When did Kurds and Persians first names use ?
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=28504
Printed Date: 29-Apr-2024 at 00:43
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: When did Kurds and Persians first names use ?
Posted By: Kurdish_Fire
Subject: When did Kurds and Persians first names use ?
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2010 at 15:34
|
Hello I want to know When did Kurds and Persians use in the history? When did their names use in history? and which empire used it?
------------- The Death cannot scare us |
Replies:
Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2010 at 16:40
|
Its still unknown and debated where the term Kurd came from, however, Kurd took its meaning as we know today in the Medieval era. The first written account of the word Persian is from 9th century BCE. Check Wikipedia for more information. ------------- I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2010 at 17:21
|
TGS, are you claiming that you know about "first names?"
Maybe you should clarify your remarks? ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Putty19
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2010 at 18:55
|
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. |
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2010 at 05:02
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Quaere Verum
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2010 at 05:21
|
َ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. ------------- Blessed are the meek |
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2010 at 05:54
|
Google Persian Translation is not bad, http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fa&u=http://www.loghatnaameh.com/dehkhodaworddetail-71ceb714653b4f4b96b5c40221159b03-fa.html&ei=LlIfTLGzBKOdOOvQ2bAM&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAkQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%25DA%25A9%25D8%25B1%25D8%25AA%2B%25D8%25AF%25D9%2587%25D8%25AE%25D8%25AF%25D8%25A7%26hl%3Den - Click Here :
In Persian Kard means "knife" and Kardu means "Segment, Part of a land", according to my Persian dictionary these words comes from the verb kartan (to cut), the same as English verb carve: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=carve&searchmode=none - http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=carve&searchmode=none
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 - 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, ... ------------- 
|
Posted By: Kurdish_Fire
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2010 at 08:39
|
If you look at here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Kurdish_people - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Kurdish_people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Kurdish_people - It is according to Wikipedia Namehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyria - Assyrian documents around 1000 BC call the people living in Mt. Azu or Hizan (near Lake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van - Van ) by the name Kurti or Kurkhi. The country of the Kurkhi included regions of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Judi - Mount Judi and districts that were later called by the names http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophene - Sophene , Anzanene and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordyene - Gordyene . The Kurkhi fought numerous battles with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiglath-Pileser_I - Tiglath-Pileser I who eventually defeated them and burnt down 25 of their towns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Kurdish_people#cite_note-5 - [6] According to the British scholar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._R._Driver - 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 of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Van - Lake Van , was inhabited by the people of Su or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaru_%28region%29 - Subaru who were connected with the Qurtie, a group of mountain dwellers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Kurdish_people#cite_note-6 - [7] The term "Kurd" is first encountered in Arabic sources of the first century of the Islamic era http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Kurdish_people#cite_note-MartinIdentity-7 - [8] . The term seems to refer to variety of pastoral nomadism and possibly a set of political units, rather than linguistic group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Kurdish_people#cite_note-MartinIdentity-7 - [8] . Books from the early Islamic era, including those containing legends like the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahnameh - Shahnameh and the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pahlavi_language - Pahlavi Karnamak Ardashir-e-Papkan and other early Islamic sources provide early attestation of the name Kurd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Kurdish_people#cite_note-8 - [9] . However, it is likely that the "Kurds" in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fars_Province - Fars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Kurdish_people#cite_note-John_Limbert_1968.2C_pp.44.2C47-9 - [10] were not true Kurds, but spoke South http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Iranian_languages - Western Iranian languages related to Persian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Kurdish_people#cite_note-John_Limbert_1968.2C_pp.44.2C47-9 - [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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Kurdish_people#cite_note-10 - [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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Kurdish_people#cite_note-11 - [12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Kurdish_people#cite_note-12 - [13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Kurdish_people#cite_note-13 - [14] without reference to any specific Iranian language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Kurdish_people#cite_note-MartinIdentity-7 - [8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Kurdish_people#cite_note-14 - [15] . By the 16th century, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherefxan_Bidlisi - Sherefxan Bidlisi states that there are four division of Kurds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurmanj - Kurmanj , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lur - Lur , Kalhur and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guran - Guran . However, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Minorsky - 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Kurdish_people#cite_note-15 - [16] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Kurdish_people#cite_note-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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurmanji - Kurmanji , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorani - Sorani speakers and many http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaza_people - 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 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. http://www.jstor.org/pss/25210074 - http://www.jstor.org/pss/25210074 http://www.jstor.org/pss/25210074 - http://www.third-millennium-library.com/readinghall/UniversalHistory/THE_OLD_WORLD/Cambridge_Ancient_History/VOLUME_I/CHAPTER_12_5.html - http://www.third-millennium-library.com/readinghall/UniversalHistory/THE_OLD_WORLD/Cambridge_Ancient_History/VOLUME_I/CHAPTER_12_5.html http://www.third-millennium-library.com/readinghall/UniversalHistory/THE_OLD_WORLD/Cambridge_Ancient_History/VOLUME_I/CHAPTER_12_5.html - http://40cheme.org/english/kurdistanGeoLangu.htm - http://40cheme.org/english/kurdistanGeoLangu.htm ------------- The Death cannot scare us |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2010 at 11:18
|
Dear Kurdish Fire!
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!" http://www.ask.com/web?&o=101881&l=dis&q=curds%20and%20%20whey%20meaning 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! ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Quaere Verum
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2010 at 12:05
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.
That is generally wrong.
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. ------------- Blessed are the meek |
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2010 at 14:28
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.
What about the Balochi and Kurdish langauge similarties, whats the story behind that? did the Balochi move south or did the Kurds move North? ------------- |
Posted By: Putty19
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2010 at 15:33
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.
|
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 21-Jun-2010 at 16:13
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2010 at 00:17
Good post, but I think the better English word is Churn, Swedish kärna, Dutch Karn and the very Persian word Kara. Herodotus says about Scythians: http://www.allempires.com/forum/ebook_view.asp?BookID=41&ChapterID=669 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/ebook_view.asp?BookID=41&ChapterID=669 [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. -------------
|
Posted By: Quaere Verum
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2010 at 01:00
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.
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. ------------- Blessed are the meek |
Posted By: Quaere Verum
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2010 at 01:23
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.
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.
------------- Blessed are the meek |
Posted By: Quaere Verum
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2010 at 01:32
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.
That is definitely true. ------------- Blessed are the meek |
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2010 at 05:12
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.
------------- |
Posted By: Putty19
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2010 at 10:03
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).
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. |
Posted By: Putty19
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2010 at 10:17
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.
|
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2010 at 15:31
|
I tend to agree that modern claims that seem to move around the internet, are mostly "bunk!"
Always take stuff like this like a purgative! LOL ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2010 at 16:21
So are Persians any other Iranian groups in Iran they all are related to their neighbours in genetics more then they are to other Iranians in the east. When the Aryan tribes came they blended with the native population, how do we know that they did not Aryanise many other Iranians groups?. I know that Y-dna is not reliable and gentics is not the most important part, as the Ancient Medes could of been native middle-easteners that were Aryanised. Haplogroup J2 is found very high in North Iran. Like I mentioned before Kurds don't only share Language with Iranians, they share culture and history like Kurds were their when the Sassanids were born, Ardashir 1 founder of the Sassanids was half Kurdish. Kurds have been Iranians for over 2500+ years and have always been part of what is known as Greater Iran. Nobody is even sure that modern term Kurd is even related to the Qardu. Their were also of tribes that had similar name to Kurd like the Cyrtii/Kyrtii. ------------- |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2010 at 17:01
|
So, which is it? Is it "Courduene?" or "Corduene?:, etc.?
One might well note that in my opinion, there could exist a great deal of difference between "Cour", and "Cor?" Although, read this first! http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/197178.html ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Putty19
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2010 at 19:11
The problem is you're saying genetics are not important yet you're talking about haplogroup J2 and what not, if you want to continue talking about that, no problem, 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, perhaps a very small wave made it to the middle east through Iran (The Mitanni) but that's still under debate whether they were actually Indo-Aryans or not since the majority of their population spoke Hurrian (Caucasian language). The Iranians were a later arrival, unlike the Indo-Aryans they did not go deep into South Asia, instead they roamed north into the steppes (Scythians and later the Sarmatians who became Alans), into the middle east through Iran (Medes, Persians, and Parthians), and many remained scattered around South Central Asia (Indo-Scythians which are also known as Saka for most part), clearly the middle eastern Iranian heritage comes from the 3 I mentioned (Persian, Median, and Parthian), while those who still remain in South Central Asia like Pashtun, Pamirs, Tajikis, and so on have an Indo-Scythian heritage (Even though many of Tajiks and Afghans adopted Farsi as their language), and the only legacy for the northern Iranians (Scythians and Sarmatians/Alans) would be the modern Ossetians. Of course you bring up J2 into this, haplogroup J2 might have originated in Anatolia but it spread out of there long time ago, when we're dealing with Iranians, the time-line is only 4000-5000 years ago at max, haplogroup J2 spread out of Anatolia thousands of years before that, meaning when the Indo-Iranians were being developed in South Central Asia, there was already a number of haplogroups mixed there such as R1a1a, J2, R2, and L2/L3, so the original Indo-Iranians were a mix of these haplogroups for most part. Also another thing, the term Qardu is indeed Kurd, till this day we call Kurds Qurdayeh, and the Q is not a K, but rather a hard Q like the Arabic letter Qaaf.
|
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2010 at 05:37
Persians in Iran have the same Y-dna make up of as Kurds do. To say Kurds are natives because they are related to middle-easterners. People that live in the Ilam province in Iran are really Elamites? because the name is still the same? Lurs are considerd to be natives that were Persionized, so they are not Iranians as well? You are still ignoring the important fact Kurds are considerd Iranian and I never heard who calls Kurds Qurdayeh that was the first time I heard it. The Arabs use to call Kurds Akrad when they invaded Sassanids and not only that but they reffered to all non Persian iranians as Akrad. In Turkey they call Kurds Kurt and in Iran Kord. The Qardu existed so long ago. No one is really sure if all current Kurdish tribes come from the Qardu if any, as they only existed in small part of what is now Kurdistan, when Kurds lived in Fars in the Sassanids times and central Anatolia today. Modern day Kurds have Iranian culture and Language, they became Iranian. Many iranian tribes were absorbed into what is Kurds today, to say they have no Iranian ancestory is crazy. You are also forgeting the Mittani and the Sycthian impact on the Kurds. So many Aryan/Iranian elements yet you are saying they are not Iranians? For thousands of years now Kurds have kept their Iranian language and Culture even after by non Iranian rulers like Arabs and Turks. Then again everyone is entitled to their own opinion. As for the Mittani, their is a Kurdish tribe by the name of Sindi and Matinni that exists to this day. ------------- |
Posted By: Putty19
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2010 at 12:04
We (Assyrians) call Kurds Qurdayeh which comes from Qardu, also you can't base their background on Y-DNA haplogroups, this is wrong, it's the autosomal tests that count which tracks all your lines and tries to figure out your ethnicity, in this test the Kurds score higher with other middle eastern populations rather than the Iranians in general. |
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2010 at 13:01
That depends on which region they did these tests on. Y-dna make up of Kurds in Anatolia differes from Kurds from Iraq. Anatolian Kurds for example have lower frequancey of J2 and no J1, where as Kurds of Iraq have higher frequancey of J2 and some J1. Intermixing with local population will cause different genetic make up of Kurds from different regions. ------------- |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2010 at 13:12
|
Now it seems whe have the "Qurdayeh which comes from Qardu", as well as "The Arabs use to call Kurds Akrad when they invaded Sassanids and not only that but they reffered to all non Persian iranians as Akrad. In Turkey they call Kurds Kurt and in Iran Kord."
But, it seems all answers point to or are related in sound of spelling with the word "Kurd!" And re. the "Q" spelling we are told; "..and the Q is not a K, but rather a hard Q like the Arabic letter Qaaf." Does that mean it is similar to the word "Cumquat / Kumquat?" Does anyone know what the Hebrew word for Kurd might be? Isn't it true that early Arabic like Hebrew was at one time a consonant only written language? Thus, it seems to me that KuRD, whould be spelled in both languages as K-R-D! Or maybe Q-R-D?, and due to similar sounds or mistaken sounds it might well also have been written in other languages as C-R-D?, or even Q-R-D? Is not the earliest representation of the Kurds one of a group of pastorialist or herders of sheep or goats, etc.? Here is a site with a humorous look at the problem! http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Kurds Now there can be no doubt that Kurds eat a lot of Curds! So, just why could not a naming connection also be made? http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/linguistics/lectures/05lect22.html ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Putty19
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2010 at 21:15
Once again you're bringing Y-DNA haplogroups into the picture, these don't mean anything at all, check this out: Age of the term Kurd --> Less than 3000 years. Age of J2 --> 18,000 years. The two have nothing to do with one another, when you speak of DNA tests only speak of significant tests, Y-DNA are mostly useful for deep ancestry that tracks us all the way back to Africa, being a J1 or a J2 does not prove a Kurdish ancestry, the autosomal tests I told you about on the other hand does prove where Kurds generally fit in, and as I said, the Kurds score higher with north middle eastern populations rather than Iranian ones. In fact, the Kurds have a lot in common with Assyrians, people bitch over who was there first and what not, the truth is they were both there, the only difference is the Kurds adopted an Iranian language and the Assyrians adopted a Semitic one, so I'm pretty sure people in that region had common ancestors and that includes both Assyrians and Kurds along with others like Armenians, Anatolian Turks, so on. |
Posted By: Zert
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2010 at 00:30
 That's hilarious. |
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2010 at 05:45
I know the age of J2, J2 is found in high frequancey in the middle-east and southern europe. But at low levels in cenetral asia. Even tho Y-dna is not that reliable due to not knowing the genetic make up of the ancient middle-easteners. I know Kurds and Assyrians have many things in common, they are neighbours and that would be the case plus I am sure many Assyrians were Kurdified. Ancient Iranians were heavily influenced by Assyrians, just look at Persepolis. ------------- |
Posted By: Quaere Verum
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2010 at 07:02
|
I am sorry but Assyrian language was already extinct by that time. Adiabene is founded in 15, whilst the spoken Assyrian Akadian most likely began to completely fade away before the 4th century BC. Its total extinction is based on the last text pertaining to it which belongs to the fist century. The official (not native) language of Adiabene was Aramaic, which brings no wonder nor any point about since this Semitic language was already the lingua franca and an official language of the whole Iranian empire. Even there are 1000 Aramaic words (known as Hezarvash) which were used in the official letters written all over the territory of Iranian languages (Sogdian, Parthian, Middle Persian, etc.). Also it had a huge impact on Semitic speaking folks of Mesopotamia to the degree that even Jesus Christ as a Jewish by blood spoke Aramaic for sure (with the appearance of Adiabene simulatneously).
I doubt it at all. For your knowledge the first and the only time that the term Assyria appears in the history of Adiabene was when Romans conquerred it and named it Assyria. Afterwards some other western historians followed such a Roman designation, which does not match with the facts that we know about Adiabene for sure: -Its ethnic majority is uncertain up to now but we know that Adiabene was socially a mixture of various people. -There was most likely an Iranian ruling class over there since its rulers' forenames are to be explained by Iranian etymology (e.g. Izates, Meharaspes, etc.). -Romans conquer Adiabene some 100 years after its appearance in the history and then name it Assyria after its annexation to their province of Assyria. -Afterall Arabs invade Adiabene and there they only face "Al-Akrad", which is Arabic for "The Kurds" indeed. -After the collapse of Adiabene, no other people ever declared to be related to it, but Kurds did in fact. Hedhbani Kurds, whom Saladin was their descendant, are named after Adiabene. -Adiabene fame could be speculated mostly due to its conversion into Judaism and the later assistance that it contributed to the other Jews in their fight against Romans. As a matter of fact today all Jews from the respective area do consider themselves ethnic Kurds and not Assyrian, however their religious language is-the same as the bulk of Middle Eastern Jews, an Aramaic speech. Their respective Neo-Aramaic speech is even referred to as "Kurdit" by the other Jews in fact. As I have already affirmed, the ethnic majority of Adiabene is uncertain but if we were ever going to presume its majority then it would not be that much hard to recognize the prevailing Kurdish (Iranian) identity of Adiabene in accordance with the above facts.
It firstly converted into Judaism very soon after getting established which paved way to the later conversion into Christianity subsequently. By the way you cannot overlook or deny the existence of Judaism and Zoroastrianism at the same time over there.
Any accounts? By the way what are the elements of your ancient Assyrian culture that any Iranian folk could ever adopt?
As I have already said the first and the last time that the term Assyria was applied to Adiabene was after its conquest by Roman invadors in 115-116 when they annexed it to the Roman Province of Assyria. I am sure you are aware of the fact that the Kingdom of Adiabene became over in the very same year-116!
I am not gonna doubt your know-how, but in terms of Iranian linguistics you seem to have a vague idea. The Scythian essence of Kirmanji Kurdish may even be much clearer than that of Median in fact. Since we only know a few words from Medes' language which are mentioned within the ancient Greek accounts whilst on the other hand there are a pretty good amount of ancient and middle Scythian (particularly Khotanese Scythian) materials at reach (e.g. retention of ancient "c-" in the common Iranian verb for "to go" is exclusively restricted to Scythian, Kurdish, and Ossetic: Old Iranian "cyev", Avestan "shyev", Parthian "shew", Gilaki "shu-", Azari "sho-", Middle Persian "shew", New Persian "sho-", Scythian "cu-", Kurdish "cu-", Ossetic "cu-".)
For your knowledge, again, the case of being western, eastern, southern, or northern, is merely theoretical in terms of Iranian linguistics. For instance Kurdish as a theoretically Northwestern Iranian language has been disputed to represent Southwestern characteristics (despite whether the conclusions are reasonable or not). Linguistic theories are to be alterred or refuted based on rational reasonings out of authentic materials.
Indeed the essential likenesses between Kirmanji Kurdish and Ossetic outnumber those between Kirmanji Kurdish and Persian (I am sure you are not gonna reckon loans into similarities anyway). I myself am conversant with Persian and Kurdish languages as well as am a linguistic buff, particularly regarding to Iranian linguistics (which of course encompasses Scythian and Ossetic).
Not at all.
That is definitely wrong. Historically and culturally, Kurds do share their very exclusive part amongst Iranian peoples.
In accordance with the following genetic researches Kurds are: "Similar to Azeris [do you need to be reminded of Azeris Iranian origins?], Ossetians [an Iranic people indeed], and Armenians" ~ Richards M, Macaulay V, Hickey E, et al. (November 2000). "Possibly closer to European rather than Caucasian." ~ Nasidze I, Quinque D, Ozturk M, Bendukidze N, Stoneking M (July 2005). "MtDNA and Y-chromosome variation in Kurdish groups". ~ Annals of Human Genetics 69 (4): 401–12 "Sharing close similarity with Georgian in terms of MtDNA sequence." ~ Comas D, Calafell F, Bendukidze N, Fa?an?s L, Bertranpetit J (May 2000). "Georgian and kurd mtDNA sequence analysis shows a lack of correlation between languages and female genetic lineages". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 112 (1): 5–16. "Originating from the same Old Mediterrenean ancestry along with Turks, Iranians, Jews, Lebandese and other Western and Eastern Mediterrenean peoples." ~ Arnaiz-Villena A, Karin M, Bendikuze N, et al. (April 2001). "HLA alleles and haplotypes in the Turkish population: relatedness to Kurds, Armenians and other Mediterraneans". Tissue Antigens 57 (4): 308–17. "Close to Anatolian Turks along with the other East Mediterrenean peoples" ~ Arnaiz-Villena A, Martinez-Laso J, Alonso-Garci? J (September 2001). "The correlation between languages and genes: the Usko-Mediterranean peoples". Human Immunology 62 (9): 1051–61 "Relatedness with Jews [by blood]" ~ Nebel A, Filon D, Brinkmann B, Majumder PP, Faerman M, Oppenheim A (November 2001). American Journal of Human Genetics 69 (5): 1095–112. Accordingly there is definitely no such a point in regards with genetics to dismiss the Iranian essence of Kurdish people. Also I didn't notice a single direct mention to Assyrians within the above sources, as well as you had omitted Iranians obviously. Although I believe it is not intentionally.
That is wrong. If you once excluded Southwestern loans, there would remain no exclusive similarities between them both unless some dialectal likenesses which are hardly to imply any significant connection out of the theoretically common Northwestern Iranian characteristics (e.g. adding an initial "h-": Kurdish "hesin" ~ Baluchi "hesin", Kurdish "hesp", Baluchi "hesp"; which also is noticeable amongst other Iranian languages indeed and thus not that much remarkable).
And it has nothing to do with the fact that Kurds are an Iranian people, unless fallaciously. I recommend you to observe various aspects of Kurdish people (their culture, their feasts, their calender, their months, their lifestyle, their proverbs, their myths, their folklore songs, their costumes, etc.) and compare them with those of the other Iranian poeples in order to appreciate the very Iranian tone of Kurdish people in practice. ------------- Blessed are the meek |
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2010 at 16:54
Even the Kurdish flag is Iranian. It's basically the pre-1979 flag of Iran upside down and without the Lion.  ------------- |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2010 at 17:01
|
May I interject and ask what may be a stupid question, but just how does anyone know that the Assyrian language was extinct in 15 CE? Or even 15 BCE?
Just how would anyone know? It takes a lot of "Gaul" to make such a statement, even though we know that there seemed to be a lot of "Gauls" / "Gals" to chose from! ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Putty19
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2010 at 23:19
What, did I break your Kurdish heart that I mentioned Adiabene and Assyrian being one of the same? I'm sorry, but it is what it is and you need to deal with it, you talk about language, first of all there's no such thing as Assyrian language to begin with, there are only languages that are spoken by Assyrians, Akkadian happens to be the older language, and Aramaic was the newer language, the ancient Assyrians themselves switched Akkadian to Aramaic during the 8th century BC when Assyria was at its might, therefore the Aramaic that was spoken in Adiabene was there because the ancient Assyrians themselves switched the official language, meaning both of Akkadian and Aramaic were languages of the ancient Assyrian people and thus, Assyrian languages. Also for your information the Assyrians contributed to Aramaic so much that even the modern Jews call their Hebrew script (Which happens to come from Aramaic) Ketav Ashuri, and that's because it's the ancient Assyrian version of the Aramaic letters.
What's interesting is on one end, you say most of the region were Kurds, on the other hand you recognize the language of the people was Aramaic, hmm, I wonder, where did all these Iranian speaking Kurds come from and where did the so-called Aramaic speaking Kurds disappear to? Anyways, it's non sense, the Aramaic speaking Assyrians lived in proper Assyria (Adiabene) and the Kurds lived north of them for most part, it always has been that way throughout ancient history. Does that mean Adiabene did not have an Iranian presence? No it does not mean that, but clearly it was not strong enough to influence the language change from Aramaic to the newly Iranian tongue. As far as Jews go, for your information they never think of themselves as Kurds, but rather Jews, they call themselves Kurdish Jews because they come from an area today which most people know it as Kurdistan, much so like Yemeni Jews, Moroccan Jews, German Jews, Russian Jews, so on.
I never did that, but you also cannot deny that the Iranian presence was not strong enough to shift the language change, in any case I had already said that the Iranians were indeed there and even in some modern Assyrians we have some Iranian blood.
The Iranian element in modern Assyrians comes mostly from the Parthian and Sassanid periods, for instance we have plenty of Iranian saints within our church that established many great thing, Rabban Hurmizd is one great example, he was an Iranian Christian saint from the 5th/6th century and today, one of the most oldest and most prestige Assyrian monasteries still exists under his name in the town of Alqosh which happens to be one of the most Assyrian towns you'll ever find, which brings me to another Iranian saint from Alqosh by the name of Mar Qardakh, also another one would be Mar Behnam and a few more. Not to mention to this day, we still use Iranian names from those days such as Narsai, Hurmizd, Mirza, so on, these are all Iranian names that we adopted during those times by mixing with them.
In any case, the name of Adiabene was very short lived and it was over the land of Assyria, call it the land of Banana for all I care, in the end of the day all those rulers that came by used Assyria at one point or another to identify the land including the Iranians.
There's more to language than borrowing words, there are more Akkadian words in modern Assyrian Aramaic than Arabic, but Akkadian is in fact closer to Arabic than to modern Assyrian, it's called grammar, but I guess all these scholars that consider Kurdish a northwestern Iranian language and Ossetian to be the only Scythian language are just talking out of their ass I guess.
A) There's no mention to the Assyrians because we're a smaller nation, but generally it's looking like that the Assyrians are like Armenians and Anatolian Turks in terms of genetics (This being proven now by the 23andMe samples we are gathering). B) The Iranian homeland is South Central Asia, a Kurd is a whole lot closer to an Assyrian rather than a Pashtun or a Tajik per say, again this is being proven by autosomal results at 23andMe. If you're really interested in finding out where you fit in, drop the whole Y-DNA and mtDNA none sense and test at 23andMe, it won't take you long to realize that originally you're more middle eastern than you would like to be, if you were an Iranian you would show an affinity to South Central Asia.
I'm not gonna argue about that, this is not me who says this, it's the scholars who group Kurdish and Baluchi under the same branch. |
Posted By: Putty19
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2010 at 23:24
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  |
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2010 at 02:31
The designe behind the Kurdish flag is somehow related to the Iranian one, maybe someone with more knowledge has more info? ------------- |
Posted By: Zert
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2010 at 02:38
|
I know that it uses the Pan-Iranian colours, but that's it. I'm quite sure they purposefully chose those colours because Iran has the same ones. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Iranian_colors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_flag There's a Kurdish page with more info, maybe someone can translate some bits of it? |
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2010 at 02:43
But so is the whole of Iran, the whole country is by genetics mainly natives of the middle-east and are closer to Assyrians and Anatolian Turks. I don't know why you just single out the Kurds, the Azaris,Persians,Lurs..ect all have genetics that would be considerd closer to Middle-easteners rather then East Iranians. We do not know what happend when the Aryan tribes came and mixed with the natives or how big of a genetic impact they had. They could of had small genetic impact. ------------- |
Posted By: Quaere Verum
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2010 at 03:08
Did I say it is not 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.
I am sorry but the above clauses do not correspond with your previous states. It was you who talked about language, particularly considereing an extinct language such as Assyrian to be the language of Adiabene!
Peoples who are nowadays referred to as Assyrian (either Aturaye* or Suryaye*, the later one which is disputable) do speak Neo-Aramaic speeches unanimously.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?!
Aramaic also was an official language of the entire Iranian empire, but it got nothing to do with either native languages nor any prevailing Assyrian ethnicity in fact.
No need to your partial information. My auntie's son-in-law and his family as Kurdish Jews asseverate their Kurdish identity in their own words.
Most people might not recognize it as Kurdistan, but the prevailing ethnicity in the respective area is Kurdish. By the away in accordance with Judaic sources many ethnic Kurds have converted into Judaism as well.
You just pasted it from Wikipedia ("Adiabene was home to our [< Assyrian] Church") and meantime omitted the rest (namely "Persian Zoroastrians").
Please read more about official and native languages to perceive them properly. Back to our discussion as for the native language we do not have any certain ideas but as a matter of fact Adiabenese rulers first names were mostly of Iranian origin (while the entire Assyrian kings did have Semitic names for sure). The only and the first direct historical mention to the populantion of Adiabene is made by Arab conquerers, where they explicitly record the prevailing ethnicity of Adiabenese people as Kurdish.
Thanks, appealing information.
Sure thing, and it of course had nothing to do with the term Assyria during its short life.
The term Assyria only appears in the Adiabenese history when Romans conquer it and subsequently annex it into their Province of Assyria. By the way I am sorry but your self-designation is immaterial in this case.
Your comparison is fallacious. You claimed that Scythian is clearly not to be reckoned as an origin of Kirmanji Kurdish, which in fact is due to your lack of knowledge in terms of Iranian linguistics. Although I am looking forward for any authentic words of yours regarding to your pretention about denying Scythian and Kurdish exclusive connection.
For your knowledge all those shcolars once read a Middle Persian word such as "lwc", written in Aramaic letters, as "roc" and then changed their minds and got that they had got it all the way wrong and thus suggested a new pronunciation: "roz". But there is nothing wrong with this, since thoeretical ideas might be alterred or changed at any time.
By the way we all, as humans, are supposed to behave ourselves.
So you just put the Assyrians deliberately. Also may I have your authentic proofs in this regard or it just looks like so?
It is only a hypothesis.
Do you mean that Pashtuns or Tajiks the only Iranians?! You are better to consider Azaris, Lurs, Bakhtiaries, and Persians in this regard too. By the way genetics cannot abolish cultural, historical, and social facts.
Does 23andMe asseverate that Kurds are not related to Iranians but to Assyrians?
Y-DNA and MtDNA are nonsense?
The idea that Iranians are originated from Central Asia is a hypothesis. But in case of South Central Asian DNA, do you mean the present South Central Asian characteristics or its characteristics of prehistoric era to be compared with those of Kurds?
Linguists do not affirm that Baluchi is the closest language to Kurdish but disputing them both in terms of representing Northwestern or Southwestern, assumbaly. It was obviously you who affirmed that Baluchi is the closest language to Kurdish and inferred that therefore Kurdish language comes from the Southwest Iran and most likey then Kurds are closer to Assyrians rather than Iranians!!
I again recommend you to study various cultural, historical, and social aspects of Kurdish people and other Iranian peoples in order to appreciate their truly Iranian essence in practice. ------------- Blessed are the meek |
Posted By: Quaere Verum
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2010 at 04:25
Read the background of flags before comparing them just like that. ------------- Blessed are the meek |
Posted By: Quaere Verum
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2010 at 04:30
It is Corduene. "Courduene" is just Putty's misspelling. ------------- Blessed are the meek |
Posted By: Quaere Verum
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2010 at 04:45
The entire idea is just a hypothesis with many other alternative thoughts indeed.
How come you mention the dispution over the Mitanni being Indo-Iranian and absolutely affirm Hurrian to be a Caucasian Language whilst it is only speculated to be related to Northeast Caucasian by some linguists and historians?
For your information many Tajiks and other Persian speaking folks of Afghanistan and Central Asia are of Mongoloid. By the way please spend some time reading history of Iran, specially the presence of Scythians in northwest and southeast Iran. ------------- Blessed are the meek |
Posted By: Quaere Verum
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2010 at 04:50
I am sorry but you seem to have a few problems with realizing the concepts of these names: Iran, Assyrian, Middle East. Please regard these facts: Iran is located on Middle East and Iranian peoples are Middle Eastern too. Middle East does not imply Assyrian or Semitic merely. ------------- Blessed are the meek |
Posted By: Quaere Verum
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2010 at 04:59
Not generally.
How come? And does it mean that they eat it more than the other peoples around the world?
English "curd" (< crud) is likely to be derived from an Old English verb "crudan" and as a matter of fact its current meaning differs as you trace it back whilst the term Kurd is over in use atleast since up to 1800 years ago. The outward likeness between Kurd and curd is to be scientifically referred to as likeness between two false friends. ------------- Blessed are the meek |
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2010 at 05:56
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Putty19
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2010 at 10:32
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.
Let's get one thing straight here, it was the term Adiabene that was put over Assyria, not the other way around.
Yes, and?
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."
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Yea, a side from occupying the Assyrian territories I guess: http://www.jstor.org/pss/3264908
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.
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. |
Posted By: Quaere Verum
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 11:56
It aint no pleasure to answer you line by line in details, pardon my solecism. But when I face fallacious lines it definitely calls for replying them one after another because it would be the most coherent this way.
I am not in since that is obviously wrong. Because this way we could also have said that it was exactly the term Assyria that got tagged on the originally Hurro-Urartian settlements. As a matter of fact there was no such a term as Assyria in the entire history of the Adiabenese Kingdom, until Romans toppled it and annexed it into their province of Assyria.
And Aramaic language being an official language in the entire ancient Persian empires could not even hint being Assyrian at all.
I am not talking about who paved the way or something. As a matter of fact Aramaic owes its heyday to the Achaemenid dynasty, particularly Cyrus the Great, in terms of replacing the other local Semitic vernaculars in the western parts of the Persian empire, such as Assyrian Akkadian and Babaylonian Akkadian which faded away and ultimately became extinct forever.
I am sorry that nationalism has biased you to the point that you asseverate Aramaic language is Assyrian, in such a puerile and disrupted way. For your knowledge Assyrian Akkadian is linguistically the native language of the so-called Assyrian people which is as a matter of fact all extinct by now and the fellow Assyrian folk do speak a Neo-Aramaic speech instead which is resulted from the native language of Aramean people.
You did it. And you explicitly redid it by such an absurd state: "Aramaic is also an Assyrian language". My ken regarding to Semitic languages is fair enough to be iformed that Assyrian Neo-Aramaic is an Aramaic speech which is written in Syriac letters whilst the so-called Hebrew alphabet (which is also referred to as "Ketav Ashuri") is a distinct alphabet, nonetheless they are similar since they both are derived from the Aramaic script indeed. I think you really need to peruse about Semitic languages once again carefully, or perhaps the best way would be to get ride of the blinding prejudice which does not let you to apprehend that Assyrian Neo-Aramaic is an Aramaic language and is distinctive from Assyrian Akkadian the extinct native language of Assyrians. Only give it to you in a nutshell the difference between Aramaic and Assyrian Akkadian is as signifcant as even the Assyrian word for "Assyria" is "Ashuraye*" whilst its Aramaic cognate is "Atur*" (which for sure is followed by the bulk of the so-called Assyrian people when they refer to themselves as "Aturaye*" ~ "Assyrian").
Khatt-e Farsi is basically an Arabic script which is modified by Iranians and Hebrew alphabet is basically an Aramaic script modified initially by Assyrians. But it does not mean that then Adiabene was Assyrian! If not then Egypt would be Persian since Egyptions speak Arabic and in Iran people refer to an Arabic-based script as Persian!! Just look that how partiality could make a person that much pathetic that you yourself from stating "the language of Adiabene was Assyrian" run into such an incredible reasoning like this: "Jews call their Aramaic-based script Assyrian, then the language of Adiabene was Assyrian".
For your knowledge in this case language do not implicate any thing on its own, since there are even Muslims who do speak Aramaic vernaculars as native language. And the fact that Kurdish Jews speak Aramaic has nothing to do with being Assyrian, if not so then even, God forbid, Jesus Christ would also be an ancient Assyrian personage too!
Since Romans conquerred and annexed it into their province of Assyria.
For your information the respective area on which Adiabene got founded was originally a Hurro-Urartian land. I am sure you do not need to be reminded of the very fact that Hurrians' presence within the aforesaid area antedates that of ancient Assyrians who later appeared as devastating invadors from the south.
I see. Then someone has to blame your Old Church for its attempt to twist the truth by means of omitting the presence of Zoroastrianism over Adiabene, in its ecclesiastical records.
Wrong conjecture, unfortunately. In your provided link it is said: "Adiabene occupied part of the territories of ancient Assyria". In this regard, someone could easily replace the word Assyria with ancient Land of Hurrians, or ancient Persian empire, ancient Mede Empire, Northern Iraq, Kurdistan, and so on. It is only a mention to help the contemporary readership with the location of Adiabene. But historically we only notice the term Assyria to associate Adiabene right after its annexation into the Roman province of Assyria. Please meticulously ponder what ever you want to express, because this way you would not be entrapped into fallacy and then you would make your life easier on your own initiative.
I myself do not represent the entire Kurdish people genetically.
Mr. Know-It-All, the usage of Y-DNA and MtDNA, what you nonesensically referred to as nonesense, is inevitable in order to discover the ancestry properly. For instance Y-chromosome is not restricted to at least over 10,000 years since a partiuclar Y-DNA marker test could tell you on your common forefathers from one to ten or maybe twentry generations (approximately back to some 500 years ago) at your will, with another person.
After all you really need to learn that Iranian peoples (particularly Persians, Lurs, Bakhtyaries, Gilaks, Mazandaranies, the Talysh, etc.) are Middle Easterns too. The only words of yours that I can take for granted is that Kurds can genetically be similar to the people living in their vicinity. Which include Persians, Lurs, Azaries, Turcophone Anatolians, Arabs, Armenians, Arameans, Assyrians, etc. But as a matter of fact Kurdish people, whose majority follows Islam, have not intermarried surrounding Christians, such as Assyrians, for the last 13 centruies at least. Nevetheless that there could be Indo-European, and particularly Indo-Iranian, appearances amongst Aramaic speaking Christians and this could associated with the intermarriage with either Armenians or Kurdish Christians (e.g. Christian refugees from Mosul had most likely intertwined with originally Kurdish Christians of Hakkari area, since Hakkari Christians had the same Kurdish tribal way of life in fact). Regarding to Kurdish Christians It is worthy of mention that since their religious language was Aramaic and the bulk of their compatriots were either Muslims or Jews, then a significant number of historical Kurdish Christians are possibly assimilated into the body of Semitic Christians. It would be no surprise if some Aramaic speaking individuals carried Iranian characteristics in their gene pools.
Anyways besides the above discussions you have to regard the very fact that the concept of people is by no means defined by genetics, but by historical, cultural, and social characteristics. For example both of Swedes and the Welsh are racially Nordish though they both are distinct peoples indeed.
You did not say what linguists have exactly speculated. You just colored it with your naive viewpoints too since up to now no linguist has clearly rejected the exclusive connection between Kirmanji Kurdish and Scythian, even theoretically.
It is exactly you who lacks in knowledge about Semitic languages, since you seemingly do not know that Assyrian Akkadian and Aramaic langauge are linguistically distinct languages, which the first one is the native and extinct language of Assyrians while the second one is the native language of Arameans which later replaced the native vernaculars of some other Semitic communities, including Assyrians.
Your whole attempt to stubbornly maintain an unreasonable pretention such as "Kurdish people are not an Iranian folk", is inidisputably inept. You should try another way in order to stick with your fancies or you may simply knock off the hot air. ------------- Blessed are the meek |
Posted By: Quaere Verum
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 13:26
Yes they are most likely incomprehensive. By the way it is all obvious that Kurds would share genetic similarities with their Muslim neighbors, particularly Iranian ones. ------------- Blessed are the meek |
Posted By: Putty19
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 15:32
Your problem is you have a Kurdish agenda, you despise anything with the term Assyrian on it, deal with it buddy, history does not lie, and just so you know I actually acknowledged an existance of a Kurdistan today so clearly there's no bias on my part, however it's the idiotic opinion that you impose on here that's simply laughable, well, history books don't lie, you can make up things all you want if that what makes you sleep at night, hey you can tell yourself you come from King Darius and King Shapur, I'm sure that will give you some good night sleep.
Hmm, if the Assyrians had not used Aramaic there would be no Aramaic official language, period.
Both languages are Assyrian in the sense that both languages have been used by the Assyrians, let me ask you a question, is Zazaki a Kurdi language or no? Cause clearly Zazaki and Kurmanji are two different things. In any case, it does not matter, you have a problem with Assyrians therefore you let facts get in the way of your judgment, you're simply one of those guys who get's all excited when someone says "There are no more Assyrians"quite laughable and absurd.
Do you read what I type or not? I said they're both Assyrian languages because they were both spoken by the Assyrian people, if you don't get that then I can't help you anymore.
This is why you lack knowledge this subject, first of all the Aramaic alphabets are NOT Aramaic, they are Phoenician, here you go: http://www.omniglot.com/writing/phoenician.htm The Arameans simply just copied the exact same alphabets and called them Aramaic, here you go, these are the original so-called Aramaic alphabets: http://www.omniglot.com/writing/aramaic.htm Now compare the two, seriously, how different are they? Not very different, so before you act like you know what they're called and what not it's better to check the sources first. Second of all even Arabic comes from the same alphabets, I guess we should start calling Arabic Aramaic alphabets don't you think?
Dude, I never said the Jews were Assyrians, we are Assyrians and our language is our legacy to us and our culture, the Jews are Jewish, the Kurds are Kurdish, and so on. When the Jews were brought to Assyria they already had Hebrew as their language, they learned Aramaic in Mesopotamia, go ask any Rabbi and he'll tell you the exact thing I'm saying.
You are mistaken, the Assyrians were not invaders from the south as you say, the name itself comes from the name of a city that had already existed in north Mesopotamia long before the arrival of the Semitic Akkadians, it's just the dynasty that found the first Assyrian kingdom was Amorite that came from Syria, and they called it Assyria because the name of their capital was the city of Assur, the same thing happened to the Babylonians, they also were Amorites that made the city of Babylon their capital city. In reality there was no such thing as Assyrian-Babylonian ethnic group, they are a mixture of groups that lived in the region and were part of the kingdom, in the case for Assyria the majority were Caucasian Hurrians which are the majority of our ancestors, it's also the majority of your ancestors too but apperantly, you say you come from the Iranians that came from the east.
Once again I see you did not read what I wrote, did I ever deny the existence of Zoroastrianism in Assyria? No I did not, I said this region was the home of our Church for a very long time and we had our base there, and it is indeed the home of our church, there's nothing to deny about it unless you're ignorant and you want to make up fairytales to make you sleep better at night.
Well in history it was most well known as Assyria, today it's mostly known as Kurdistan, if I can deal with it being called Kurdistan today I'm pretty sure you can man up and accept the truth of it called Assyria, you're so hung up on a small period in history on what the Romans did, the Romans could have pissed there for all I care, the real fact it since the 1800's BC up to the 600's BC it was mostly known as Assyria, prior to the 1800's it was known as Subartu, and after the 600's BC it was still known as an Assyrian province for most part but there was other names for it as well, hell even today a big part of it is called the Province of Ninwa which was the ancient capital of the Assyrians, are you gonna deny all of this too?
That's true, but what does that have to do with Iranians? There's no special marker for the Iranians in the middle east, they were of mixed haplogroups, so how do you prove you were Iranian like that? Clearly you cannot, hence, makes it useless. Trust me, I have done enough tests and think of this as one of my favorite hobbies, if you're trying to establish an ancestry that goes back say, 500 years ago, it could be possible to identify a common ancestor with another person only if he shares your haplogroups (Both J2 for example), and you must not differ so much in the genetic distance (Meaning you should match at around 64/67 markers), the more markers you differ in the more genetic distance there's, to make matters simple, if the genetic distance is over 11 markers different in a 67-marker test, not only are you not related, but you likely have not shared an ancestor for the past thousands of years: http://www.familytreedna.com/genetic-distance-markers.aspx?testtype=67 The other thing is if the Kurds belonged to one haplogroup, you would have a strong case, but the haplogroup diversity among you is just like any other middle eastern population, very diverse and you have different ancestors, in the case for an Iranian background, well there has been ancient dna found in the steppes where Iranian tribes roamed and were pure of mixing, the marker they carried was over 90% R1a1a, I'm not sure what the Kurds carry for most part today but clearly, they have a big significance of other haplogroups and R1a1a is in fact a minority among you, here you go: http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Kurds.pdf Kurmanji Kurds in Turkey E (E1b1b1) - 11.5% C - 1.1% K* (T) - 12.7% P1 (R2) - 8% P* - 5.7% R1* - 4.6% R1a1* - 12.7% F* - 11.5% G* - 2.3% J2* - 13.8% I* - 16.1% Kurmanji Yezidis in Georgia K* (T) - 8% P1 (R2) - 44% P* - 4% F* - 12% J2* - 32% Kurds in Turkmenistan R1* - 29% R1a1* - %12 F* - 41% J2* - 18% Zazakis in Turkey E (E1b1b1) - 11.1% C - 3.7% P* - 3.7% R1* - 11.1%
R1a1* - 25.9% F* - 7.4% G* - 3.7% I* - 33.3% There's your Y-DNA, you have Kurds from both Turkey and Turkmenistan, Zaza people, and Yezidies all in front of you, explain to me what does this have to do with your so called Iranian background.
Assyrians from Hakkari are not Kurdish, this is one of the most stupidest things I have ever heard, I guess you would call it equally stupid if I call some modern Kurds Assyrians, but you know what? There's a little rumor out there that says Barzani family is indeed Assyrian, regardless I'm not gonna call you Assyrian and you're not gonna call us Kurds, we'll keep it at that. In any case the Assyrians barely married with Armenians, yes we did merry with them but it was not significant enough to lose our culture, heck marriage outside our villages was hard enough as it is, let alone a total stranger? Most of the marriages that happened between Assyrians and Armenians were in big cities like Diyarbaker and Urmia, villager Assyrians remained pure for most part. I will however agree with you that some of us do carry some Iranian blood that you speak of, it happened during the early Christian period when some Iranians decided to convert to Christianity, on the same token the modern Kurds also have Assyrian blood since many Assyrians (In fact most Assyrians) converted to Islam and either assimilated to Kurds or Arabs, but that does not make us Iranians and it does not make you Assyrians.
That's fine, I was talking about genetics, not culture.
Let me ask you a few questions and I would appreciate if you answer them straight: - What do you consider Yiddish language to be? - What do you consider the Ladino language to be? Answer these two questions and I'll carry on from there.
I simply said genetically the Kurds are mostly natives to the middle east (And they are), which as a Kurd yourself, I thought you would be happy an Assyrian would say that and acknowledge the native roots of the Kurdish population to the middle east, but you're an odd one that's for sure. |
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 16:44
|
^ 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 16:52
|
Heres the Y-dna of Iranians in Iran similar to Anatolian Kurds, so they are not true Iranians as well? http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Caucasus_big_paper.pdf  Iranians from Tehran  Iranians from Isfahan  MtDNA http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Nasidze.AnHG.2004.pdf - http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Nasidze.AnHG.2004.pdf  Figure 2 MDS plots based on pairwise Fst values, showing relationships among the North and South Ossetians, Caucasian, European, Central and West Asian populations. Ossetians are represented by stars; other Caucasus groups are represented by circles; squares correspond to populations from Europe; Central Asian groups are represented by diamonds; and West Asian populations by triangles. A. Based on mtDNA HVI sequence data. The stress value for the MDS plot is 0.104. B. Based on Y chromosome SNP data. The stress value for the MDS plot is 0.126. The populations are given the following abbreviations: Os Dig – Ossetians from Digora, Os Ala – Ossetians from Alagir, Os Zil – Ossetians from Zil’ga, Os Zam – Ossetians from Zamankul, Os Ard – Ossetians from Ardon, S Os – South Ossetians, Sv – Svans, Rut – Rutulians, Kazb – Kazbegi, Lez Dag – Lezginians from Dagestan, Lez Az – Lezginians from Azerbaijan, In – Ingushians, Che – Chechenians, Ch – Cherkessians, Ava – Avarians, Kab – Kabardinians, Ab – Abazinians, Ge – Georgians, Az – Azerbaijanians, Ar – Armenians, Abk – Abkhazians, Bal – Balkarians, Ir Isf – Persians from Isfahan, Ir Teh – Persians from Tehran, Leb – Lebanese, Dr – Israeli Drusi, Syr – Syrians, Tur – Turks, Kur – Kurds, Rus - Russians, Ukr – Ukrainians, Mar – Mari, Pol – Polish, Hung – Hungarians, Gr – Greeks, Sar – Sardinians, Cz Sl – Chez and Slovaks, Sp - Spanish, Fr – French, Ger – Germans, It – Italians, Br – British, And – Andalusians, Dut – Dutch, Cat – Catalans, Bas – Basques, Fr Bas – French Basques, Sp Bas – Spanish Basques, Turkm – Turkmans, Kara – Karakalpak, Kyr – Kyrgiz, Kaz – Kazakhs, Ishk – Ishkinasi. The abbreviated names of the populations are also used in the Y-SNP MDS plot. ------------- |
Posted By: Putty19
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 18:39
|
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. |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 19:02
|
The real answer depends upon just whom you want to be considered as! And, if others of the clan you have chosen accept you as one of them! ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 19:41
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Putty19
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2010 at 00:55
Then stop using the Y-DNA argument, if you're not gonna take it in that manner there's no need to use it.
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.
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 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 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. |
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2010 at 05:09
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Putty19
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2010 at 16:24
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.
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 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.
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. |
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2010 at 17:03
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 - 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. ------------- |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2010 at 20:05
|
Based upon the map you have both presented, just where is Phrigia / Phrygia / Frigia, located?
Just who/whom do you both consider those who are reported to occupy a large portion of Asia Minor? You might well note, that upon other sites, and looking at other maps of this same area, you might well notice that Phrygia, etal, seems very coericed into the most very Western portion of Asia Minor? Does Phrygia move like the wind or waves, like Armenia? ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Putty19
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2010 at 21:33
If Kurds are anything like Assyrians, they will be close to one another genetically, we had a similar doubt since there has not been studies done on us and there was plenty of different Assyrian types, but so far all types of Assyrians (Assyrians, Chaldeans, Syriacs) are actually very close to one another and not just that, most of us are related one way or another even though we don't know one another (23andMe has a relative finder tool that shows the degree of relations), this is why it would be cool if there was more Kurds to join 23andMe.
It still does not change the fact that the modern Kurdish name comes from Corduene, this cannot be argued over at all, the similarity and the located where Corduene was located is a perfect proof for the Kurd identity.
Frankly, Kurmanji is only one Kurdish language that you speak, how about Gorani/Zazaki? I know many of them don't consider themselves Kurds but I think it's safe to assume they're the same stock, it's like our Chaldean/Aramean issue (Only Chaldeans and Arameans are just like us Assyrians since they speak the same language, in fact I'm half Chaldean myself).
True because the Kurds are actually nothing like Arabs, in fact the entire southern and northern middle east are two different worlds, and yes Kurds, are indeed closer to Greeks than Arabs (This is actually the case with all north middle easterners). Anyways, I know I sound like a broken record but whenever you guys get the chance, try to get a 23andMe test done, I hope some Kurds join in so we can share genomes and see where everyone fits, it's sort of cool to have a genetic profile for Kurdish people, us Assyrians are gathering up a very nice sample so far, and the Iranians in general are also doing well, the Armenians are doing an amazing job in the FTDNA project but unfortunately, that's only a Y-DNA project, with 23andMe there's much more depth since they scan all your lines. |
Posted By: Miller
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2010 at 00:19
I think this summarizes what you are trying to achieve and the effort you are putting into it. The whole point is that Kurds are actually confused Assyrians. I had heard Turks calling Kurds Mountain Turks as in they are actually Turks who have got confused and havr adopted another culture. There also was a thread here about Assyrians not existing but this is a new one. It is sad that in Middle East so many people try to claim their historical right and try to prove they are still around by erasing other people |
Posted By: Putty19
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2010 at 00:34
No, the Kurds are not Assyrians (Far from that in fact), but both Kurds and Assyrians share common ancestors before the arrival of Semitic and Iranian languages. |
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2010 at 05:29
About the Corduene, no one is sure what langauge they even spoke. I read somewhere once that they spoke a Iranian langauge, because the greeks saw that they could communicate with Persians, but I don't know where I read it. I am sure the descendeds of the Corduene live in the same location they do today. But I do not think all Kurdish tribes come from the Corduene due to so many different elements in Kurdistan because many of the Aryan and Sycthian tribes settled in Kurdistan. The first mention of Kurds in the present sense was Kurds who lived in west iran and Fars province during the Sassanids, some people like Rashid Yasami Professor of History of Iran believe that Kurds originated in south Iran and then moved north and abosrbed the natives becuase Kurds living all over Iran like in Khorasan in earlier times. Gorani and Zazaki is more easier over 50% I can pick up, Balochi I have a hard time picking up anything. Their are many balochi where I live here in London and I cannot understand anything. I find Persian speakers more easier to understand. Their are many theorys out their regarding the name Kurd and the past inhabitants. I've read many studys on the Kurd that is available and all of them are not sure about the origins of the Kurdish name. Some believe it was a social label during the early times, some believe it comes from the parthian word "Gard" and and some believe it was the Corduene, Some believe it was just the name of the location of Kurdistan and everyone who lived in it were called Kurds regardless of ethinic background similar to Jamiaca. Kurds are today dominated by Iranian culture and language and the Kurds admire the Medes, but you cannot deny the Iranian elements within the Kurds, they might not be 100% Iranic due to name and genetics which can be said same thing for most people in Iran, but most of what Kurds are today is Iranian. ------------- |
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2010 at 05:36
What he is trying to say is that the name Kurd is not Iranian, so therefor Kurds are not Iranians, which I disagree with. I believe even if the name did not have a Iranian origin, Kurds of today see themselves as Iranic and are culturely and linguastically with all the Indo-Iranian elements within Kurds like Mittani,Median,Sycthian, Kurds are Iranians. ------------- |
Posted By: Putty19
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2010 at 11:18
The Corduene (Carduchi) spoke an Iranian language based on Greek records, but it is believed the natives of that land were Caucasians prior to the arrival or Iranian languages just like their folk south of them prior to the arrival of the Semitic languages.
In my opinion, the first proper mention of Kurds goes back to the 4th century BC by the Greeks, and there might have even been records by the Assyrians too before but I'm not sure about that. On the same token I agree with you on the south Iran theory, the language must have arrived from that part (Specially if they group is in the same sub group as Baluchi), well that's what I read too anyways.
Can't comment on that since I lack the understanding of Iranian languages, I simply go by what I read, on the other hand I can relate to that, as an Assyrian speaker I understand Arabic more than Hebrew even though Hebrew is actually a closer language to ours, mind you I'm fluent in Arabic but I noticed many Assyrians who don't know Arabic tend to pick up Arabic more so than Hebrew.
Maybe, but keep in mind that the term Carduchi and Mede existed at the same time, in fact when the Greeks were passing by the Carduchi were apparently the enemies of Persians, in any case there's no dispute that the modern term "Kurd" comes from Corduene, now whether they were a Parthian tribe, Caucasian tribe, or so on, that's a whole other debate.
Well I'm not denying anything, you are Iranian if you want to be an Iranian, we're all free to choose whatever identity we want, of course you have Iranian elements more than other populations near by due to your language and culture, heck even other non-Iranian speakers have some Iranian elements, I was simply talking genetics, not identity.
|
Posted By: Miller
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2010 at 15:51
First, the population is middle is very diverse. The northern middle east is the oldest area in the world that has had major human settlement and it has been in a crossroad location. Depending on which Iranian, Turk, or Arab you test the result could be completely different. That is why threads like usually get filled with contradicting DNA/haplo group charts with everyone trying to prove their side of the story using the chart that favors their story. Even if you believe in the genetic result you are looking at are correct and represtative , you could read it like this: Kurds are desendant from Meds and other Iranic groups. Other Anatolians and Assyrians are actually Kurds who have adopted new identities. The difference between Kurds and Iranians in Iran aka Persians is because Kurds have lived in remote mountainous areas and have had less interaction with outsiders, thus Kurds represent the less mixed Iranic DNA. See this can be turned many different ways |
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2010 at 16:20
I thiink I find Persian more easier to Understand because, the Balochi speak in a Indian accent, it is like they are speaking Urdu. As for Turkish and Azaris, the Turkic langauges are all nearly identical to eachother. I can understand nearly everything a Azeri speaking Turks and Turkmanistan speakers say. Where as Kurdish languages all differ from other Iranian languages even tho they live next to eachother Kurdish speaker will find it hard to understand a Talyash and Persians speakers and only pick up some words here and their. It is most likely that Iranian tribes were abosrbed into Kurds and adopted the Kurd title, not even Kurds can understand eachother very well. I find Laki and Gorani hard understand as well. Also Rashid Yasami's theory is based on the name Kurd rather then the Language, he mentions that the name Kurd appeared in many parts of Iran in Fars and Khorasan. Even if the Corduene were against the Sassanids, many Kurds supported the Sassanids like I mentioned before the founder of the Sassanids was half a Kurd himself. ------------- |
Posted By: Xorto
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2010 at 23:47
| Putty19 is for a part right but you realy ignore the fact that kurds are indeed originaly in iranian tribe. THis doesn´t means they had to came from central asia. Who knows maybe the medes and Scythians came acros the caucasus to middle east. But what we know iranians. Where in the caucasus too and came across it to middle east like kimmerians, Scyths and so on. The kurdish language is related to balutchi yes but this don´t means that kurds came from southeast iran this means that the baluchis originated from north Iran or Mezopotamia. I heared about that the Baluchis even clame to have been originated from mezopotamia. however. geneticly there is no such thing like arian "DNA" the people from Westasia are all related to each. Other. the only Borders are in southeast Iran, Pakistan and some parts of Afghanistan but the rest of Iran Turkey, caucasus and so on are related to each other. The Iranians of today have more relationship to caucasians than to Indians. Even while they speak a language with the same origin. I think the original kurds were an old scythian tribe which first get assimilated by Medes and than spread around the region. All Kurdish tribes were in some how a part of the old median empire. Thats why all clame to be median but in origin they are an mixture of urartaens, Hurrians, Medes, kimmerians, Hethitians, Gutis, Kassits, scyths, Mannaens and so on. They are the original inhabbidens of this region like putty19 said. |
Posted By: Xorto
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2010 at 00:06
| wrong @Ince the kurdish flag has not to do much with beeing iranic just because of the colors that would be stupid as like calling the hungarian and italian flags "iranian" too. |
Posted By: Xorto
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2010 at 00:11
|
it´s sad to see how much our ,kurds know about their history. No body designed it because it looks close to iranian ones. This is the original kurdish flag of the repuplic ararat which was destroyed by ataturk and the persians. I don´t understand why some so called kurds here try so hard to be called Iranian??? We are Kurds and thats it! do you people want to be again under persian impression like you were under turkish or do you want to be Kurds. |
Posted By: Xorto
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2010 at 03:11
| for all those people who claim kurdish is originated in southeast iran because it is close to baluchi for gods sake is nobody here who has just a bit linguistic knowledge? Every linguist is sure that Baluchi is an northwestiranic language originated from parthians. Not the kurds moved west the baluchis moved to east or were moved to east. Petty19 is right with the these that the word kurd cames from corduene and 90% of historians are sure of that too. But it is also right that the people of corduene spoke an iranian languagesomehow a mix of scythian and median. The people of this region were a mixture of scyth, medic and caucasian elements like urartaen and hurrian. Another fact is that corduene was a part of median empire thats why all kurds claim to be median what is not wrong. Because many of the iranians who claim today to be persian are originaly for sure of elamite heritage. The guran kurds for example are acording to serefname an mixed Median-Babylonian tribe. But today all of them are called kurds and see them self as kurds. |
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2010 at 04:57
My asumption was based on the fact of how similar it is to the Old Iranian flag. Kurds live right next to Persians so the Hungarians don't. If you were to put a lion in the middle of the Kurdish flag over the sun it would be nearly identical to the old persian flag. ------------- |
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2010 at 05:01
The word Iranian does not only apply to people of iran or Persians, it applys to everyone who speaks the Iranian languages. The proper word should be Iranic rather then Iranian as some Kurds on the web don't like using Iranian. The word Iranian is just the modern term for Aryans. It was first used by the Sassanids. Plus nobody describes the Iranic people as Aryan people, they use Iranic/Iranian. No I do not want to be Iranian by the country. Kurds are Iranic by Language and Culture that is what I believe. I know how Iran has treated the Kurds in the past few hundred years and this is why Kurds try and distance themselves from the Iranian/Iranic label. For example the Safavids are believe to have had strong Kurdish elemnts later were Turkified, but they did some terrible things towards the Kurds by using Persiana and Turkic idenity. ------------- |
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2010 at 05:15
The name can be debated for ages. Yes many Persians in south Iran have elamites ancestory as that would be the case, the elamites just did not dissapear, but so do some Kurds and Lurs that live in or near Elam. What putty was trying to say was that Kurds are not Aryans/Iranic , they are caucasians who are only Iranic by Language. What I am trying to say is that most of what is Kurdish today is similar to other Iranian people and Kurds have multiple Iranic elements from Scythian to Median. I never said I believed that Kurds came from the south theory, I was just pointing out the many theorys out their. ------------- |
Posted By: Putty19
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2010 at 12:16
But see this is why I said haplogroup distribution is not a proper approach to determine this, autosomal results on the other hand are proper, and no, Assyrians and other Anatolians are not Kurds, they just share common ancestors. Say my name is Paul and my brother's name is Alan, our father is John, clearly we are both the sons of John and could be considered Johnites, but you cannot call me an Alanite or call my brother a Paulite, we are brothers and share a same father, that's all.
|
Posted By: Putty19
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2010 at 12:26
Yes that's what I said, the Kurds are a native middle eastern population with an Iranian element, I don't see how that's wrong at all.
|
Posted By: Quaere Verum
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2010 at 13:05
Your problem is that you are a paranoid who cherishes to be inundated into daydreamings about ancient Assyria being peerlessly the most outsanding stuff in the entire history of Middle East. And whenever someone reminds you of the truth you just escape to the bottom of ignorance so that you ignorantly dare say "Y-DNA and MtDna are nonsense", "Language of Adiabene was Assyrian", "Aramaic is an Assyrian language", etc.
I do for sure. It is you who needs to deal with historical facts indeed. According to all historical accounts the first time ever any one referred to Adiabene as Assyria was when Romans conquerred it later annexed it into their self-designated province of Assyria. There is explicitly no specific material to infer that the majority of Adiabenes people were Assyrian. While in accordance with the history of Sassanid empire, Adiabene resisted their sovereign and as a matter of fact Middle Persian sources account on parts of Kurds who resisted the Sassanians in an outright way. Old Iranian "Yazata" is the etymological root for Izates' name, who is regarded as the fist preeminent ruler of Adiabene. The first and the only direct historical indication that is ever made of Adiabenese ethnicity is recorded by the conquering Arab who only mention to face Kurds in Adiabene. After the glorious days of Adiabene the only people who referred to themselves ever as Adiabenese were indeed the Kurdish dyansty of Hadbani. For sure there were Aramaic speaking folks (ethnic Assyrians, ethnic Arameans, etc.) over Adiabene too, as they still do live in the repsective area (Iraqi Kurdistan and parts of southeastern Turkey), but its prevailing ethnicity was most likely Kurdish, as it still is clearly noticeable in the respective area. These are the only historical facts regarding to the demography of Adiabene and, yes, only a cursory glance at the present demography of the respective area, with a Kurdish majority, tells that history does not lie in this particular case.
The question is not the existence of Kurdistan, genius. The question is the body of your nonsensical pretentions which started by claiming "Kurds are not an Iranian people" via weaving genetic stuffs which you whimsically brought to the the point that "Kurds are the same as Assyrians", and followed by incredibly foolish ideas such as "Y-DNA is nonsense", "Language of Adiabene was Assyrian", etc. These definitely witness how foolishly biased you are.
It is impertinet, but yes they just linguistically digged their very own graves.
Your meant sense is exactly "nationalistically partial point", which is nothing outside of gibberish. Because scientifically Assyrian is an extinct language whilst Aramaic speeches (which Assyrian people are one of peoples that speak them) are still in use (though they are already endangered). But Zaza and Kirmanji are both in use. Assyrian was an East Semitic language while Aramaic is to be theoretically classified into Western branch of Semitic languages. But Zaza and Kirmanji are both Northwestern Iranian languages theoretically. And beside these points, the most important fact is that both Zaza and Kirmanji are historically exclusively spoken by Kurdish people. When they dare refer to them as Zaza Kurdish, Kirmanji Kurdish, and Gorani Kurdish, it means that these three Northwestern Iranian languages are spoken exclusively as well as historically (no matter if some contemporary individuals cosider themselves something else) by Kurdish people and their speakers are to be clustered as Kurdish. But Neo-Aramaic vernaculars are by no means exclusively spoken by Assyrians at all! That is to say there are Arameans, Jews, and even Muslim communities that do speak Neo-Aramaic and to consider Aramaic (which is certainly the native language of Arameans and is truly distinctive from the extinct native language of Assyrians) as an Assyrian language is nothing but an outright nationalistically biased viewpoint in its most detestable form ever.
Assyrians are upon my eyes for I do consider them as my own siblings. But as a matter of fact whenever I face people, no matter of what origin, who attempt to hustle false pretentions I just do not hesitate to stand for truth.
Nothing else but suchlike words could be expected from such a guy as you. There are Assyrians indeed, and your foolishly biased notions just demeans them. You cannot help yourself as far as you're biased by whimsical nationalistic day-dreamings.
You are incredible with your ignorance. Mr. Know-It-All Aramaic script is resulted from Phoenician which itself is classified as a Proto-Sinaitic alphabet. But scientifically Aramaic and Phoenician are two distinct alphabets. The way from Proto-Siniatic, and later Phoenician, is handed down to the derivative systems (Arabic, Hebrew, Syriac, Sogdian, etc.) thru Aramaic.
Just look how much you are nonsense. Your objection is the same as if someone who had said "Persian is an Iranian language", would be replied by an ignorant one such as you outcrying: "Iranian languages are NOT Iranian, they are Indo-Iranian"!!
You are Assyrian but your language is Aramaic, and originally pretains to Arameans. Where did Egyptions learned Aramaic? It is an irrelevant point anyways since scientifically Aramaic is the original language of Aramean people which later replaced the native vernaculars of various Semitic speaking folks including Assyrians.
Just check the map to make sure that Assur is located right under the land between Erbil and Nisbis, namely the main territory of Adiabene. The respective area was a Hurro-Urartian settlement prior to Assyrians' arrival from the south.
By the way Amorite and Assyrian are to be distinguished. Also the original Amorite lands are located on Syria as well as ancient Canan, and has nothing to do with Adiabene which is to be located on their east.
I am sorry but you suffer from a very fatal misconception (the base of your daydreamings) due to which you think the original Assyria is to encompass Hurro-Urartian lands, but that is definitely wrong. North of Akkad, south of Hurro-Urartian lands, and comparably the areas between modern Iraqi Kurdistan and central Iraq are to be referred to as original homeland of Assyrians.
When I blamed you for omitting Zoroastrianism (in order to foolishly prove your boastful claims about Adiabene) you just simply replied that you haven't omitted Zoroastrianism and you only have said whatever your Old Church says, and if you are telling the truth then absolutely your Old Church should be blamed on account of such a malicious omission.
Please do not be prejudiced towards me, I assure you I am not gonna make mock of myself by nationalistic hallucinations. Yes it was referred to as Assyria, Persia, Parthian Empire, Medean Empire, Ottoman Empire, etc. But on the other hand the only people whom we know and whose presence in the respective area antedates those of the rest were Hurrians and Urartians. Assyrians, Medes, Persians, Parthians, Macedonians, Romans, Arabs, Mongols, Turkic peoples, etc. they just invaded and then occupied the aformentioned area on which Adiabene was founded. Thus designations such as Persia, Assyria, or Ottoman Empire, do not necessarily imply any Persian, Assyrian, or Turkish identity at all. Since their original lands, for example, do not include the entire areas on which their names are tagged in fact. By the way Assyrians built Nineveh when they left their original homeland in the south (Assur). Those areas are indisputably Hurro-Urartian settlements, for instacne even another ancient Assyrian capital was "Arrapha" (modern "Kirkuk") which doubtlessly carries an etymologically Hurrian name (Arrapha).
If Iranians are of mixed halgroups, so that Kurds are. By the way for your information Mr. Know-It-All there is one (if I am not mistaken MtDNA) which is chiefly found amongst Iranians and amongst some form western India.
It is all impertinent. You firstly asseverated that Y-DNA and MtDNA are nonsense and they only vary in an era which starts off from at least up to 10,000 years ago. So I just mentioned one, to ten, or twenty ancestors identified via Y-DNA marker tests only to show you how profoundly ignorant you are (due to your nationalistic fancies).
Genetic characteristcs generally evolve generation to generation. And peoples are genetically blending with each other day to day. As Emannuel Kant maintans mixture of human races is an aim of nature. We most do carry heterogeneous gene pools. It is your false claim, a pretention based on Kurds being a non-Iranian people and it is always to be an absurd one, since peoples are not to be defined in accordance with their gene pools. But if you are curious to know about genetic relatednesses between Iranians (Kurdish, Persian, Azari, Lur, etc.), Anatolian Turcophone people, Armenians, or Semitic peoples (Arabs, Assyrian, Aramean, etc.) ; just put their comprehensive genetic materials and then we would observe the results.
Read about the Kurdish tribes of Ottoman Empire. Hakkari Christians, with a typical Kurdish way of life, could be an evidence that historical Kurdish Christians are most likely assimilated into the buddy of Aramaic speaking Christians (including ethnic Assyrians).
You are just based on rumors.
I just wonder, you formerly uphold an idea of Kurds and Assyrians being resulted from Hurrians, and a few lines later you reveal your whimsical intentions and affirm Kurds also have Assyrian blood! What a blunder indeed.
I am afraid it is not fine, it is perhaps the deepest part of your ignorance because peoples are not defined by genetic data but based on historical, cultural, and social facts.
Oh Gosh, I am not gonna cope with your expertise in terms of linguistics! Yiddish and Ladino (Judeo-Spanish) are scientifically two Indo-European languages, Germanic and Romance respectively, which might be referred as Jewish Languages (Languages of Jews) since they are exclusively spoken by Jews. I wonder how much time did you invest and how much mental labor it took so that such a question crossed your mind?!
You just interestedly denied the very fact of Kurdish people being Iranian which simply confirms your partiality and subsequently your ignorance. Also I do not know what you exactly mean by Middle East. The current Middle East would not be Middle East any more if you ever excluded one of its outsanding peoples. You cannot say that Iranians (not only Kurds) are not Middle Eastern. By the way just provide a genetically comprehensive comparison between Iranian, Semitic, and Turcophone peoples of Middle East and then keep on boasting. But before that just open several references and peruse them to the point that you would feel you clearly apprehend that concepts such as French people, German people, Iranian peoples, etc. are by no means defined in consistance with gene pools.
You are exactly the weird one who conceives the same nationalistically biased and ignorant of the others, as himself. I would only be happy if you would speak of and admit nothing but truth:
The area on which Adiabene was founded was originally a Hurro-Urartian territory. Assyrians, Iranians, Romans, Arabs, Turkmens, etc. arrived later. Adiabenese people resisted Sassanians and for sure Sassanians account on a Kurdish resistance against their reign. Names of preeminent Adiabenese rulers are to be explained by Iranian etymology. The official language of Adiabene was, in accordance with the rest of the western parts of Persian empires, Aramaic. Afterwards Arabs conquer Adiabene and they record the majority of Adiabenese people as Kurds. The only people who named themselves after Adiabene, were Hadbani Kurdish dynasty. Romans conquerred Adiabene and collapsed its kingdom after almost 100 years of being founded and then annexed it into one of their provinces, namely Roman province of Assyria. This Roman designation is the only hint on account of which the western historians have conventionally regarded Adiabene to be associated with Assyria: a historical misconception, held by the stranger historians, for that there is nothing else at all to tag Assyria on Adiabene. Y-DNA and MtDNA are not nonsense. Y-DNA is not restricted to a period which begins from up to 10,000 years ago. The concept of people is not defined by genetic characteristics. ------------- Blessed are the meek |
Posted By: Miller
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2010 at 13:15
I am not trying to say Assyrians are Kurds, just using that as an example to show the flaw in the reasoning. Using the DNA of current people in this case Assyrians and trying to determine the history has a major issue being that it is based on the assumption that current Assyrians and ancient Assyrians share the same genetic makeup but there is no proof of that. Even if there was 100% match between current Assyrians and Kurds you cannot draw the conclusion that ancient Assyrians and Kurds forked from the same people because the DNA makeup of current and ancient Assyrians can be completely different(or may not be).Unless you can find the DNA samples of the ancients the only thing you can do with current data is to create hundreds of different possible but unproven hypothesis on what has happened in the past. can you disporve my example based on the crrent DNA data? |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2010 at 13:44
|
Why don't we all just throw away the genetic tests? Why don't all of you just admit that the "Kurds" were sheep and goat tenders for thousands of years, they were indeed "shepherd kingdoms!" And just which "shepherd king" dominated Egypt?, as well as Assyria, etc.! Come on, all of you know him! If you don't get this, you don't know your "Curds" from the "Whey?" ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Putty19
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2010 at 14:21
|
Hey Verum, I'll make it easier on the points we disagree on rather than read every single thing you wrote, since you seem to be repeating yourself and this makes me repeat myself too so apperantly, you consider the following to be our conflicts:
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. In fact, the name Assur has been there before the arrival of the Semitic speakers, explain this to me please.
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.
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. 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.
Agreed, and it continued to be that way until the arrival of the Arabs, my question to you is where did the Kurds come up with speaking an Iranian language? 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.
Sure I believe it, that was only around 1200 years ago, Kurds did indeed grow in population, look at today, one would be an idiot to visit that area and say that the majority are not Kurds, 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.
Show me one source where the Adiabene dynasty called themselves Kurdish, just one simple source, clearly they were Greek, but hey if you say they're Kurds, show me the proof.
Well the region was ancient Assyria for most part, the city of Arbella was one of the earlier Assyrian cities, maybe that's why scholars tagged Adiabene with Assyria, 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.
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.
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.
Agreed.
|
Posted By: Putty19
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2010 at 14:23
If you're implying to any Biblical characters there, don't bother, Bible history is mostly based on Mesopotamian mythology.
|
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2010 at 14:33
|
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? ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2010 at 14:59
Saladin ------------- |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2010 at 15:08
|
OF course! Probably the most famous or infamous "Kurd" ever?
Or can any of you find another? ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Putty19
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2010 at 23:22
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. |
Posted By: Xorto
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2010 at 02:39
| @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 |
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2010 at 07:51
I understand what Putty is trying to say, what I am trying to say is Kurds are much Iranic as Lurs or anyother Iranic people. Bulk of what is Kurdish is Iranic. Genetically yes, west Iranian do not cluster with East Iranians much, as that would be case as they live in further away from eachother. Yes their are some Kurds and Persians on the web who hold onto the Aryan race thing, but I think it's rather a Pan-Iranic thing rather then a racially purity thing like with the Nazi's. ------------- |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2010 at 08:54
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?" ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Xorto
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2010 at 16:47
|
@opuslola i don´t know where you got your informations from but they are definetly wrong saladin was no Shii! he was an sunni muslim of Schafi like the majority of kurds. Thats for sure it was him who made big parts of Syria and palestinians Schafi Muslims. And Even Egypt is a big part Schafi i also think because of Saladin. Maybe you mixed it up because schafi sounds similar to Schii but in fact it´s not the same the Assassins for example (schii Sect) wanted to kill Saladin because he was a Sunni muslim of Shafi stock. @Ince i Know kurds are for sure of Iranic origin what Putty19 do wrong is he mix thinks up. If you want to know your heritage Haplogroups are much more important than other DNA Tests. Because Haplogroups show your heritage and if Kurds are mostly R1a-b and J2 that shows that we are for sure of Iranic heritage because the original iranians were from the region of southrussia between caucasus and Blacksea. This People were a mixture of Neolthik J2 People and mesolthik R1a-b, R2 People. The other Dna Tests like the 23 marker just shows with whom we have mixed and how we are geneticly today. And this shows clearly that we are not far away from Turks, Armenians, Assyrian-aramäic, Iranians, Greeks and Balkan People. We are the product of our Region Western Asian. Sorry for my Misspelling. My english is well but not perfect |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2010 at 19:43
|
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? ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Xorto
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2010 at 08:21
Oh sorry i realy didn´t read it well
|
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2010 at 08:54
|
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, ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Quaere Verum
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2010 at 08:37
|
it´s sad to see how much our ,kurds know about their history. No body designed it because it looks close to iranian ones. This is the original kurdish flag of the repuplic ararat which was destroyed by ataturk and the persians. Sorry bro, that is all wrong. Kurdish flag is most likely derived from Iranian flag. Prior to 1979 revolution there was already a sun within Iranian flag too which they later preferred to remove it. Even Kurdish high spots within Iraqi Kurdistan only explain the Kurdish flag with the same explanations which are supposed to describe the Iranian one (e.g. red for blood of martyrs, white for peace, and green for agricultural elements and prosperity of land). As a matter of fact Xwey Bún movement was highly inspired by nationalistic stuffs, and for sure Kurdish people are to be speculated as an Iranian folk.
It is not a matter of me or anybody else's. I am just maintaining the truth. In this regard the very fact that Kurds are an Iranian people was denied by a fellow Assyrian guy based on incomprehensive and entirely irrelevant materials nevertheless he has altered his previously biased and senseless viewpoint.
Nobody says we are not Kurds. However the fellow Assyrian partner was apparently attempting to hint that Kurds are Iranified Assyrians or something. However he retreated.
I am not into politics in any ways. But as a matter of fact Kurdish people are to be classified as an Iranian (Iranic) people, scientifically.
All due respect, the idea that Kurds should be considered as descendants of Medes is based on Diakonov's viewpoints. He was right that there are interesting Median elements within Kurds and their languages, but as a matter of fact in this regard Kurds are not alone. That is to say they share Medes, as one of their ancestors, with many other northwestern speaking Iranian folks. For example some Central Iranian dialects might be considered as Modern Median languages, but in case of Kirmanjí Kurdish (which is spoken approximately by up to 90% Kurds) we can obviously find Scythian elements along with Northwestern Iranian characteristics. For example Northwestern Iranian speeches retain Old Iranian initial "v/w" but this sound is mostly changed into "b", or occasionally "g", within Northern and Central Kirmanjí dialects. Scholars such as McKenzie has read this sound change (which is widely noticeable amongst Southwestern Iranian languages) as a Southwestern characteristic. Whilst as a matter of fact the same change is also to be observed in ancient Scythian speeches (particularly Khotanese Scythian). On the other hand some grammatical features in Kirmanjí Kurdish are believed to reflect a Hurrian background. Regarding to the other historical (homelands of Hurrians, Medes, and Scythians) facts Kurds are a an Iranian people, a blend out of Medes and Scythians with a Hurrian background.
… 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!" Seemingly you still do stick to your idea of outward resemblance between "curd" and Kurd and its base of shepherd story. But they both are indisputably false friends. For instance "Mama die die die*!" is a Dutch sentence, but no one is to conclude that based on such a Dutch sentences there is certainly a considerable matricidal tendency amongst Dutch people! (*"Mama die die die" in Dutch means "Mama [I want] that that that")
------------- Blessed are the meek |
Posted By: Quaere Verum
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2010 at 08:40
|
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.
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.
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.
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 Mr. Know-It-All first provide comprehensive genetic data regarding to Iranian peoples and other Middle Eastern folks, and then talk about genetics.
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).
That has nothing to do with the fact that Iranians (such as Kurds) are Iranians.
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.
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.
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.
Mr. Know-It-All Kurmanji is not merely a linguistic term.
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].
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.
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).
I wonder to know whether did you examine Chaldeans, from southern parts of Iran for instance, and so-called Assyrians (related to Aturaye and-disputably Suryaye) from various places (Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, etc.) or it is just a say-so based on incomprehensive materials?
The term Kurd is not derived from Corduene, but Corduene is just an ancient Greek word for "Kurdistan". By the way, Mr. Know-It-All, when a conclusion wanted to be drawn all evidences must be regarded. In case of Corduene, sure thing the presence of Kurds was not restricted to there at all since Sassanian sources as well as historical evidences left in today Kurdish city of Kirmashan prove the presence of Kurds in other places which are still Kurdish settlements to the present time.
Mr. Ignorant, Kurmanjí is not a language but a dialect (Northern dialect) of a language which is conventionally referred to as Kurdish, but most properly it is to be called Kirmanjí Kurdish (including Kurmanjí-Northern, Soraní-Central, Kirmajhí-Southern dialects). ------------- Blessed are the meek |
Posted By: Quaere Verum
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2010 at 08:43
|
To be spoken of Gorani and Zaza Kurdish languages is doubtlessly to be out of your ken. But I can let such an ignorant guy like you to know that surely the case of Kurds (a historically unique identity) exclusively speaking three (theoretically) Northwestern Iranian languages is entirely different from that of Aramaic speaking Christians speaking Aramaic speeches but meantime holding indisputably distinctive historical identities. By the way your nationalistically biased and truly detestable point is again to be observed when you put an indisputably historical identity such as Aramean under Assyrian. Also it is exactly Assyrians that speak the language of Arameans.
I see then another part of your fancy is getting revealed. Are you trying to put so-called Assyrians in a closer relation with non-Semitic peoples rather than their true Semitic cousins, namely Arabs?! For your knowledge there are Mediterranean Arabs who would represent closer racial and genetic characteristics to the Europeans rather than Kurds, Persians, and even Armenians. But it would not change the fact that they are still Arabs.
Most peoples around the world share historically various ancestors as well as their respective individuals certainly hold heterogeneous genetic characteristics. But what we know as peoples, namely their specific significances, have been developed thru history and as a matter of fact the people who are nowadays known as Assyrian as well as ancient Assyrians (descendants of early Akkadians) are Semitic peoples whilst Kurds are an Iranian (Iranic) people. Yes before the presence of Akkadians and Iranians in the
This paragraph is to be taken for granted. Also I am glad that you eventually acknowledged the historical fact that Semitic folks, like Iranians and early Indo-Europeans, arrived later to the area.
If you read a theory and then accept it, it is just a matter of your own wise. I do not want to split the hairs but regarding to the fact that you have already attempted to hustle linguistic pretensions regarding to Kirmanjí Kurdish language (e.g. "…clearly not Scythian") then I've got to ask how come you dare say the language must have arrived from the southern Iran while even those scholars who advocate such a theory cannot affirm that it must have been originated from southern Iran?!
I wish you were really an Assyrian (Akkadian) speaker, but unfortunately some two millenniums have been passed by since the last time someone heard a human speaking Assyrian. You are exactly an Aramaic speaker.
Unfortunately so far you have denied a really considerable amount of facts that is due to nothing outside of an outright and profound ignorance. Here are some of your extremely ignorant ideas: Kurds are not an Iranian people since they are closer to Middle Eastern, MtDNA and Y-DNA are nonsense, Aramaic is also an Assyrian language, Scythian clearly has nothing exclusive in common with Kurdish, etc.
We-Kurds are Iranian not because we want to be. In this regard it is up to various sciences to classify peoples.
You statement needs a little clarification. "We" here should mean individuals. Namely all individuals are free to call themselves whatever they want. However it would not change historical, cultural, or social facts generally, that is to say, for example even if an entire Persian city such as Shiraz changed their minds and started to call themselves Arab or Elamite or any thing but Persian, it would change the fact that their city as well as themselves had been Persian throughout history, nonetheless from now on prefer to be reckoned something else.
I surely agree. Then presumably you only did not explain yourself properly. Since you had to declare that I have some ideas that Kurds are genetically closer to other Middle Eastern peoples rather than Iranians [the later who are mostly Middle Eastern too]. But unfortunately you just intruded by shouting "Kurds are not Iranian they are closer to Middle Eastern people" in a truly abrupt manner.
Say my name is Paul and my brother's name is Alan, our father is John, clearly we are both the sons of John and could be considered Johnites, but you cannot call me an Alanite or call my brother a Paulite, we are brothers and share a same father, that's all. You again seem to imply senseless points?! Your idea is all wrong. You say that sons of John (~the common ancestor of Kurds and Assyrians in your idea) could be considered something like Johnites, but Alan (~ Kurds) and Paul (~ Assyrians) cannot be referred to as Alanite or Paulite. So what if many generations passed, should Paul and Alan's progenies be considered Johnites? But Mr. Know-It-All then how the heavens John himself should be considered?! Does not he have any progenitors? Humans are of heterogeneous characteristics genetically. But peoples are defined in an entirely different way. The people who are known as Assyrians (despite the identical disputations) are descendants of early Akkadians who appear in the history over central
That is wholly wrong. Why are you that much stupid? You thing a Middle Eastern population instead of "non-Iranian but Middle Eastern people" is probably going to disguise all your nationalistically biased and foolishly naive pretensions?! Kurdish people are scientifically an Iranian people, as well as
------------- Blessed are the meek |
Posted By: Quaere Verum
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2010 at 09:08
|
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 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orientmitja2300aC.png - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orientmitja2300aC.png
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.
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.
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.
Unfortunately you are stupider than what I could ever imagine. Mr. Ignorant a Hellenistic name such as
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.
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.
It was at least up to 1300 years ago.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Agreed. Ok, then end of discussion about your nonsensical pretension that Kurds are not Iranian, based on biased conclusions resulted from incomprehensive data. ------------- Blessed are the meek |
Posted By: Quaere Verum
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2010 at 11:50
|
@ Ince Bro I got some linguistic materials on some other Kurdish dialects, namely Kelaní and Ebduyí, spoken over Kelaní : Ebduyí : South.Kirmanjí : jhi(n) : jhi(n) : jhin : jhin : zen : zen : mean. woman ve-ténné : téné : tenya : tené : tena : tenha : alone (Middle Persian "teníha" > tenya >
tené the later one only to be observed in Kirmanjí Kurdish)
ti- : ti- : di- / e- : di- / ti- : mí- : mí- : durative (generally present) indicator tikat : tikat : (di)keyd : dike / tike : mikond : míkoned : mean. he does; (d)ekat
ésh : ésh / ézh : jhe / ejh : jhi : ez : ez : from
ke : ké : ke : ke : ko(n) : kon : do (imperative) cem : cem : cew / cem : cev (< ceb* < cem) : cesh(m) : céshm : eye; retention of middle and final "-m-/-m"
mal / mel : mal : mal : mal : xune : xané : mean. house; mal is originally an Arabic loan in sense of asset, which in Kirmanjí Kurdish has exclusively received a new definition: house
-í : -í : -í : -í : -sh : -esh : third person pronoun mal-í : mal-í : mal-í : mala wí : xune-sh : xané-esh : his house ------------- Blessed are the meek |
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2010 at 17:07
|
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? ------------- http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/ |
Posted By: Ince
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2010 at 18:39
Thanks very interesting. For the word House, in North Kurmanji we use both Xane and Mal, I think they use Xane for House and Mal for home similar to English way. Also do you think the Corduene spoke North Kurmanji? Just that Kurmanji has many SW elements and the Corduene were not very friendly towards Persians and were under Roman/Byzantine and Armenian rule for long periods of time. ------------- |