just what the word "Kurd", might mean is to assume the simple change of the spelling to "Curd!"
The people known as Kurds, were considered by most all experts as "pastoralists!", that is they were those people who raised sheep, goats, or maybe even cattle!
Any group involved in such a way of life, is also considered to be "milkmen" or "milkwomen" and as such can always eat without worry milk products, etc.!
In other words almost any pastorial society was not "lactose intolerant"!, is is such a large portion of the world where the managing of herds of milk producing animals, is not, nor it seems never has been a way of life!
Thus, most of modern Asia, that is the area around China, etc,, cannot process milk products after being weaned from milk at an early age! The body, denied access to milk products at an early age, it seems, tends to lose the ability to adequately digest milk products for the rest of their lives!
I doubt if the "Kurds" share this problem?
Curds, are merely the solid product left when milk sours! It is compared to "coagulation" as in "blood!", and it might well have been considered as a tribal trait in some communities, that is if a stranger entered the communiuty and refused to eat cheese or curds, then it would be obvious that this stranger was not "related!", of had not "solidifed" (become one) with the rest of the community!
So, just take my "simleton" answer, and see if it does not confirm a real explanation!
I am somewhat of a "simpleton" on this site! But, with no bad intent meant, I just had to state that it might well be that the most "simple" answer as to just what the word "Kurd", might mean is to assume the simple change of the spelling to "Curd!"
The people known as Kurds, were considered by most all experts as "pastoralists!", that is they were those people who raised sheep, goats, or maybe even cattle!
I got to affirm that only in some Caspian vocabularies, particularly that of Sangsari, there is "kurd" in sense of "shepherd" along with "coppon", the later word of a certain etymology. Nonetheless you can also find "kurd"/"gurd" words in Parthian and some other Iranian lexicons in sense of "braveheart". By the way not all of Kurds were pastoralists as well as all Iranian peoples had their own pastoralist classes indeed.
Originally posted by opuslola
Thus, most of modern Asia, that is the area around China, etc,, cannot process milk products after being weaned from milk at an early age! The body, denied access to milk products at an early age, it seems, tends to lose the ability to adequately digest milk products for the rest of their lives!
I doubt if the "Kurds" share this problem?
That is generally wrong.
Originally posted by opuslola
Curds, are merely the solid product left when milk sours! It is compared to "coagulation" as in "blood!", and it might well have been considered as a tribal trait in some communities, that is if a stranger entered the communiuty and refused to eat cheese or curds, then it would be obvious that this stranger was not "related!", of had not "solidifed" (become one) with the rest of the community!
So, just take my "simleton" answer, and see if it does not confirm a real explanation!
I think it does not, partner. You may spend some time reading history of Iran as well as hunting up the etymology of English curd for this regard.
َAlthough there are various speculations over some historical terms, such as Carduchi, Guti, etc., to be earlier forms of Kurd, but th term Kurd in its present sense appears in the history, to my knowledge, in Karnamagi Ardashiri Babagan (approximately 1800 years ago) for first time.
Regarding to the term Persian (< Persia) it is in use since some 2500 years ago, if I am not mistaken.
The Corduene existed at the same time period as the Sassanids. Maybe Kurds from West Iran went north and assimilated/mixed with the Corduene?
No one really knows what langauge the Corduene spoke, some say Mede or Sycthian dialect.
According to Arshak Safrastian, the Medes and Scythians
mentioned in classical Greek literature existed only as preconceived
notions. Equating the Carduchi with the Gutians, he adds that the moment the Ten
Thousand began to skirt the lower slopes of the Hamrin Mountains, they
were in contact with the tribes of Gutium which are presented here as
Medes or Scythians. [9].
What about the Balochi and Kurdish langauge similarties, whats the story behind that? did the Balochi move south or did the Kurds move North?
It is still debated on the origins of the Kurds, their are many different theorys out their. Some believe the modern term Kurd to describe the current Kurds appeared after the Sassanids. Where as others believe much earlier. Like you said some even believe Kurds came from futher south.
Kurds have many different elements in them mainly Aryan(Mittani,Medes..ect) and also scythian. All over Iran their used to be Native people before the Iranians tribes came south Iran was the Elamites.
Well to be exact the Kurds like any other middle eastern population come from different backgrounds, but their identify is Kurd, they take their name from the Caucasians that lived in the mountains of Urartu because that's where Kurds came from, in fact in the Syriac Bible Mount Ararat is called Mount Qardu, there's no doubt that modern Kurds adopted an Iranian language that probably entered from the Southwest (Perhaps it came from Balochistan), but for most part the Kurds are natives to the middle east and are a Caucasian population.
The adoption of Iranian among Kurds could be explained the same way the Iranian Azeris adopted the Turkic language, Azeri at one point used to be an Iranian language that likely came from Median or Parthian, today it's considered a Turkic language.
It is still debated on the origins of the Kurds, their are many different theorys out their. Some believe the modern term Kurd to describe the current Kurds appeared after the Sassanids. Where as others believe much earlier. Like you said some even believe Kurds came from futher south.
Kurds have many different elements in them mainly Aryan(Mittani,Medes..ect) and also scythian. All over Iran their used to be Native people before the Iranians tribes came south Iran was the Elamites.
Well to be exact the Kurds like any other middle eastern population come from different backgrounds, but their identify is Kurd, they take their name from the Caucasians that lived in the mountains of Urartu because that's where Kurds came from, in fact in the Syriac Bible Mount Ararat is called Mount Qardu, there's no doubt that modern Kurds adopted an Iranian language that probably entered from the Southwest (Perhaps it came from Balochistan), but for most part the Kurds are natives to the middle east and are a Caucasian population.
The adoption of Iranian among Kurds could be explained the same way the Iranian Azeris adopted the Turkic language, Azeri at one point used to be an Iranian language that likely came from Median or Parthian, today it's considered a Turkic language.
Well you could be wright then you might be wrong as their are people that are claiming Kurds have nothing to do with the Qardu. For example Jamiaca was a name that was given by the native indians before the arrival of the Europeans, yet large majority of the people in Jamiaca are of African origin. My belief is Kurds are just as much Iranic as any other Iranian tribes.
But Kurds don't only just share lingaustic similarties with other Iranians they also share many cultural similarties specially with Lurs. Unlike the Turks of Anatolia and Azeris who only share Linguastics with other Turks.
I am somewhat of a "simpleton" on this site! But, with no bad intent meant, I just had to state that it might well be that the most "simple" answer as to just what the word "Kurd", might mean is to assume the simple change of the spelling to "Curd!"
The people known as Kurds, were considered by most all experts as "pastoralists!", that is they were those people who raised sheep, goats, or maybe even cattle!
Any group involved in such a way of life, is also considered to be "milkmen" or "milkwomen" and as such can always eat without worry milk products, etc.!
In other words almost any pastorial society was not "lactose intolerant"!, is is such a large portion of the world where the managing of herds of milk producing animals, is not, nor it seems never has been a way of life!
Thus, most of modern Asia, that is the area around China, etc,, cannot process milk products after being weaned from milk at an early age! The body, denied access to milk products at an early age, it seems, tends to lose the ability to adequately digest milk products for the rest of their lives!
I doubt if the "Kurds" share this problem?
Curds, are merely the solid product left when milk sours! It is compared to "coagulation" as in "blood!", and it might well have been considered as a tribal trait in some communities, that is if a stranger entered the communiuty and refused to eat cheese or curds, then it would be obvious that this stranger was not "related!", of had not "solidifed" (become one) with the rest of the community!
So, just take my "simleton" answer, and see if it does not confirm a real explanation!
Good post, but I think the better English word is Churn, Swedish kärna, Dutch Karn and the very Persian word Kara.
[4.2] Now the Scythians blind all their slaves, to use them in preparing their milk. The plan they follow is to thrust tubes made of bone, not unlike our musical pipes, up the vulva of the mare, and then to blow into the tubes with their mouths, some milking while the others blow. They say that they do this because when the veins of the animal are full of air, the udder is forced down. The milk thus obtained is poured into deep wooden casks, about which the blind slaves are placed, and then the milk is stirred round. That which rises to the top is drawn off, and considered the best part; the under portion is of less account. Such is the reason why the Scythians blind all those whom they take in war; it arises from their not being tillers of the ground, but a pastoral race.
The Corduene existed at the same time period as the Sassanids. Maybe Kurds from West Iran went north and assimilated/mixed with the Corduene?
No one really knows what langauge the Corduene spoke, some say Mede or Sycthian dialect.
According to the ancient Judaic sources Corduene is explicitly the same as Kurditsan, a land of Kurds. Most likely Kurds used to live in several Kurdish states which were under either Iranian or Roman sway. Corduene and Adiabene for instance were both Kurdish territories next to each other, as the Islamic sources attest the Kurdishness of the later in addition to its early rulers' first names which are obviously of Iranian origin.
Originally posted by Ince
What about the Balochi and Kurdish langauge similarties, whats the story behind that? did the Balochi move south or did the Kurds move North?
Well they both linguistically show some Southwestern Iranian elements, which of course are outright borrowings. But the fact is that the Southwestern loans in both languages are not exactly the same (e.g. Kurdish "pis", Baluchi "puseg" < Old Persian "puce-ke") which refutes any exclusiveness in this regard. But there are a few similarities between them both which could be considered some how exclusive (e.g. Northern Kirmanji Kurdish "hesin", dialectal Baluchi "hesin" ~ "iron"). This could be due to a Scythian background of both. Since as a matter of fact some Scythian tribes also used to live over Baluchistan, as the name of its northern part, Sistan, witnesses (Sistan < Seyistan < Segzistan ~ Scythian Land). The rest of likenesses between Kirmanji Kurdish and Baluchi are resulted from the fact that they both are Northwestern Iranian languages after all. The southwestern loans in Kirmanji Kurdish are directly due to the enduring tribal confederations between Kurdish and Southwestern Iranian speaking tribes. But the case of Baluchi differs a bit since Baluchi people exactly live in southern Iran and are surrounded with southwestern speaking folks indeed. Probably this is why southwestern loans in Baluchi and Kirmanji Kurdish do not match utterly.
there's no doubt that modern Kurds adopted an Iranian language that probably entered from the Southwest (Perhaps it came from Balochistan),
That probability is to be refuted in fact. Kirmanji Kurdish (the language of the bulk of Kurds) is essentially a blend out of Median and Scythian (northwestern and northeastern Iranian languages respectively) with a possible Hurro-Urartian (non-Indo-European but probably related to Caucasian languages) background which is mostly grammatic, and a significant range of southwestern Iranian loans and a couple of non-Iranian Indo-European words from Hittite.
Originally posted by Putty19
but for most part the Kurds are natives to the middle east and are a Caucasian population.
They are native to Middle East but they cannot be considered a non-Iranian people at all. Kurds are eminently a distinct Iranian people with regard to cultural, linguistic, and historical aspects; nevertheless they carry a Hurrian (probably related to Caucasian) background.
My belief is Kurds are just as much Iranic as any other Iranian tribes.
That is true, they are an Iranian people. But do not let it go that the term Kurd which represents a unique identity is resulted from a blend out of Hurrian as well as Iranian (Medes and Scythian) peoples. Nonetheless as a result of Indo-Aryan invasion over Middle East, the Iranian characteristics of Kurds are dominant.
Originally posted by Ince
But Kurds don't only just share lingaustic similarties with other Iranians they also share many cultural similarties specially with Lurs. Unlike the Turks of Anatolia and Azeris who only share Linguastics with other Turks.
My belief is Kurds are just as much Iranic as any other Iranian tribes.
That is true, they are an Iranian people. But do not let it go that the term Kurd which represents a unique identity is resulted from a blend out of Hurrian as well as Iranian (Medes and Scythian) peoples. Nonetheless as a result of Indo-Aryan invasion over Middle East, the Iranian characteristics of Kurds are dominant.
Originally posted by Ince
But Kurds don't only just share lingaustic similarties with other Iranians they also share many cultural similarties specially with Lurs. Unlike the Turks of Anatolia and Azeris who only share Linguastics with other Turks.
That is definitely true.
Even the Genetic make up of Kurds is not exactly native middle easteners. Even tho Y-dna is not that reliable, but it still gives us a rough idea.
The Corduene existed at the same time period as the Sassanids. Maybe Kurds from West Iran went north and assimilated/mixed with the Corduene?
No one really knows what langauge the Corduene spoke, some say Mede or Sycthian dialect.
According to the ancient Judaic sources Corduene is explicitly the same as Kurditsan, a land of Kurds. Most likely Kurds used to live in several Kurdish states which were under either Iranian or Roman sway. Corduene and Adiabene for instance were both Kurdish territories next to each other, as the Islamic sources attest the Kurdishness of the later in addition to its early rulers' first names which are obviously of Iranian origin.
The language of Adiabene was Assyrian, not Kurdish, and while the populations were mixed, the culture was Assyrian in nature, it was the home of our Church at one point, though many Iranians migrated there and adopted our culture, which their lines went on to become Assyrians today. Courdene (Kurdistan) was north of Adiabene (Assyria).
Originally posted by Quaere Verum
That probability is to be refuted in fact. Kirmanji Kurdish (the language of the bulk of Kurds) is essentially a blend out of Median and Scythian (northwestern and northeastern Iranian languages respectively) with a possible Hurro-Urartian (non-Indo-European but probably related to Caucasian languages) background which is mostly grammatic, and a significant range of southwestern Iranian loans and a couple of non-Iranian Indo-European words from Hittite.
Median I can see, but clearly not Scythian, the only surviving language today that derives from Scythian is Ossetian, that's it, not to mention Sythian in nature is an Eastern Iranic language, not Western like Kurdish, so unless you can say there's a similarity between Kurdish and Ossetian (Which probably there is but even less so than Persian and Kurdish), Scythian is out of the question.
[quote]They are native to Middle East but they cannot be considered a non-Iranian people at all. Kurds are eminently a distinct Iranian people with regard to cultural, linguistic, and historical aspects; nevertheless they carry a Hurrian (probably related to Caucasian) background.
The Kurds are only Iranian in language, in genetics they are very similar to Assyrians, Armenians, Anatolian Turks, Syrians, Lebanese, and other north middle eastern populations, they're also usually further from their Iranian brethren to the east, if you're Kurdish, join 23andMe and you see how you'll score higher with the groups I mentioned.
In fact one of the closest language to Kurdish today is Baluchi, but genetically they are very far from one another.
Even the Genetic make up of Kurds is not exactly native middle easteners. Even tho Y-dna is not that reliable, but it still gives us a rough idea.
Region/Haplogroup
I
R1a
R1b
G
J2
J1
E
T
L
Q
N
Others
Armenia
4
8
28
11
22
0
5
6
4
0
2
12
Azerbaijan
3
7
11
18
20
12
6
11
0
0
0
15
Egypt
1
3
2
9
11
21
40
8
0
0
0
5
Georgia
3.5
9
11
31
24.5
2
4.5
2.5
3
0
0
10.5
Iran
3
16.5
6.5
10
12
10
4.5
3
4
4
2.5
27
Iraq
5
6.5
11
3
27
31
11
7
3
0
0
0
Kurdistan (Turkey)
25
19.5
8
12.5
7
0
2.5
6.5
0
0
0
18.5
Lebanon
3.5
3
6.5
5
34
13
20
3.5
5
1
0
5.5
Morocco
0
0
4
4
3
9
80
0
0
0
0
0
Syria
5
10
13.5
3
17
30
11.5
5
3
0
0
2
Tunisia
1
1
4.5
3.5
4
30
52
4
0
0
0
0
2 things since I'm like a genetic freak:
- That chart is not reliable, it's just some mumbo jumbo site that pulls out numbers out of the ass, I will find you a real study done on Kurds and post it here, regardless, the Assyrians today are mostly R1b, people mistaken that haplogroup for European since it's most dominant in Western Europe, but the fact is this haplogroup originated in Anatolia and spread to Europe during the Neolithic time, not to mention most of these haplogroups were already in the middle east prior to civilizations, meaning when they were roaming there was no such thing as Kurds or Persians, these identities came much later.
- Identifying groups on haplogroups is very wrong, this only shows one tiny ancestor out of the thousands of ancestors that you have, think of it for a second, 400 years ago you had about 1024 ancestors, this haplogroups only represents one person out of the 1024 ancestors that you had 400 years ago, and this is only 400 years ago so the deeper you go the more ancestors you have.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum