the kurds were probably merely displaced persians, fleeing the arab invasion. they have no history before that point in time.
the elamites would have been the westward extent of the indus valley civilization, rather than a euphrates-tigris one. the elamites are also your "black persians", but they would have been of indian rather than african background.
Murşil Manavis
İranians are Elamite origin.Kurds are Assyrian origin.Stop lying!
Murşil Manavis
+Pedram Mir What is real?Actually situation more complicated.Answers to your questions is perhaps in this!
bznn
+Murşil Manavis kurds are not assyrian in origin. you stop lying .
Murşil Manavis
+bznn oh please! Kurds are Ancient Assyrian and Aramaic may be a hybrid. http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19564#.U9Nn8vl_uT8
deathtokoals
+Murşil Manavis kurds are definitely not assyrians. there's actually a very sad history here, in kurdish responsibility for the assyrian genocide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_genocide
the kurds are not an ancient people. the name translates to something like "wanderers" and only first appears in the arab invasions. they were probably persian refugees from that period, who were kicked out of iraq by colonizing arabs.
bznn
+deathtokoalas kurds dosen't have a history. historian are trying to find but. I will gurantee you its useless. you cannot trace back their ancestors. they might of been here before anyone. point is you wil never. and I say NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER find their linage. PERIOD. Stop looking !!
"they were probably persian refugees from that period, who were kicked out of iraq by colonizing arabs."
"Proabably" is not enough. I tell you this as facts...you have better chance finding aliens, than find where they come from.
they have no relation dna to elam, medes or persian empire.
Murşil Manavis
Please read carefully my link!
bznn
+Murşil Manavis you have no real proof like many historians. just thoeries. I have better argument. I'm gonna say kurds are gentically enginered by aliens. you can prove me wrong? NO. becuase you don't know where kurds come from. its just thoeries you have found. someone who has no history and have no forfathers meaning no direct dna. meaning my argument will stand for 1000 years or more. becasue you will never find their linage lol.
they are untraceable like the perfect murder !
Murşil Manavis
+bznn dude this is science.
deathtokoalas
well, it's more than probably. it's extremely likely. arabs move in, kick the persian-speaking people out, leaving them as "tent dwellers" to their north.
what is absolutely clear is that they are a product of the islamic invasion of sassanid persia. there isn't really another way to make sense of that fact.
the dna has to be interpreted very carefully, given that their ethnogenesis appears to be around the year 800 CE. with a date that late, in that area of the world, it's more or less useless in coming to much of any kind of conclusion other than that they're from that area of the world. there are exceptions like jews and assyrians, based on religion, but kurds don't fit the exclusionary exception. so, it's not going to help much.
i mean, what your link says is that there exists a genetic substratum under the iranian invasion. that doesn't say anything of origins. it just points out that when the iranians got there, they had sex with the people who already lived there.
bznn
+deathtokoalas they have no relation to persians from culture to language. medes, elam and the perisan empire is as far as it goes for iranic and perisans.
Murşil Manavis
In addition, the Iranians are not the true Aryan. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707641081
deathtokoalas
+bznn well, they rather clearly do. and the elamites were not persians..
bznn
the oldest cave in the kurdish area is 60000 BC.
deathtokoalas
+Murşil Manavis i don't know what "true aryan" means, but i stopped reading that article when i noticed it cited the charlatan colin renfrew.
well, ok, i read it...
i'd be hesitant to connect the movement of dravidian into india via farming. i'm sure there were population movements with the spread of farming, and that looks like the right direction. but that seems too late for dravidian. renfrew's influence here has not been positive.
when you said "true aryan", and i saw renfrew, i was expecting the usual noah's ark nonsense, but, thankfully, this article actually reads sforza correctly and upholds gimbutas on the matter, creating the proper invasion route around the caspian.
so, i don't know what you're talking about, what "true aryan" means or why you cited the article in support of that. the article upholds the standard kurgan dispersal theory, while being a little less informed about the age of dravidian.
bznn
+deathtokoalas it means pure race. by that meaning langauge and culture. not not skinn color. by that defination, they had to be green or purple. cuz black,yellow, brown and white is taken lol.
deathtokoalas
+bznn i think most experts would agree that the closest thing to a pure "indo-european" culture were the balts, pre-christianization. latvians, lithuanians.
the article says nothing about anything of the sort. it just speaks of the well understood indo-iranian invasions from the caspian, presents genetic evidence of a movement of people from iran to india during the neolithic and entirely speciously connects that to a movement of dravidian languages.
bznn
+deathtokoalas the cloest they have got to their origin is the zagros mountain. this is the earliest foundings of kurds.
deathtokoalas
+bznn that is correct. but it's a little silly to notice that the kurds showed up exactly when the arabs invaded, note the large population displacements that occurred and then not draw conclusions.
bznn
just their luck ? :P
Elam and assyrians and came first . to interrupt their way of living.
invasions by the armies of every nation that ever acquired fame and name in the Eastern world’s history-Assyrian, Parthian, Greek, Roman, Persian, the Arabs under Muhammad, and the Mongols- the fine stability of the race stand out, for among all the people of these lands they, the Kurds, alone have withstood every army, and retained pure their language and blood, and claim with a pride of race to which none can grudge admiration, that they are the pure Aryan, the “holders of the hills and possessors of the tongue.”
they have been the first (indigious) in zagros and antollia. both were parts of mesopotamia.
deathtokoalas
the indigenous peoples of these regions are not iranian. the iranians are invaders from the north. in very ancient times, this area would have been a conflict zone between insular caucasus mountain peoples to the north and more warlike semites to the south.
bznn
+deathtokoalas Again kurds are not Iranian. Get that through your head lol!
Later, the out-of-Medes theory of the Kurds was made popular worldwide by the Russian Orientalist Vladimir Fedorovich Minorsky (1877-1966).
Kurds are traditionally regarded as Iranians and of Iranian origin, and therefore as Indo-Europeans, mainly, because they speak Iranian. This hypothesis is largely based on linguistic considerations and was predominantly developed by linguists. In contrast to such believes, newest DNA-research of advanced Human Anthropology indicates, that in earliest traceable origins, forefathers of Kurds were obviously descendants of indigenous (first) Neolithic Northern Fertile Crescent aborigines, geographically mainly from outside and northwest of what is Iran of today in Near East and Eurasia. Oldest ancestral forefathers of Kurds were millennia later linguistically Iranianized in several waves by militarily organized elites of (R1a1) immigrants from Central Asia. These new findings lead to the understanding, that neither were aborigine Northern Fertile Crescent Eurasian Kurds and ancient Old-Iranian speaker (R1a1) immigrants from Asia one and the same people, nor represent the later, R1a1 dominated migrating early Old-Iranian-speaker elites from Asia, oldest traceable ancestors of Kurds. Rather, constitute both historically completely different populations and layers of Kurdish forefathers, each with own distinct genetic, ethnical, linguistic and cultural backgrounds. These new insights indicate first inter-disciplinary findings in co-op- eration with two international leading experts in their disciplines, Iranologist Gernot L. Windfuhr, Ann Arbor, and DNA Genealogist Anatole A. Klyosov, Boston, USA.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?paperID=19564
deathtokoalas
+bznn and, as i've pointed out, the article is incoherent in terms of defining ethnicity.
the kurds speak an iranian language, follow iranian customs and identify as an iranian people. the iranian government views them as displaced persians. the genetic evidence indicates that there's been some mixing, but it doesn't say anything else. it's not correct to suggest that the people that lived in the zagros mountains before the islamic invasion were kurds, whether one can construct some kind of genetic continuity or not.
stated a second time: what that article states is that invading iranians had sex with the indigenous people of the region (semites) and the result is what we today call kurds.
but, putting aside the fact that you're not understanding the article, the genetic argument is simply weak in terms of defining culture.
genetically, palestinians are not arabs, but jews. that is, they are the arabized descendants of the indigenous jewish inhabitants of the region, who have intermixed with arab colonizers. but, nobody is going to look at their dna and say "you are not arabs".
one could also look at spain and france. genetically, the people of the region are mostly celts. but, they are the cultural descendants of romans. nobody is going to argue that they are celts, not romans.
bznn
+deathtokoalas Exactly, We have no prove what they were before. But they were Iraniazed. Thats why they are related now.
Here is the story that goes...
They were from southside of Mesopotamia and got invaded by the assyrians from north. They fleed to Zagros mountian. There they got invaded and mixed up with the Medes. There the Medes invaded Assyria and conquered them.
deathtokoalas
+bznn i don't think there's any evidence of such a thing. we can tell stories all day, but it's not worthwhile.
nor is there any evidence of a kurdish people through the lengthy roman-persian wars. if they existed in antiquity, we would expect them to exist in roman records. they simply don't.
the kurdish dialect is also relatively recent.
perhaps it's as simple as it appears: perhaps there were no kurds before the arabs created them through displacement.
bznn
+deathtokoalas have it ever occured to you that he kurds legacy got wiped out of history? like ISIS are doing right now with babel and assyrians?
deathtokoalas
+bznn this is not a grounded argument.
but, i'm arguing that the kurds were probably the iranians (or iranized mesopotamians) that occupied the area now called iraq before they were driven out by arab settlers. that wasn't documented well; very little of the consequences of the population movements that accompanied the spread of islam were documented well, because the colonizers simply didn't care. they didn't do body counts...
so, sort of. but i don't want to get stuck in the conspiracy theory view of history, here.
bznn
+deathtokoalas Most of the kurdish legacy wiped out this is no consipracy. Or you could say the real iranians who lives in Iran today are not the real persians. The ones who lived in Iran and Turkey are Imposters. The owner of that land belonged to Kurds. Just like the real Europeans were black not white like you. You are an imposter and cave dweller lol.
deathtokoalas
+bznn ...or maybe the history doesn't exist because the kurds are not an ancient people, but one arising from events in the historical period.
i think we've hit an impasse, here.
bznn
+deathtokoalas And what do you define as ancient?
deathtokoalas
+bznn do you recognize the foreign policy implications of the view that iran "belongs to the kurds"?
i'm a canadian of mixed ancestry, part of it localized to the middle east and almost none of it from western europe (my winter whiteness is actually mostly finnish/uralic - north asian - and i get downright brown in the summer.). i wouldn't know what a real european is or identify with being one. but i do recognize that the inhabitants of much (not all) of europe before the kurgan invasions where likely mostly of olive complexion.
bznn
+deathtokoalas Europeans are liars and thives. They have way of stealing history. Did you know bethoven was black. Thoven Bey was his real name. Socrates was black also. The Jews in the freaking Bible was black. The Americans and the Canadians are Europeans in origin. European also the reason why Kurds have no land. Read about world war 1. All you can do is steal history. Egyptian also black. Did you know you are subhuman? you are a pale face devil, and you will pay for your ancestors did. the fact is you have no history of your own. you are a cave bitch commimg from the mount caucus. you are a Causcasian. A so called White. an imposter of land. Your real home is back in the cave. Read your history. Canada was never the land of your caucus ancestors. So technically you have no right living there. you also didn't answer my question earlier . You said Kurds are not ancient people. So I am asking you again. WHAT DO YOU DEFINE AS ACIENT PEOPLE ?? And I don't even know if you are a girl. And that person in the pic looks like a tranny lol !
deathtokoalas
+bznn *plonk*
horse dreamer
No the Elamites are Ahwaz nothing to do with Kurds or iranies
deathtokoalas
it's not clear, really, exactly where they came from or exactly what they looked like, but elam seems to have been some kind of meeting point between the pre-semite inhabitants of mesopotamia (sumerians) and the indigenous inhabitants of india (dravidians). it makes more sense to me to think that they probable expanded from the harappans, rather than the other way around, given the dates involved and the directions of influence; the sumerians seem to have come down from the caucasus mountains, whereas the elamites seem to have more in common with ancient india. but, barring some remarkable discovery, this is unlikely to ever really truly be settled..
horse dreamer
Maybe, but the Ahwaz I spoke to said they are, they also speak like iraqies, there accent, there just arabozied and yeah there Semitic, some of them are still sabian mandians and speak the old language, same thing in Iraq
deathtokoalas
one of the very few things we can be certain about the elamites is that they were neither semitic nor iranian, which is partly why they're so hard to place in any kind of system. we have elamite scripts, and they don't fit into any language group very well, but they seem to have enough similarity to tamil that some fringe theories have developed. the dravidian connection really seems almost inescapable, through a crude process of elimination.
but, to me, the stronger arguments have to do with the extensive trading networks that existed between elam and india, indicating that they seem to have seen themselves as culturally similar. we're talking about cultural trading - pottery, for example. when you see that, it usually indicates a cultural continuity. further, we're pretty sure that the elamites were probably mostly dark skinned (as in indian dark skinned), whereas we have enough evidence in the form of old statues to conclude that the sumerians looked vaguely like russians. they were white.
the agricultural theory i referenced above wants to argue that the spread of farming brought the movement of peoples in an eastward direction, but the ethnic and economic relationships i pointed out are not at all consistent with this idea. if the movement of farming spread any kind of language or ethnicity from west to east during the neolithic, that movement had clearly been undone by the rise of urbanization. renfrew is basically pushing a noah's ark story, and it simply doesn't add up with the facts.
if your friends look like arabized persians, they probably are. if they look more like balochis or pakistanis or tamils, they may have a deeper genetic history in the region.
horse dreamer
As u said we don't know that much, maybe Iran should let us go and study them in Ahwaz, they don't look Persians, they look like iraqies a lot , some blush call them selves Arabs lol
deathtokoalas
yeah. well, there was certainly a lot of arab immigration into persia after about the year 700 ce. but, these people would be as far removed (probably more removed...) from elam as english settlers in north america are from the indigenous population. we're talking at least a thousand years before present for the arab migration - and well over a thousand years before that since the fall of elam. and, of course, there's a very large iranian migration in between these things.
you're really simply not going to find elamites or descendants of elamites in today's world. the closest thing is probably the balochis, who today speak an iranian language.
Azari Parsian
Todays persians in Iran are descendants of Elamites and Northern Mesopotamians. Barely any of them have Iranian ancestry.
deathtokoalas
there are plenty of ethnic iranians left in iran, which is seen mostly in their lighter coloured skin, which is very prevalent, but the most recent population movement into the region was turkic and mongolian. large parts of iran, today, historical and modern, are primarily turkic.
we can't really define what an elamite is, but they probably looked like modern baluchis and what is left of them is probably there.
there were never a significant amount of "mesopotamians" in iran, and there is virtually no trace of them there, today.
to get your head around the turkicization of historical iran (which includes most of central asia), you have to understand just how brutal the mongolian invasions truly were.
entire cities were razed to the ground. millions of people were slaughtered. there was mass depopulation. this was followed by mass rapes by the thousands, which repopulated the cities. it was a real ethnic replacement in just about the most brutal terms imaginable.
over time, the turks adopted the iranian language and customs. and, you'll see plenty of iranian markers in the modern population.
but, a broad genetic survey of iran identifies a very large percentage of the population as genetic descendants of turks - regardless of the language they speak.
Murşil Manavis
+deathtokoalas this was done genetic studies. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707643523
Azari Parsian
+Murşil Manavis I highly doubt the elamites were indian origin. You have evidence showing this?
Murşil Manavis
+Azari Parsian http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707641081
Azari Parsian
+Murşil Manavis Interesting i found this too http://www.israel-a-history-of.com/elamites.html
deathtokoalas
+Murşil Manavis i still don't like the direction of dravidian suggested in both these articles (i think it had to come from the east to the west much later than the neolithic diffusion), but what i'm saying is consistent with that study. mtdna is female. so, it traces the flow of genetic information from mother to daughter, down many generations.
the turkicization of iran would be something that happened in the y-dna, on the male side.
the historical records tell us that modern iran was repopulated by turkish men raping iranian women. what you're seeing in this study is what you would expect to see if that history was accurate, at least on the female side.
Murşil Manavis
reasonable but no references.
Azari Parsian
+Murşil Manavis although, i do agree the Dravidian languages originated in the zagros mountains.
deathtokoalas
+Murşil Manavis i find the historical sources more convincing, and will tend to reject the dna studies when they don't conform to the history. it's easy to measure dna, but it's much harder to make sense of it.
i mean, i'm not suggesting that iran is entirely turkish (and turk, itself, is hard to define in terms of y dna, as it's a mix itself - you've got r, q and others in there, because central asia was a place where nomads met and intermingled, rather than a place where lineages settled and branched out. the best guess is probably that what we call turks were mostly the result of white men intermingling with asian women, creating white y dna attached to asian features). you're going to find substantial indigenous iranian (r - but not discernible from the turkish r) and arab (j) in there, too. and, it's all easy enough to understand. but, i hope i've gotten across that the diversity in iran really creates a hell of a problem in trying to disentangle it.
you can really work this out well enough using phenotypes. historical iranians and sumerians are pasty, european white. semitic people are darker skinned. we don't know for sure what elamites looked like, but we think they probably looked like indians. turkish people are light but not white and have vaguely asian features - likely as a result of them being a mix of white and asian peoples. because they tend to carry r, it was probably mostly male white intermixing with female asian that spawned turkic.
white iranians exist, but are a minority. most have light but not quite white skin and vaguely eastern features, indicating very strong turkish and arabic admixture. but you can't truly separate one r from the other. the asian features increase in numbers as one moves eastward and northwards from tehran and into central asia - where r (iranian/turkic) remains dominant and j (arab) begins to disappear.
Murşil Manavis
+deathtokoalas but most of Anatolian Turks are indigenous people of Anatolia. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166218X08003661 and Iranians are hybrid. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0080673
Azari Parsian
+Murşil Manavis also same with most persians of iran,
deathtokoalas
+Murşil Manavis i agree that a good guess is that most anatolian turks are basically greeks and most iranians are hybrids, but what i'm saying is that it's very hard to correlate the genetic markers well.
to summarize what i said in the last post is this:
- there were plenty of arabs (j) in iran before the mongol invasions. but, the majority white iranians would have no doubt been r.
- when the turks invaded, they brought a bunch of stuff - c, q, n. but, they were also primarily r, because they were themselves a mix of iranians and mongolians.
so, there was an iranian r before the mongols. then, the mongols brought an iranian r. the dna cannot tell you who was there before the slaughter and who wasn't because it's the same y-dna haplotype.
you'd have to find some other marker, like a marker connected with "asian eyes". but, we don't do these studies because we like studies related to direct paternal (y-dna) or maternal (mtdna) descent, because we think this is more useful.
until we do these other studies, we're really better off relying on (1) the written history we have and (2) the phenotypes we can observe that uphold that history.
btw, that study on iran is again on mtdna. you really need to find one for y-dna to see what i'm saying.