From the first link you provided: "They are an
Iranian people and speak the
Kurdish languages, which are members of the
Iranian branch of
Indo-European languages". So I don't really see how this is any different from what I claimed on my post.
If you want to cite sources, here are some you seem to not want to mention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...ple#Prehistory ;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_people#Origins. So your argument is fundamentally flawed, as Kurds (as a separate ethnic group) are only mentioned in the 11th century A.D. Just because someone speaks a different dialect of a language, that alone does not separate them as a culturally different people.
And to claim the Median Empire as the "ancestor" of the Kurds is like saying that the Kievan Rus is the "ancestor" of the "Ukrainians", when in fact the Kievan Rus is the birthplace of Russia, not only as a culture, but as a nation.
You can only trace similar origins of the Kurds to Median tribes, and cannot make them "direct descendants" of the other. This is pure 19th century nationalist rhetoric, and that just doesn't fly anymore --->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish...e#20th_century
This is why I claimed that calling those two skeletons, who are dated to c. 1000 B.C (even before the Median Empire), "Kurdish Iranian" is redundant, and quite honestly, semantically and anthropologically wrong. You can say they might've been from the Kurdish tribes, but you can't make a connection between them and the modern nationalist conception of Kurds and Kurdistan.
And if you really want to nitpick and objectively situate the skeletons in a political entity, then Teppe Hasanlu would be situated, at the time, in the territory of the Nairi Tribes and the Urartu Kingdom, so there's also that.
I'm sorry if this offended you, it was not my intent. I'm just trying to avoid falling into 19th century conceptions and misconceptions.
Bookmarks