Talk:Lullubi

message: any connection with the luri and/or lorestan ? 213.106.124.3 (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [Untitled]

message: This seems a clear nonsense. Firstly the Lullubi appeared in history during the 23rd century BC. This was approximately 1300 YEARS before ANY of the Indo-Iranian peoples even entered the region. The Kurds were one of the very last of these Indo-Iranians to enter history. There is no chronological connection whatsoever. Nor in language, there is not a single trace of Iranic language in the scant information we have of Lullubean and Gutian, not to mention that the Iranic Languages did not even arrive in the region until circa 1000 BC, and Kurdish even later! The references quoted are spurious to say the least, and do not actually state the Lullubi and Gutians are the same people as the Kurds in any case.
Perhaps those claiming they are Kurds can explain how the Kurds appeared 1300 years before any other Iranic speaking people? And why no Iranologist supports the fantasy that they did so. The concensus is that the Iranic peoples arrived in what is now in Iran circa 1000 BC, give or take a century. Certainly NOT in 2300 BC, sorry but this is clear rubbish.
: Calm down, troll. Being "ancestors" of Kurds is something different from being "Kurd". If you cannot differantiate these two things, it is about your capacity. 176.219.129.115 (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP wasn't "trolling" he was pointing out a fact. 50.111.22.12 (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

text: Lullubi Kingdom disestablished in 675 BC. Median empire established in 678 BC. Your statement: "Pretty simply because the Lullubi completely disappeared long before any of the Iranian-speaking periods even arrived, and the Kurds were the very last of those Iranian speaking people as well". As far as I know, is the language of the Gorani, Feyli and Laki Kurds a very old one and quite close to the old-iranian language. Clearly, you are talking a bunch of non-sense. The Medians were an Iranic-speapking people (regardless of their connection to the Kurds). Nothing more to say. --77.183.218.154 (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn’t matter. They were not Kurds. Just because there might be some genetic connection due to geography does not mean that the Lullubi (or Sumerians, or Gutians, or Hittites, or Urartians, or anybody else--all of whom Kurds frequently claim were the ancestors of Kurds, or claim were Kurds in actuality) had any cultural or linguistic continuity with today’s Kurds. According to this logic, the Lullubi are very likely the ancestors of modern Assyrians, non-Kurdish Iranians, Arabs, and probably Jews, and any other groups that passed through the Middle East over the least 4000 years as well. Perhaps these possible connections should be added to this article as well? Even if the Kurdish languages are old, Kurds are Iranians. There is no evidence to suggest that the Lullubi were Iranians (this article even specifies in the first sentence that the Lullubi were pre-Iranian). Lullubi was established hundreds of years prior to the split of Indic and Iranian peoples! Preservedmoose (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Lullubi and Gutians are NOT Kurds

message: I recently was thinking about the Lullubi, and researching them. It seems they are near the region where the Colchi culture was, at the same time. Thus, it is possible that the language of the Lullubi Kingdom could be related to Colchian and/or other related languages. It may also be possible that Colchian, Hattic, and Lullubian could be in a family together.
The Anubanini rock relief also features an axe, which appears similar to a Colchian axe. This means that the Lullubi could be a branch of the Colchian Culture, or maybe Para-Colchian, and thus their languages would be similar.
The Lullubi also lived in a relatively forested area, bordered by the Zagros mountains. This position would be quite defendable, as can be seen from the Basques, Georgians, and Romanians. Thus, it is possible that the Lullubi were a remnant population, which is the case. Additionally, they were attested as Pre-Iranian, and thus likely Pre-Indo-European. Thus, the language was likely not Indo-European, just like Hattic and Colchian.
All in all, due to these, I am somewhat convinced that the Lullubi were aligned with the Colchians and Hattics, and thus the language was too. However, I will concede that due to the lack of attestations, this is impossible to prove with certainty.
--SkinOfHooman (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia doesn't use original research.  Perhaps you should look for a professionally-published mainstream academic journal, either to support your claims or to write about your claims for. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  I was thinking about the Lullubi language, and came up with a theory.