When did Kurds and Persians first names use ?

Originally posted by Putty19 This is really funny, but hey I can play too, look at the Iraqi flag, it's just an old German flag flipped upside down but with someone scribbling Allahu Akbar on it, I guess this proves the German background of Iraqis

Originally posted by Putty19 the Iranians (Not to be confused with Indo-Aryans although they do have the same origin) came into the middle east from the area where the original Indo-Iranians (Iranians and Indo-Aryans) originated, and this located is in South Central Asia (Around Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and norther parts of Pakistan), or perhaps the origins were a little north of that (Southern Kazakhstan), we see an earlier wave of Indo-Aryans (Not Iranians) come down to India and Pakistan where you see Indo-Aryan languages established today,

Originally posted by opuslola Is not the earliest representation of the Kurds one of a group of pastorialist or herders of sheep or goats, etc.?

Edited by Quaere Verum - 10-Jul-2010 at 09:58

Verum, I would appreciate if you learn how to reply in a structured manner so it makes the life of the person answering you easier, you just spread out 3 to 4 replies back to back commenting on line by line when you could have done it in a simpler way, anyways, I'll try to gather your answers so I can answer you.

what it is? I am afraid but seemingly it is you who needs to deal with the truth. Because you boastfully claimed Assyrian to be the language of Adiabene, while it is all wrong since its official language was for sure Aramaic (like the other western parts of those days Iranian empires) and its native languages are currently uncertain, but presumable indeed. As well as you affirmed that Adiabene is equal to Assyria, in spite of the very fact that the term Assyria was only applied to Adiabene at the end of its independence (after some 100 years) when Romans annexed it to their Roman province of Assyria.

Let's get one thing straight here, it was the term Adiabene that was put over Assyria, not the other way around.

I am sorry but your words in this regard are not clear. Akkadian and Aramaic are two distinct Semitic languages. Both got their own old forms, whilst Aramaic is still spoken in new forms (Neo-Aramaic speeches are related to the Old Aramaic since they are all Aramaic languages), but Akaddian is by all means an extinct language.

Yes, and?

There is not such a stuff at all. Aramaic is supposed to be replacing Akkadian (Assyrian as well as Babylonian dialects) as lingua franca (and not first language) since your aforesaid time. But as a matter of fact the most important era for Old Aramaic getting pervaded all over the mesopotamia (as first language) begins with the rise of Achaemenid dynasty. And its usage as a lingua franca is not restricted to Babylon or Assyria, but to many other lands as well.

It was the Assyrians who made this possible, the change would have not taken place if the Assyrians did not use the language themselves, here you go:

http://cal.huc.edu/aramaic_language.html

"Aramaic was used by the conquering Assyrians as a language of administration communication, and following them by the Babylonian and Persian empires, which ruled from India to Ethiopia, and employed Aramaic as the official language. For this period, then (about 700–320 B.C.E.), Aramaic held a position similar to that occupied by English today. The most important documents of this period are numerous papyri from Egypt and Palestine."

You do exactly mean after this therefore because of this! Aramaic as official language cannot imply any connection with being Assyrian in a thousand years, because otherwise the entire ancient Iranians, Jews, etc. would be Assyrians too! Currently Semitic Christians, Jews, and even some Muslims speak Neo-Aramaic speeches over Middle East. Please spend some time reading linguistic and historical sources about Assyrian Akkadian and Old Aramaic in order to perceive the very fact that they are two distinct languages respectively spoken by two distinct peoples, namely Assyrians and Arameans.

I never said Assyrians were the only Aramaic speakers, I said they used it when they were at their might as a daily language, to you Assyrian means Akkadian only, you're obviously wrong since Aramaic is also an Assyrian language since they adopted it and used it.

Could we conlcude that Aramaic is the same as Assyrian Akkadian only on account of Jews calling their Hebrew script "Ketav Ashuri"?! Anyways I again suggest you to read more about Assyrian Akkadian and Aramaic and for your knowledge scripts do not implicate any thing on their own. For instance many middle Iranian languages were written in Aramaic scripts too, or today Persian is written in an Arabic (particularly the Perso-Arabic) script, which for sure they call it "Khatt-e Farsi" (Persian script; since Persians contributed to develop it).

Do you not read what I write? Did I ever say Aramaic and Akkadian were the same language? No, I never said that, there was Assyrian Akkadian and Assyrian Aramaic, of course your lack of Semitic knowledge is evident here so I will not go into details about differences and what not, in any case you're so quick to say the Kurdish Jews are Kurds yet do not acknowledge the Assyrian Aramaic when the Jews say Ketav Ashuri?

Also the Khatt al Farsi that you speak of is called that because the Persians contributed and made it, in the same sense you need to acknowledge the Ketav Ashuri because it was the Assyrians who made it.

What is interesting and causes my wonder is that most likely you do not discern native language (of people) and official language. By the way Kurdish Jews using Neo-Aramaic dialects is a stuff due to the fact that it is their religious language indeed as well as they are a mixture of Jews by blood (whose first language was Aramaic by those times) and converted ethnic Kurds. By the way Aramaic lonlily has nothing to do with any Assyrian entity at all.

Ok, in that case you yourself just admitted that the language of the Jews was Aramaic, the language of Assyrians was also Aramaic (After Akkadian), but what is the language of Kurds?

Firstly speaking Aramaic is not restricted to Assyrians. It is an unfortunate fact that you do not distinguish Aramaic from Assyrian. Secondly on how come you do dare refer to Adiabene as Assyria since the first and the only time that it got associated with Assyria was after the Romans conquest and its annexation into their Province of Assyria?!

How? Because it is Assyria lol, dude are you mad? Did all the other hundreds if not thousands of years of the land being called Assyria not count? Wow, then Kurdistan only exists in the clouds if that's how you treat the term Assyria.

You just pasted it from Wikipedia ("Adiabene was home to our [< Assyrian] Church") and meantime omitted the rest (namely "Persian Zoroastrians").

I never posted wikipedia source, I don't know where you're coming up with these lies, maybe you should pay attention to what I write before claiming things that are not true, my source is our old church records.

Sure thing, and it of course had nothing to do with the term Assyria during its short life.

Yea, a side from occupying the Assyrian territories I guess:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3264908

Does 23andMe asseverate that Kurds are not related to Iranians but to Assyrians?

I challenge you to sign up and check for yourself, I had initially thought the same about Kurds not being related to us and what not, but this does not seem the case.

Y-DNA and MtDNA are nonsense?

When you're trying to prove current ancestry, yes it's very useless, why? Because Y-DNA and mtDNA are haplogroups that go back thousands and thousands of years (I'm talking over 10,000 years here), what does Kurd have to do with this?

Let me give you a good example, in Cameroon today there's a group who have the haplogroup R1b, this is the most dominant haplogroup in Western Europe today, these people look black Africans and there's nothing European about them, what did the Y-DNA prove here? Absolutely nothing.

Also since you lack knowledge in this area, let me tell you how this is useless, assuming a white man migrated to Japan and had married a Japanese woman, their son would obviously be half white and half Jap right? Sure, then let's assume their son married another Jap, and their grandson also married a Jap, and so on for another 30 generations, now here we are 30 generations later (Which is about 750 years), we take a sample from their off-spring only to discover they carry a European haplogroup, but they look completely Japanese, what does that make them? white or Asian? Clearly NOT white, the same story goes for the Kurds, you may have some ancestors from the east but your genetic make-up is middle eastern, and the amount of eastern ancestors you have is similar in other neighboring populations.

Not to mention haplogroups have nothing to do with Kurds, Iranians, Assyrians, Monkeys, Trees, or whatever, these are only useful for deep ancestry to track ancient migration out of Africa, that's it, nothing more nothing less, not very useful for modern ancestry is it? Of course it's not.

Anyways, I'm not gonna go on about your closeness in terms of language since I talk from what the scholars say, on the same token your lack of Semitic languages should be pointed out here and since you can't argue you with me there, let's agree to drop the whole language issue.

Please if you do decide to respond, do it in a fashion that is simple, thank you.

Originally posted by Ince Also those tests are not very reliable as they did not test every Kurdish city or go to every region to test large population.  Most of those tests are done on a few Kurds. Y-dna and Mtdna on Kurds are more similar to Iranians in Iran and Anatolian Turks.

^ You are still looking as if Kurds have to havbe mostly R1a1 like the East Iranians.  We know Kurds have mixed genetics, for example I am 1/4 Turkish.  And many people in my family married Turkish people.  I see my self as Kurd and so do most of them.  Now my wife could be 1/4 Turkish or Armenian or Arab and the combined genetic information would be passed on to my Children who will indenitfy themselves as Kurds.

By your logic Persians,Lurs,Talyash,.ect in Iran are also not true Iranians because they have genetic make similar to Middle-easteners rather then East Iranians?  

The Ancient Iranians were already a mixed bunch it is not known how much of a Genetic impact the Aryan tribes had when they came, the Elamites were absorbed into modern day Iranians and their is still a Province called Ilam and Iran was the centre of the Iranian Empires.


Edited by Ince - 26-Jun-2010 at 17:27

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.

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.

Kurd, because thats what was passed on to me is Kurdish language and culture.


--

Genetic purity does mean anything at end of the day we are all humans and all share  common ancestors. 

It is you who is trying to distance Kurds from been Iranian by genetics when Kurds are culturaly and linguistically Iranians and are part of Iranian people  which is what matters the most and Kurds seem themselves as Iranic, apart from a few who are Anti-Iran due to politics.  

The Qa'rdu you always bring up existed so long ago, since then they were absorbed into the Iranian people and like I mentioned before they only existed in a small part of what is today Kurdistan.

Modern Iranian people were born with the Median empire, or what is known today as Greater Iran, look at the Median empire and then the Parthian,Sassanids to the Safavids, it was always nearly the same regions.

Originally posted by Putty19 Kurd, because thats what was passed on to me is Kurdish language and culture. Then stop using the Y-DNA argument, if you're not gonna take it in that manner there's no need to use it. Genetic purity does mean anything at end of the day we are all humans and all share  common ancestors. 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. It is you who is trying to distance Kurds from been Iranian by genetics when Kurds are culturaly and linguistically Iranians and are part of Iranian people  which is what matters the most and Kurds seem themselves as Iranic, apart from a few who are Anti-Iran due to politics. 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. The Qa'rdu you always bring up existed so long ago, since then they were absorbed into the Iranian people and like I mentioned before they only existed in a small part of what is today Kurdistan. 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. Modern Iranian people were born with the Median empire, or what is known today as Greater Iran, look at the Median empire and then the Parthian,Sassanids to the Safavids, it was always nearly the same regions. Modern Iranian people were born with the Indo-Iranians in Central Asia, from there waves started to spread around, the Iranians were already spread all the way in the steppes of Eurasia long before there was such thing as Median empire.

You did not understand what I meant when I said the modern day Iranians were born with the Medians.  It was the Medians that established the Iranians empire that united the Iranians tribes and what is today known as today and Greater Iran.

The name Kurd is still today debated wether it comes from the Qa'rdu what about the Guti,Kyrtie? all have similar sound names to Kurd and lived in the same place.  How do we know that the Median tribes were not abosrbed into the Kurd name over time, tribes like the Sindi,Mattini,Gawirk and many other tribes still have non Qa'rdu origins.  Some theorys suggest the term Kurd was as a social label rather then a ethnic one, as Kurd means Sheppard in many Iranians dialects. 

What about the langauge name, Kurmanji? what does that mean? some say it means "Son of Maji" and the Maji were a Medians tribes.  For example like I mentioned before, Jamiaca, the name given by Native indians, yet majority of the people who live in Jamiaca are black africans and call themselves Jamiacans.

Again you bring up genetics and that Kurds are middle-easteners, I will ask you a question, Persians and Lurs in Iran have the same Genetic make up as Kurds do, now are Persians in Iran not true Iranians? Genetics can change over thousands of years, the tribes that came from central asia most likely did not come in great enough numbers to have major genetic impact many people were Aryanized.






Edited by Ince - 27-Jun-2010 at 05:19

Originally posted by Putty19 Originally posted by Ince You did not understand what I meant when I said the modern day Iranians were born with the Medians.  It was the Medians that established the Iranians empire that united the Iranians tribes and what is today known as today and Greater Iran. This is supposed to be the Median empire: 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. 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. The name Kurd is still today debated wether it comes from the Qa'rdu what about the Guti,Kyrtie? all have similar sound names to Kurd and lived in the same place.  How do we know that the Median tribes were not abosrbed into the Kurd name over time, tribes like the Sindi,Mattini,Gawirk and many other tribes still have non Qa'rdu origins.  Some theorys suggest the term Kurd was as a social label rather then a ethnic one, as Kurd means Sheppard in many Iranians dialects. There's actually very little to debate here, check out where Qardu is located: http://de.academic.ru/pictures/dewiki/65/Asia_minor_p20.jpg That's like the heart of Kurdistan, it's not a coincidence that modern Kurds still bare the same name.   What about the langauge name, Kurmanji? what does that mean? some say it means "Son of Maji" and the Maji were a Medians tribes.  For example like I mentioned before, Jamiaca, the name given by Native indians, yet majority of the people who live in Jamiaca are black africans and call themselves Jamiacans. What about Kurmanji? You know language can spread and people can adopt, Azeri is a Turkic language but before it was Turkic it was a northwestern Iranian one until the Turkification happened. Again you bring up genetics and that Kurds are middle-easteners, I will ask you a question, Persians and Lurs in Iran have the same Genetic make up as Kurds do, now are Persians in Iran not true Iranians? Genetics can change over thousands of years, the tribes that came from central asia most likely did not come in great enough numbers to have major genetic impact many people were Aryanized. 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, 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, 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.

Of course Kurds who live in Anatolia will be a litte distant from Persians and closer to Anatolian Turks by genetics, Persians live more further away,plus Kurds were seperated from Iran many times over time by Turks and Arabs.  Kurds of Anatolia are more closer to Azaris of Iran by genetics as they live more closer to Kurds, also it is speculated that the Safavids had a strong Kurdish element before the Turkification.  Kurds who live in West Iran will be more closer to Persians as they live more closer, like for example Ardashir 1 of the Sassanids was half Kurdish.   Kurds who live in different regions are not even close to eachother by genetics,  many Kurds of Anatolia are most likely more closer to Antolian Turks then to Kurds who live in Iran or Iraq and many Kurds who live In in N.Iraq will be likely closer to Assyrians.

The Corduene existed in a small part of what is today Kurdistan, at time of the Corduene their were Kurds living all the way in the Fars province.  Also I do not think the name is the most important aspect, because Kurds see themselves as Iranic and everything about them from language to culture is Iranic over time they became part of what is Iranian today.  Kurds have many different elements in them from Scythian to Mittani to Median and modern day Kurds are the product of these elements. 

Plus the different elements within the Kurds has been discussed even on this forum, heres a post by Cyrus_Shahmiri where he posts about the Kurds and Sycthians. http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28346&PID=632094#632094

I think it is more easier to do Quantum Mechanics then to figure out Kurdish history.

The Kurdish language Kurmanji is only spoken by Kurds not by any other Iranian people, you will bring up the Balochi but Balochi is close to Kurdish but no the same.  Infact I cannot understand a single thing a Balochi speaker even says, I understand Persian much better.

I don't think  Kurds are genetically close to everyone in the Middle-East, they are more distant from Arabs from the south.  Kurds cluster more with Eastern Europeans like Greeks then with most Arabs.



Edited by Ince - 27-Jun-2010 at 18:15