The Origin of Kurds

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-Iranianspeaker 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-operation with two international leading experts in their disciplines, Iranologist Gernot L. Windfuhr, Ann Arbor, and DNA Genealogist Anatole A. Klyosov, Boston, USA.


Introduction
Studies in the origin of Kurds were pioneered twice by Italians: in the late 18 th century by two Italian catholic missionaries, Maurizio Garzoni (1734Garzoni ( -1804) ) and Giuseppe Campanile (1762Campanile ( -1835)), both members of the Order of Black Friars, who were sent by the Vatican to Christianize Kurdistan and carried out earliest studies on Kurdish language and civilization.And in the beginning of the 1990s by Italian ( * 1922 Genoa) born Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza and Italian collaborators in the monumental study "The History and Geography of Human Genes" (ed.1994, based on earlier findings).LL Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1994) offered for the first time also new insights of modern Human Anthropology in the origin, migrations and genetic alignments of Kurds, and introduced a completely new understanding of their beginnings.Details will be discussed later.Previously, linguists developed quite a good number of pretty much conflicting origin-theories of Kurds, geographically ranging from the East to the North-West and the South-West of Iran of today.Briefly: Northwest-Iranian origin theory: Tries to explain Kurds mainly as descendants of Old Iranian speakers like Medes because of assumed language similarities.Those are, however, still not established.Until today, only a few authentic Median words are documented, and are regarded as far too few for any sweeping assumption.This traditional out-of-Medes Hypothesis of the Kurds is rooted way back in the first half of the 19 th century, where leading scholars of their time like e.g.Barthold Georg Niebuhr (1776Niebuhr ( -1831)), German historian of Ancient Rome, described Kurds in "Vorträge über alte Geschichte" (Berlin 1847) as "half Aramaeic and half Median-Persian peo-ple" ("Kurden ein halb aramäisches und halb medisch-persisches Volk").Later, the out-of-Medes theory of the Kurds was made popular worldwide by the Russian Orientalist Vladimir Fedorovich Minorsky (1877Minorsky ( -1966)).
Southwest-Iranian origin theory: Based on language similarities between Persian, Balochi and Kurdish in "Middle Iranian" (ca. 4 th century BC to 9 th century AD), and out of claims, that therefore, 1) Persian, Balochi, and Kurds, must also be of closely related ethnic origin, presumably from Southwest of what is Iran of today, and that 2) hence, Kurds must have a linguistic and ethnic origin in the Southwest of Iran.This disputed theory has been repeated recently 2009 in an analysis, pillowed mainly on linguistic hypotheses, by Teheran born ( * 1953) Armenian Garnik Asatrian, who moved to Yerevan in 1968.Against cited decisive objections by international leading Iranologist Gernot Windfuhr ("there is no evidence that there was at any time […] a wide-spread Kurdish-speaking area near Fars") Garnik Asatrian maintained 2009: "Kurdish […] has been shaped in a South-Western environment […]; the most probable option for an ethnic territory of the speakers of Kurdish remains the northern areas of Fars in Iran" (source: Iran and the Caucasus 13 [Brill: Leiden, 2009] 1-58, 38).In addition to origin-theories dominated by linguistic considerations, there

Interdisciplinary Approaches
Obvious difficulties and limitations in trying to explain the ethnic origin of Kurds predominantly with methods of comparative linguistics led the late British Iranist David Neil MacKenzie , Prof. of Iranology at the University of Göttingen (1975Göttingen ( -1994) ) in Germany, already in early years of his research into Kurdish in the beginning of the 1960s to the conviction: "for a solution of this problem it is necessary to look outside the linguistic evidence" (The Origins of Kurdish.Transactions of the Philological Society, 1961: p. 86).Three decades later provided LL Cavalli-Sforza et al. an inter-disciplinary breakthrough, at least to a new insight into "the problem", in the already mentioned comprehensive study "The History and Geography of Human Genes" (Princeton, 1994).It includes a section on the genetic distance of 18 examined populations in West Asia (Eurasia).This early data indicated an overall genetic similarity of Kurds with other Middle Eastern populations, "in spite of the complex history [...] as well as the mosaic of cultures and languages", as the authors noted.A few years later, Gernot Windfuhr, leading Ira-nologist of our time, Prof. Emeritus at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, USA, discussed in an article of 2006 the exceptional DNA position of speakers of the "Kurdish Complex" as they were explained by LL Cavalli-Sforza et al.Windfuhr sees "the most striking result", "regarding the Iranian-speaking groups", in the separation of Iranian-speakers into three genetically distinct clusters: "1) Kurdish and Caspian in the west; 2) Iranian (all others in Iran) in the Center; 3) Hazāra Tajik (Persian-speakers) and Pashtun (Pashto-speakers) in the east" (source cited: Hennerbichler [2011] 324-326).Kurds were presented by LL Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1994) as integral Near East (Eurasia) substratum aborigines, speakers of a Northern Iranian language continuum, and genetically closer aligned to Caspian speakers in the West than to Iranian in the Center and in the East.Such a ground-breaking early inter-disciplinary origin-explanation attempt of Kurds was never published before 1994.It went far beyond traditional, conflicting origin-hypotheses, including geographic ones, based predominantly on linguistic considerations, and aimed at a new integral understanding of people like Kurds, deep rooted in a wider multi-ethno-cultural substratum (northwest) Eurasian (West Asia) genesis, and distinct away from the Center and East of Iran, notably including the Southwest.

Overview mtDNA and Y-DNA Studies in Kurds
Early findings by LL Cavalli-Sforza and collaborators initiated since 1994 a number of international follow up research studies into the genetic genesis and profile of Kurds.Three of them, published 2000-2004, concentrated on mtDNA Sequence Analyses: Comas et al. (2000), Richards et al. (2000) and Quintana-Murci et al. (2004).One early comprehensive study on patrilineal Y-DNA of Wells et al. (2001)  Five years later, the author of this brief survey, submitted the first inter-disciplinary paper aiming on new insights in the origin of the Kurds.This research is being continued, supported, and backed up by Gernot Windfuhr, Ann Arbor, and Anatole Klyosov, Boston, USA.Klyosov provided above all most significant newest data on assumed origin and migrations of R1a1 clans from Asia as well as a critical comprehensive evaluation of genetic findings regarding Kurds on the state of the art.

Main Aim of the Study
To try to prove with inter-disciplinary scientific methods explained, that indigenous aborigine forefathers of Kurds (speakers of the "Kurdish Complex") existed already B.C.E. and had a prehistory in their ancestral homeland (mainly outside and northwest of Iran of today).

Sources/Methods
Current state of research based on inter-disciplinary findings of Palaeo/Archaeo-genetic evidence (mainly DNA research on skeletons), Evolutionary Anthropology-DNA Genealogy (of people living today), Historical Terminology-(mainly cuneiform) Onomasticon, Linguistics (in particular reconstruction of Old-Iranian using the example of ergative), and Science of History.As for the relevance and significance of human DNA data within the framework of Science of History: All DNA data quoted in this inter-disciplinary study have been used in a twofold counterchecked way, where as a matter of principle DNA findings (palaeo-genetic evidence) from archaeological sources including skeletons of dead people formed the basis and were only later linked to specific typical modal DNA genealogy profiles of people (and speakers of the "Kurdish Complex") living today.In no way were interpretations and conclusions of the DNA research data presented in this study based exclusively on people living today without correlation to available DNA findings from ancient archaeological sources.Therefore, no attempt was made in this inter-disciplinary study to try to speakers and members of the "Kurdish Complex" (shown in Figure 1) according to the following definition by Prof. Gernot Windfuhr (Hennerbichler, 2011: p. 12): "1) Kurdish: a) North Kurdish, b) Central Kurdish, c) Southeast Kurdish, including the "Perside" Lori, Bakhtiari, Boir-Ahmadi, Kuhgiluye etc. in southern Zagros; 2) Zaza; 3) Gorani: a) Hawram(an)i and b) additional Gorani dialects in areas north of Kermanshah, c) Bajelani east of Mosul."This concept is methodically integrating and comprises a whole range of distinct related Iranian languages under one compound umbrella label as "Kurdish" ("Kurdish Complex").
prove history of the past (exclusively) with data of the present.Rather, DNA genealogy profiles of people living today were only used and interpreted as indications for historical processes within the framework of available basic ancient data including archaeological ones.In this regard, Human Haplo-Groups/Types were used indicating not only (ethno-) genetic, but at the same time also historic mutations of social groups and societies.Attempts to search for a "Kurdish race" were not taken up in detail, following various scientific explanations by the American Anthropological Association (AAA), that "race" as classification of humans would scientifically not be possible, because pure human race never existed (see References).Therefore, the inter-disciplinary methods the author follows are based without exceptions on traditional values and methods of Science of History, can be repeated and re-checked for their findings at any time, again and again, and never intend to leave acknowledged frameworks of historic science.By that indicating, that Science of History comprises a broad spectrum of disciplines spanning from archaeology and human anthropology to contemporary history.

Definitions
The term "Kurd" is used in this inter-disciplinary study for Habitat of speakers of the "Kurdish Complex" today (Hennerbichler, 2011: p. 56).

DNA-Data Evaluation by Anatole Klyosov
* I-M170: Klyosov questions published data for "I" by Na-sidze [et al.] and points out, that earlier data by Nasidze [et al.] on "I" in the Caucasus and in Iran have not been confirmed.There are very few "I" outside of Europe, and some "I" in the Middle East, but their haplotypes are identical to, e.g., the Scandinavians, and they are "young".This means that they are "tourists" there, and of course, there always can be some isolated "I" (or anything else) as "tourists" again.Y-DNA profile of speakers of the "Kurdish Complex" (Hennerbichler,  2011: p. 33).

Table 1.
Results: Nasidze et al. 2005;Wells et al. 2001;Nebel et al. 2001Nebel et al. (2007))  The Kurds withdrawn.The focal p nt for the mo rigin of R1a1 is the Uygur-Xinjiang province of China "behind" India, to the East, between Mongolia, Russia, Kyrgyzstan and China, 21,000 ybp, and not in the Ukraine or South Russia 15 or 10 thousand years ago (Figure 3).

Sim from Eastern Anatolia to Zagros East
available DNA-data suggest that forefathers of  (Hennerbichler, 2011: p. 117).
Copyright © 2012 SciRes.wish "Cohen have obviously existed from very beginnings simultaneously at tain dweller population the same time in the far North (E-Anatolia, N-Mesopotamia) and the far North-East (Zagros and eastern plains of NW Iran of today).There are (ethno-) genetically no indications published that Kurds would have originated either in Anatolia or in Zagros regions (stretching east into NW of Iran of today), and would only later have moved in opposite directions.This particular finding of a simultaneous presence of Kurdish ancestors from eastern Anatolia to Zagros east seems above all convincingly best documented and backed up by substratum Eurasian J-clans in Kurdish ancestors.Further more, Kurds can't have descended from one particular single man, pair or tribe, even if special single linguistic terms would insinuate that.Nor can Kurds have originated geographically from one particular single place, area or region only.These findings are in contrast to assumptions of linguists like e.g.Rüdiger Schmitt (see Kárdakes) or Muhammad Dandamayev (see Carduchi), both in EIr online.Last but not least, the ancient habitat of Kurdish ancestors show especially in documented distributions of J-clan-forefathers distinct geographic characters of hilly and mountain areas, which apparently motivated ancient Mesopotamian (cuneiform) scribes to a common term label denominator: they characterized them predominantly and in a long standing terminological tradition as (Anatolia/N-Mesopotamia/Zagros) moun-North-East.

Jewish Modal Haplotypes
The Kurdish modal haplotype KMH: 14-15-23-10-11-12 dif micro-satellite loci only in one b position), compared with the Je The CMH is associated with the Jewish priestly caste of the Bible known as C(K)ohanim (singular "Kohen", "Cohen", or Kohane).A common ancestor of J1e * CMH lived 1,075 ± 130 YBP.There is also a newly detected Jewish Modal Haplotype on J2-M172 (J2a4 * ) with exactly the same 6 marker haplotype as that in haplogroup J1, but this according to Anatole Klyosov "has nothing to do with the Cohens" and "is just a blind coincidence"; see for details Hennerbichler (2011) 92.

Sumerian Origins from the North?
And 2 nd , he sees in Umān-ma the North, and outlines: "However, it also , which migrated to Europe through Asia Minor from Caucasus and may be (but less likely) from Iran to arrive to Europe about 4500 years before present.They were in the Caucasus 6000 ybp. in Middle East (possibly Sumers, and in Lebanon) 5500 ybp, and in Asia Minor about the same time, 6000-5500-5000-4500 ybp.Their major forces were supposed to move through Asia Minor by 4000 -3600 ybp, but some might have left" (Hennerbichler (2011) 188, 348).In a newest study (in print: "Ancient History of the Arbins…", AA 2012, Vol. 2, No. * , ** -** ) Klyosov enlarges upon these previous indications, and characterizes Sumerians more specifically as "Arbins", bearers of R1b haplogroup, who arose ~16,000 ybp from regions in South Siberia/Central Asia, and who along their migration route to the Middle East and South Mesopotamia apparently established the Sumer culture (and state).Sumers are the likely bearers of R1b1a2 haplogroup, Klyosov suggests, and Assyrians one of their oldest surviving descendants (note: Anatole Klyosov bases his hypothesis of a possible R1b(1a2) origin of (died out) Sumerians mainly on assumed (ethno-) genetic relations with Basques (living in West Europe now), who "are almost totally R1b1b2", as he defines, and on established linguistic similarities, including special forms of ergativconcedes, "however, basis of my hypothesi tally R1b1b2, that their language is 'unclassified', some linguists place it into 'Sino-Caucasian'.The Sumerian language is apparently also 'unclassified', and placed also by some linguists into 'Sino-Caucasian'.Therefore, Sumerians themselves could have been R1b1a2, and migrated from Anatolia where they had arrived from Central Asia westward and then South via the Caucasus", Klyosov sums up.In essence, he suggests, that Sumerians and Basques were descendants of R1b populations, who originated ~16,000 ybp in South Siberia/ Central Asia, and later diverged into different separate subgroups, Basques in R1b1b2 moving westwards to Europe, and Sumerians possibly in R1b1a2, heading first to the Caucasus und then to Anatolia and Mesopotamia.In order to countercheck this new explanation attempt on an inter-disciplinary basis, it could be helpful, if experts in Sumerian would in a next step identify at least one archaeological skeleton find as presumably belonging to a deceased Sumerian, so that than in the process, a palaeo/archaeo-genetic examination of such a skeleton would give further indications to the genetic profile of its bearer and the possible origin.

Ummān-Manda and Sumer
Since inter-disciplinary research in Sumerian origins is still in earlier stages, further investigation will be needed to get a deeper insight.As far as cited cuneiform sources are concerned, there are none documented indicating Sumerian Ummān-manda.Still, at least in one mythical story with a moral, "The Cutha Legend", a fictional autobiography of Akkadian Naram-Sin (ca. ading Sumerian, king Enmeropotamia, is mentioned as bad an indeed Mesopoor oldest traceable linguistic roots guage features like ergativity.T 2273-2219 B.C., mi.chron.), a le kar, builder of Uruk in south Mes d punished example for not to combat Ummān-manda.They were created by the gods as the enemy of civilization for some work of destruction, came from eastern Anatolia, entered the far North of Mesopotamia via the eastern Upper Khabur, later destroyed Gutium and Elam, and at the end were defeated by the gods themselves (Figure 9).Human beings are said to be powerless, should not interfere and obey the will of the gods.The Sumerian Enmerkar did not and was punished.The Akkadian Naram-Sin first ignored an omen, lost many troops, got a second chance, did not interfere, virtually doing nothing, and finally, the will of gods prevented the kingdom to collapse.It is not clear, whether this (kind of exceptional pacifistic) mythological creation/origin text with a strong theological basis implies glimpses of real history at all like the (mainly) peaceful takeover of power in Mesopotamia from Sumer to Akkad or immigration from the north.It seems to indicate, however, in the explained limited sense, correlations of Ummān-manda both to Sumer and Akkad.Further more, if it should hold, that Assyrians prove to be descendants of Sumerians, as suggested by A. A. Klyosov, evidence for Ummān-manda particularly in the North-West of Mesopotamia would have to be rechecked again for possible Assyrian activities (migration) in the area.Data published so far indicate no clear picture.

In Search for Ergativity
Nevertheless, there are long-standing efforts notably by linguists to try to find answers to Sumerian and tamian origins by searching f and special common ancient lan his keyword not only indicates a linguistic coherence between ergativity in both Basque and Sumerian, apparently based on common ancient roots, but shows also implications to ancestors of speakers of the "Kurdish Complex".A brief summary note: Piotr Michalowski, leading linguistic Sumerian expert, Professor of Ancient Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at the Copyright © 2012 SciRes.
F. HENNERBICHLER University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA, is suggesting a broad Sumerian language origin hypothesis, based on sweeping findings of Johanna Nichols, Prof. Emeritus at the Linguistic Department of the University of California, Berkeley, USA.According to Michalowski, Sumerian played a key role of an areal, genetic and linguistic (ergative influenced) continuum of "unclassified", "isolated" languages (including Basque) in ancient West-Asia (Mesopotamia) before the Semitic spreads.Though, he offers no specific own explanation attempt, who the Sumerians ethnically were and where they might have originated from, his hypothesis shows apparent similarities to considerations, e.g.DNA experts like Anatole Klyosov are following.Even so, Michalowski's position to (ethno-) genetic DNA research remains ambivalent.On the one hand, he mentions attempts (e.g.ground-breaking ones by LL Cavalli-Sforza, l.c.ed.1997) to link the evolution, distribution and diversification of language(s) with human genetic traits, but distinctly puts a question mark over it, phrasing: "whatever one might think of these works".On the other hand, he praises studies of linguist Johanna Nichols like "her highly influential book on Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time" (Chicago University Press 1992) as "a new way of juggling genetic and areal linguistic history", and subsequently uses the term "genetic" himself (next to "areal") to characterize Sumerian as part of a linguistic continuum in Western Asia before the Semitic spreads.Basically, Michalowski supports the view, that Sumerian "was one, if not the major spoken language in Mesopotamia from very early on", that "short of a miracle we shall never go back much farther than" Sumerian, and that "we must also accept that there is at present no evidence at all for any other early language in the area".That is why he is (also) dismissing "archaeological sets of data" as "unrelated", which are interpreted as indications for proces ign (im)migrating elites in(to) ancient Mesopotam ork: next to "three families of the Caucasus", Elamite, Sumerian, and Hurro-Urartean in "ancient Near East", and points out, ergativity is relatively stable in areal terms, and ergative languages tend to cluster together.Michalowski seems to agree to the latter, confirms, that Sumerian had ergativity as special linguistic feature ("ergative argument marking"), but dismisses the assumption of Nichols, describing Elamite, the dominating language at the time before the Semitic spreads in the Southwest, also as ergative.Michalowski corrects, Elamite was "not stativ-activ on an ergative base", and showed no ergativity.Indicating at the same time, that Elamite, therefore, belongs to a (linguistic, areal, and genetic) different language continuum, not influenced by ergativity, and that a lack of this linguistic characteristic in Elamite could not back up a Sumerian origin from the South theory.This latter consecutive assumption Michalowski does not express verbatim, but characterizes Sumerian in more general terms as "remnant of a much broader linguistic continuum, areal if not genetic, that had occupied much of Western Asia before the Semitic spreads".Within such a broader ergative influenced language continuum of "Isolates" in Western Asia before the Semitic spreads, he positions two, Sumerian and Hatti, occupying "a historical niche" in Eurasia, "analogous to Basque and Etruscan in Europe", as he concludes.Thereby, he leaves key questions unanswered and open like possible direct historic connections between Basque and Sumerian, not only on common linguistic grounds such as ergativity, which he agrees to, but also on other crucial ones as well, which he explicitly also mentions in his analyses, like areal, ethnic, and (indeed) genetic (without elaborating).

Ergative in Sumerian and Gorani
Sumerian origin theories along ancient roots of ergativity are correrefore, ses of fore ia (citing Tom Jones, ed., The Sumerian Problem.New Wiley 1969).Michalowski pillows his dismissal of ar-illustrated here in some detail, because they are directly lated to developments of ergativity in Old Iranian, and the Y chaeological data possibly indicating a Sumerian immigration into Mesopotamia arguing, such (im)migration would have produced at least one other dominating early ancient language next to Sumerian in Mesopotamia, and (most likely) documented in writing, which according to him is not the case.Michalowski dismisses older findings as unfounded, notably by (Old-) Austro-Silesian born Benno Landsberger (1890Landsberger ( -1968)), a leading Assyrologist of his time, who advanced as early as 1943 the theory of a substratum language of people that cultivated farming in south Mesopotamia during the early Ubaid period (ca.5500-4500 B.C.), possibly deriving out of the Samarra Culture (ca.5500-4800 B.C.) on the Tigris in northern Mesopotamia.Landsberger called this assumed substratum language of Ubaidians "Proto-Euphratian".Later, end of the 1990s, Gonzalo Rubio showed in an analysis (1999) that special names for rivers, cities and specific trades (potter anti coppersmith) before Sumerians appeared in south Mesopotamia would constitute merely linguistic borrowings but not represent a full fledged pre-Sumerian substratum language called "Proto-Eurphratian".This finding is interpreted by Piotr Michalowski as further indication for arguing against immigration of pre-Sumerian dominating speakers in Mesopotamia.Michalowski is following, however, "genetic and areal linguistic traits" laid out by Johanna Nichols, and is entertaining himself a common origin explanation attempt for "Isolates" like Sumerian.He cites "a broad-sweeping statement" of Nichols (1994: p. 74), where she positions in a chain of ergative languages Basque provide also valuable insights into ancient roots of Kurdish.The evolution of ergativity in (Old) Iranian is illustrated authoritatively by leading Iranologist Gernot Windfuhr in the first German version "Die Herkunft der Kurden" of the author (Hennerbichler, 2010: pp. 199-208), and recently in the revised new English edition (Hennerbichler, 2011: p. 375).Therein, Windfuhr describes the ergative as "trans-indoiranian".All Iranian languages went through an ergative phase, and had at one time phases of "full" ergativity, he notes.The origin of ergativity he assumes in areas of the Bactrian-Margian Archaeological Complex (BMAC) in south Central Asia.From there, ergativity diverged in different regional forms (of Iranian)."Tense-split ergative constructions in (some) past tense forms" were developed only in later times, Windfuhr explains.Much earlier, the imperfect was formed from the present tense stem (and remained in the nominative-accusative).There are only two Iranian languages, which until today did not carry out the step to tense-split ergative constructions: Gorani ("Kurdish Complex") in Eurasia and ("Neo-Scythian") Yaghnobi in Central Asia, Windfuhr explains.Both (Gorani and Yaghnobi), "independent developments", though, would show common ancient linguistic roots within a northern (Old) Iranian language continuum.DNA Genealogist Anatole Klyosov agrees: available genetic data confirm common R1a1 ancestors for both, speakers of the "Kurdish Complex" and Yaghnobi (Hennerbichler, 2011: p. 371).
Discussion: If ergative constructions from the present tense stem are historically older than those from past tenses (tensesplit), there are several possibilities for an explanation: a) that the imperfect from the present tense stem in (Iranian) Gorani ("Kurdish Complex") is historically older than the split-ergative in Sumerian; but then, there is no evidence for an (Old) Iranian Gorani at the same time of an early ancient Sumerian; b) therefore, it seems more likely that this is so in (Old) Iranian, and that the linguistic tradition in Iranian, forming the imperfect from the present tense stem like in Gorani ("Kurdish Complex"), could have originated somewhere else (near the BMAC complex in south Asia?).Meaning, in this case, it couldn't say anything directly about the development of split-ergativity in Sumerian, but it would not exclude the possibility, that the ergative in Sumerian and Basque could also go back to assumed common linguistic, and areal, and genetic roots in (south) Central Asia.And, last but not least, such ancient forms of ergativity in Gorani and Yaghnobi, seem to confirm (again) indications for a Northern origin of Old Iranian speaker immigrants into Kurdistan, and not from the South or South-West, which would be crucial for a proper understanding of the evolvement of Kurdish.

Multi-Linguistic Kurdish Ancestors
In linguistic terms, timespan calculations for two major immigration waves of R1a1 elites from Asia via areas of South Russia southwards via Armenia, to Anatolia, 2240-1140 B.C., and in minor parts into NW Iran of today, 2200/2000-1600 B.C., as calculated by Anatole Klyosov, as well as the second, principal move of R1a1 to North-Western Iran from the Iranian Plateau around 800-700-600 B.C., seem to support findings of linguists, who are describing different processes of "Indo-Europeanizations", and independently from each other.A full picture is, however, far from clear.This applies in particular for traces of linguistic Indo-European elements in West-Asia, ca.2240-1140 B.C.One of the leading experts in this field, the late renowned Austrian Indo-Europeanist Manfred Mayrhofer , documented numerous pieces of evidence of an "Indo-Aryan in Old West-Asia" ("Indo-Arisch im Alten Vorderasien") ["Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen", Heidell today controversial", ces of skepticism and re 834 B.C., Scythians 8/7 ce.B.C., and th fuhr detected contact features both with a Northern Old-Iranian language continuum and preserved rare ancient forms of nally, an apparently stan, to name but berg, 1992-1996]."The anthology is unti Mayrhofer conceded, "considerable voi jection are still faced by representatives of the possibility" (translated from German, l.c.vol II, 330; see also Hennerbichler, 2010: pp. 131-133).Interestingly, earlier in 1965, Mayrhofer dismissed in one cited crucial term, the anthroponym m Za-a-lu-d/ ti-iš (Zāludi or Zayaludi), assumed Indo-European elements as "implausible" (without further elaboration).Zalud/tiš is mentioned in the so called "Zukraši Text", a 17 th century B.C. Hittite text, attributed to Hattusilis I (1650-1620 B.C.), as leader of the Ummān-manda and Hurrian troops.While there is still no consensus on the term m Za-a-lu-d/ti-iš, the obvious correlation to migrating militarily organized Ummān-manda elites from far away, and a nearly identical timeframe for the presence of R1a1 in the area, encouraged Anatole Klyosov to offer a new IE based explanation identifying Zalud/tiš as commander of "from far away people": Klyosov suggests: "Zaludi: meaning in Russian: 'Beyond people', = geographically: It is "far away, beyond where people live"."Za" means beyond, "ludi" people.It must have an IE origin" (source: Hennerbichler, 2011: p. 348).Klyosov noticed that this is, of course, can be a plain coincidence.That is to say, and taken at this point as an interim result, linguistic research continues to leave the possibility of "Indo-Europeanization" processes on (Hurrian-) Mitanni soil during the 2 nd millennium B.C. open, and unanswered, but there is (still) no (undisputed) evidence to prove it one way or the other.Whereas, there seems to exist largely consensus on oldest cuneiform documented sources for earliest verifiable influences of immigrating (R1a1) Old Iranian speakers on an indigenous, local population in areas of NW Iran of today, including Kurds (Parsua 843 B.C., Media th e later Par-su-aš 691 B.C., but representing obviously a distinct independent development in the South-West, and unrelated to origins of Kurds).Out of available data Gernot Windfuhr draws the following conclusion for earliest traces of an (Old) Iranian Kurdish: "The first stages of the language of Iranianized Kurds could go back to the pre-Median or pre-Achaemenid periods" (Hennerbichler, 2011: p. 383).To go further back in history, Windfuhr assumes a Proto-IE also for Kurds (speakers of the "Kurdish Complex"): "All Iranian-speakers of today including the Kurds south of the BMAC (Bactrian-Margian Archaeological Complex) must have spoken non-Iranian languages at one time" (Hennerbichler, 2011: p. 313).To round up available historic evidence: In the 21 st century B.C. central Zagros areas of Kurdistan were attested in cuneiform sources as multilingual ("many-tongued", see ETCSL c.1.8.2.3).Consecutive, from ca. 1000 until ca.600 B.C. "Kurdistan" was dominated by Hurro-Urartian (terms), as Ran Zadok, leading Mesopotamian cuneiform expert of the University of Tel Aviv, Israel, documented in an authoritative study ("The ethno-linguistic character of northwestern Iran and Kurdistan in the neo-Assyrian period", Old City of Jaffa 2002).Further more, Gernot Wind ergative making (Hurrian-Urartian), and, fi frequent "language shift" over time in Kurdi the most striking linguistic features.Therefore, in course of history, forefathers of ethnic Kurds spoke apparently several languages, starting with an assumed Proto-IE, followed by a longstanding multi-lingual tradition, attested since the 21 st century B.C., then by a dominating Hurro-Urartian (terminology), since the 9 th century B.C. showing oldest influences of immigrating Old Iranian speakers on indigenous forefathers of Kurds from NW Iran (of today), and finally, frequently shiftet language(s), that is to say, they managed to switch from one (ancient) language to another.All in all, confirming that speakers of the "Kurdish Complex" spoke indeed forms of an ancient languages B.C. like Old Iranian, and as a result, could have existed already B.C.

KRD: Mesopotamian Terminology
Even more complicated than traces for ancient Kurdish (languages), are various (waxing and waning) term labels to describe and understand, with whom Mesopotamians denoted mountain people of multi-ethno-cultural background in the far North and North-East.While, on the one hand, this inter-disciplinary study backs up observations elsewhere, that it seems not convincing to try to prove the existence of whole ancient people(s) using exclusively cuneiform Mesopotamian terminology, because for the most part Mesopotamians did not have such a consistent understanding of foreign neighbours at all.A few examples, to underpin that Mesopotamian labels like Guti, Cimmerians or Medes did not denote single people: Guti: Marc Van De Mieroop: "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.[…] In the first millennium Gutium could be used as a geographical designator to refer to all or part of the Zagros region north of Elam, interchangeably with other terms" (Gutians, in EIr-online).Cimmerians: Carola Metzner-Nebelsick: She sees no available terminological prove for Cimmerians as a distinct single people, and defines Cimmerians ("Kimmerier") as merely "in Kriegsverbänden organisierte mobile Gesellschaft(en)": mobile societies organized in warrior units (RGA 16 (2000), 504-523, cf. 509-10).Medes have in quoted ancient Ummān-manda sources simply a meaning of ethnically and linguistically unspecified inhabitants of Hinterland/provincial areas in the far Northeast (of NW Iran of today).See Hennerbichler (2010) 88-92, Hennerbichler (2011) 184.However, on the other hand, it is indeed possible to document a longstanding tradition and sustainable continuity over at least ca.1700 years (2200-600 B.C.), in which Mesopotamian scribes showed a fairly common (although heavy politically influenced waxing and waning) understanding of neighbours from different ethnic, linguistic and cultural background in the far North and North-East as inhabitants of the mountains (mountain populations/people, mountaineers), and that Mesopotamians used a good number of different terms (umbrella labels) to characterize them.Best known are half a dozen.Out of them, only one terminological compound umbrella label did stand the test of time and survived over millennia until today: assumed Sumerian based kur-stem terms (cuneiform KRD) for inhabitants of mountain (land).They show a direct correlation to forefathers of Kurds in the sense that they are geographically cumulative firm attested in ancient ancestral heartlands of substratum J and immigrant R1A1 ancestors of Kurds in (Northern Fertile Crescent areas of) Eurasia.In most cases they characterise vaguely several mountain populations of undefined ethnical background, respectively coalitions of them, and point only in a few like the "kur-ti" in the far North (rather vaguely) to a kind of related (mountain nomad) tribal structures.Main reasons for the survival of kur-stem terms are: they were based and embedded in a fairly long tradition and continuity of an otherwise inconsistent cuneiform Mesopotamian terminology, long before Greek and Roman authors messed them up further, made it in documented cuneiform sources to sort of a mass popularity, were easy to understand and pick up, even by the majority of people, who could not read and write, were neutral in their massage, and distinct in identifying foreign neighbours in mountains (hilly areas) of the far North and North-East.Where as similar terms, possibly based on Akkadian "quardu" for warlike (mountain) people like "kar-da", did not prevail, because they were pejorative burdened and used to degrade mountain populations in the far North and North-East as uncivilized, since they were not urban organized like lowland Mesopotamians.Interestingly, this xenophobian terminological practice, to label mountain nomads in contrast to urbanite law/ hilly-land Mesopotamians as uncivilised, changed during the 1 st half of the last millennium B.C.E.significantly, when militarily organized Old Iranian immigrants in "Media" in NW Iran of today were called "from far away people" and their leaders lords".In sharp connd accepted on a more equal footing as "city trast, were mountain coalitions in the same region since the 22 century B.C. marked down under the compound label "Guti" as "apelike creatures with canine instinct (feelings)" (c.f.e. m] as well as "Šadû" (Akkadian equivalent for Sumerian "kur").Indications: KI for land depended as affix attachment on terms, and therefore, was not suitable as sustaining term itself; mada: was most popular used during Ur III period.As label for mountain land/people was mada over time increasingly marginalised by "kur"-stem terms and mainly applied for Umland/Hinterland/Province (people).Since the 1 st half of the 1 st millennium B.C. Mesopotamians characterised inhabitants of "Media" vaguely as (multi-ethnocultural) Hinterland-people in far away terrain in the North-East (Northwest Iran of today).

S[Š]ubir/S[Š]ubar[t]u[m]
and "Šadû" never achieved mass popularity among Mesopotamian scribes and were not established as dominating terms for mountain people/land.Ummān-manda did denote militarily organized elites from far away people but not in particular of special mountain areas.

Conclusion
Newest available inter-disciplinary data of Palaeo/Archaeo-Genetics, DNA-Genealogy, Archaeology, Historical Terminology, Linguistics and Science of History, presented in this inter-disciplinary analysis provide strong indications that both ethnic forefathers of Kurds as well as ancestors of linguistic speakers of the "Kurdish Complex" have existed in their ancestral Eurasian homeland already B.C.E.Valuable historic pieces of information were contributed by findings both of Palaeo/ Archaeo-Genetics and DNA-Genealogy.By that, it was above all possible to outline a traditional aborigine ancestral habitat of Kurds (speakers of the "Kurdish Complex") geographically for the main parts located in a wider Eurasian Northwest, largely outside and northwest of Iran of today.Ethno-genetically, it could be shown, that Kurds derived obviously out of a broader, pre-IE multi-cultural substratum of the Near East and Eurasia, and were in early ancient layers predominantly shaped by first Neolithic Northern Fertile Crescent farmer and shepherd aborigines.Genetically, they seem to be close related to other Near East and Eurasia substratum aborigines like Jews and Armenians (Nebel et al. & L. Yepiskoposyan).References for the very historic existence of Kurds and speakers of the "Kurdish Complex" B.C.E, could also been evidenced linguistically, most notably by leading Iranologist Gernot Windfuhr, who presented various conclusive examples of a reconstruction of earliest stages of the "Kurdish Complex", including ergativity, despite the fact, that "from Old and Middle Iranian times, no predecessors of the Kurdish" language(s) "are yet known" (Ludwig Paul: Kurdish Language(s), in: EIr-online).Virtually all presented, available data are pointing to immigration origins of ancestors, who brought forms of Old Iranian to earliest aborigine Kurds in Eurasia, from the North, practically none from the South or Southwest, as hypothesized by some linguists.In all examined crucial terms, -ethno-genetically, linguistically, and geographically, -Kurds (speakers of the "Kurdish Complex") seem to be distinctly multi-composed, and not single-constructed.This insight, however, lead on the one hand to the conclusion, that specific (popular) term-labels like Kurti, Cyrtians or Carduchi could neither prove a single-tribe origin of Complex") nor an assumed exclusiv ent Österreicher" but call (identify) themselves (as) Austria urd" seems to derive from the assumed Sum word stem "kur", first re Kurds (speakers of the "Kurdish e geographic one, and on the other hand, do not allow for explanation attempts, to pinpoint their origins down to a specific single area, or settlement, nor to a one and only family, tribe, respectively lineage.Still, it was possible, to docum evidence for origins of Kurds (speakers of the "Kurdish Complex") in a much broader (but as a result vaguer) sense, of multi-ethno-genetic-cultural mountain dweller civilizations, who contributed essentially to the cultivation of areas from eastern Anatolia to Zagros east.Not more and not less.Meaning, that these geographically broad pillowed findings of an ancestral Kurdish habitat leaves room open for interpretation, where its influence areas might have ended, and who precisely might have belonged to such Kurdish mountain civilisations from early origins on.The on-going, contrasting debate will most likely continue to be influenced by different views on these questions.A final, conclusive and undisputed Kurdish origin consensus, all involved disciplines could agree to, seems not in sight.Nonetheless, the new inter-disciplinary findings presented here suggest also a new understanding of Kurds (speakers of the "Kurdish Complex") similar to that one of "Austrians": "Österreich(er)" [Austria(ns)] derives from Ostarrîchi, first recorded in 996 AD, meaning (ost = east) > "eastern borderlands" or casually "Ostler" ("easterner").This umbrella compound expression comprises a variety of terms.Some sound similar like "Österreicher", "Ober-Österreich(er)" (Upper Austrians) or "Nieder-Österreich(er)" (Lower Austrians), others completely different like "Wien(er)" (Vienna(ese), "Steiermark/ Steirer" (Styria/n), "Kärnten(ner)" (Carynthia/n), "Salzburg(er)" (Salzburg/ian), "Tiroler" (Tyrolian) or "Vorarlberger" (Vorarlbergian).Which explains, that not all Austrians share the family name (compound term label) " ns.Similar, "K erian originated corded millennia back B.C.E., meaning [kur = mountain/land] > "inhabitants of the mountains" or casually mountaineers ("Bergler").The umbrella compound expression "kur"-comprises also a variety of terms, some sound similar like "kur-ti", in a wider sense "kar-da" too, others completely different like G/K/Quti, Lullubi, Arrapha, Urbilum, Zamua, Mehri or Babanhi, and in addition et aliae translated into Greek and Roman like Kárdakes, Carduchi, or Cyrtii (Cyrtioi).Which illustrates as well, that not all Kurds (speakers of the "Kurdish Complex") share this family name (compound term label), but obviously most of them call themselves "Kurd" and identify with a common homeland "Kurdistan" (land of Kurds).Indicating, that Kurds seem to be descendants of many ancient (substratum) ancestors in Near-East and Eurasia, who spoke over time various languages, the present Iranian being only the last one.
** J1-M267: The published data are incorrect.J[1] is much older.I have lineages of J1 of 19,000 years old.*** R1a1-M17: There are newest data on R1a1 available.Some of earlier works published 2000-2003 particularly on R1a1 are in the meantime quite obsolete and should have been Figure 2.Y-DNA profile of speakers of the "Kurdish Complex"(Hennerbichler,  2011: p. 33).
incorporated samples from "Kurds Turkmenistan" into the survey "The Eurasian Heartland: A continental perspective on Y-chromosome diversity".Nebel et al. came out 2001 and 2007 with two groundbreaking examinations describing close genetic affiliations between Jews and Kurds.Nasidze et al. from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, introduced 2005 the first main genetic study in Kurds only: "MtDNA and Y-chromosome Variation in Kurdish Groups".