Kurdish ethnogenesis and origins

[Babak]

I think Kurds are mostly descended of Gutians:


The etymology of 'Kurd' is also one of much debate. Throughout ancient Mesopotamian history there are many terms referring to mountain tribes that bear a resemblance to 'Kurd', such as Guti, Carduchians/Gordyaens, Cyrtians.

However, the Gutians lived in 2000 B.C., long before there was mention of the first Kurds. It is remarked however that:
"The terms Gutium and Gutians continued to be used in texts from northern and southern Mesopotamia during the second and first millennia. Often they refer to a region or people from the Zagros mountains, and are found together with other equally vague terms, such as Subartu and Lullumu. The persistent use of what must by then have been considered an ancient name was the result of the ideology that time stood still outside Mesopotamia’s borders and that no change took place there. Thus the term Gutian has no value as indication of a specific people and merely suggests uncivilized people from the Zagros. Any hostile group could be called Gutian. The Assyrian royal annals use the word Gutians when they refer to Iranian populations otherwise known as the Mannaeans or the Medes (Parpola, p. 138). The negative image persists: In the fifteenth century the Babylonian king Agum-kakrime calls them “a barbarous people” (Reiner, p. 80). The seventh-century Assyrian king Assurbanipal accuses Gutians of assisting the rebellious Babylonians (Luckenbill, p. 301), while the sixth century Babylonian king Nabonidus stated that they destroyed the temple at Sippar (Oppenheim, p. 309)."

From: GUTIANS ? Encyclopaedia Iranica

[Hudayar]

As far as i know their ancestor was Kawa

[Uzarel]

Historical sources confirm there is no such thing as Kurdi/Akrad prior to the Arab Muslim use of it.

You might want to know that your favourite author Ozoglu takes a far more nuanced view:



"Kurdish notables and the Ottoman state", p. 23
http://www.kurdipedia.org/files/books/2012/66716.PDF

The key terms here are "some plausibility", "inconclusive evidence" and "speculative". Ozoglu knows he cannot entirely refute said theories (roughly summarised on Wikipedia) connecting the modern Kurds to populations in classical antiquity that inhabited the same region, bore similar ethonyms and are attested to have been Iranic speakers, which are some factors that do not apply to your comparison with the Turukkaeans. The notion that these populations vanished into thin air is absurd.

Yes, the origins of the Kurds are less clear than those of neighbouring groups, for the simple reason that Kurds generally practiced a semi-nomadic way of life for the majority of their existence, which was not conductive to the development of state entities and a recorded history. And although "inconclusive evidence" is all we have in reconstructing the early history of the Kurds, the evidence that points to a connection with Corduene is a lot more convincing than your ridiculous, self-interested claims that Kurds are recent arrivals from Iran. Genetic data has also ruined theories that Kurds are mongrels lacking a shared ancestry.

[Böri]

Kardouchi people or Corduone mentioned by Xenophon in his Anabasis can't be regarded as Kurds' ancestors. No legit proof there is continuity between them and Kurds.
Beside modern studies even pretend that Kardouchi people/Corduone could even be Semitic while Kurds are Iranic speakers.
Not to mention that, just like in the Medes theory, there is a huge time gap. Kardouchis/Corduone was mentioned in the 4th century B.C. by Xenophon, so 1000 years before the word Kurd/Akrad was mentioned for the first time ever in history by Arab conquerors of the Iranian plateau.


Assyrians, Kurds, and Ottomans: Intercommunal Relations on the Periphery of ...
By Hirmis Aboona
p.89


Medes, Kardouchi/Corduone etc are fantasies, they have no scientifical counterparts and such theories are far from being realistic in the process of explaining the ethnogenesis of a people.

[Uzarel]

Aboona neglects to name any of these "modern studies" and I can find nothing of the sort, so in my opinion he makes an unsubstantiated statement. In your other source, Ozoglu admits that said theories hold "some plausibility" and stops short of claiming to refute them, only pointing out that they are founded on scarce evidence (which is a fact when dealing with Kurdish historiography). How are your sources reliable when they contradict one another? Perhaps you would like me to put in a source from a proponent of the theory such as G.D. Driver or V. Minorsky as well? Since you resorted to a source from an Assyrian nationalist (I'm giving Ozoglu the benefit of doubt), how about I put in a source from our own Mehrdad Izady? Or is a source only valid to you when it tells you what you want to hear?

Like all the other durks on this forum, you are a struggling trainwreck of a propagandist.

[Böri]

Kurdish nationalists tell that Xenofon's Karduchoi were proto-Kurds. Karduchoi became fantasy. However serious, non-Semitic non-Assyrian historians claim Karduchoi/Corduone could be Semitic, which means not Indo-Iranian (what Kurds are).

The Kurds: An Unstable Element in the Gulf
Stephen C. Pelletière - p.20


The ethnogenesis and prehistory of Kurds is simply obscure. There isnt any scientifically absolute finding about.

[Mingle]

You're both illiterate morons, no one will take your sources serious, how retarded can you become? Next up on retarded Turanian theories: SUMERIANS ARE TURKIC

Also Kurdish language descends from Parthian language, those poor people later got mongrelized by a bunch of nomadic mongrels

That's not true. Semnani is the descendant of the Parthian language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semnani_language

It's possible some Kurdish tribes (especially the Feylis) are of Parthian descent, but there is no ethnolinguistic continuity between the Kurds and Parthians or between the Kurds and Medians.

The Zazaki language is said to come from the Daylamites. I can't find any info regarding the origin of the Kurdish languages. It may have resulted from a mix of different languages or it may have just not been documented in the past. I think that is the most likely scenario. Many East Iranic ethnic groups don't have a long recorded history but are around today.

[Mingle]

Kurdish nationalists tell that Xenofon's Karduchoi were proto-Kurds. Karduchoi became fantasy. However serious, non-Semitic non-Assyrian historians claim Karduchoi/Corduone could be Semitic, which means not Indo-Iranian (what Kurds are).

The Kurds: An Unstable Element in the Gulf
Stephen C. Pelletière - p.20


The ethnogenesis and prehistory of Kurds is simply obscure. There isnt any scientifically absolute finding about.

I think in the past, as was the case with many people, they would have identified as their respective tribes (e.g. Sorani, Kurmanji, etc) and it would be better to research the origins of these specific groups. Kurd seems to be a more recent term in comparison, but that doesn't mean that Kurds didn't exist before. They just didn't have a united identity before. I agree their origins are somewhat obscure, probably has to do with them being nomadic. East Iranic peoples are nomadic and have a similar situation. The Yaghnobis are said to be of Sogdian descent and Ossetes of Sarmatian descent, which are most likely true, but the origins of other East Iranic groups is obscure.

[Böri]

I think in the past, as was the case with many people, they would have identified as their respective tribes (e.g. Sorani, Kurmanji, etc) and it would be better to research the origins of these specific groups. Kurd seems to be a more recent term in comparison, but that doesn't mean that Kurds didn't exist before. They just didn't have a united identity before. I agree their origins are somewhat obscure, probably has to do with them being nomadic. East Iranic peoples are nomadic and have a similar situation. The Yaghnobis are said to be of Sogdian descent and Ossetes of Sarmatian descent, which are most likely true, but the origins of other East Iranic groups is obscure.

Sure the word Kurds most likely existed before 750 AD, when Arab conquerors of Iraq and Iran mentioned it first time ever in history. Other, older claims don't make any sense like with Medians or Corduone. Kurdologist Minorsky demonstrates himself how Karduchoi can be Assyrian/Semitic.
Pre-history of Kurds remain very obscure in any case.

[Proto-Shaman]

non-Iranian, non-Semitic, non-IE Zagros tribes.