Talk:Hurrians

message: Jorge Stolfi 14:49, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 'The Hurrians had lived in Mesopotamia in small numbers from the late 3rd millennium, but the major Hurrian invasion of the region began around 1700. By 1500, they had penetrated into all of Mesopotamia, as well as Syria-Palestine and eastern Anatolia. There are indications that they had been influenced by Aryans somewhere outside the Near East. The Hurrians worshipped gods later associated with the Iranians and Indians (such as Mithra and Varuna) (See Economy, Technology, Society, and Culture)—the names of some Hurrian rulers and certain technical expressions in Hurrian texts (particularly in connection with the chariot) are Indo-European. The Hurrians adopted Mesopotamian religion and culture, utilizing Babylonian as an administrative language and cuneiform script to write the Hurrian language. Despite the large number of surviving texts, the Hurrian language remains undeciphered.' Wetman 01:29, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't know where your source got that from, but there are many thousands of texts, most of them very brief written in Hurrian cuneiform inscriptions both at Hurrian sites and, famously, in the Amarna archive.  The longest Hurrian document in fact comes precisely from Amarna and is the basis for most of the generalizations that people make about the structure of the language.  There are at least two large grammars of the language, the best by Wegner.  There are many individual words and constructions that remain opaque, to be sure, but to say that it remains undeciphered is simply false. (See my comments below about Starostin and Diakonoff's work, which is not widely respected despite being the only extensive work on the question.) Trwier 16:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Zestauferov! all I know is what I read. It's always risky to build over-arching linguistic connections about languages that haven't been deciphered. Hurrian and Mitanni, Hittite, Urartu etc. all do need good clear reports on the current status of mainstream professional opinion, with some links pointing to further information. The ancient Near East is a field in flux. Wikipedia needs to offer a core of dependable information, with an idea of how it has been arrived at. Then there could be a final section of broad-ranging hypotheses, also mentioning what they are based on. Wetman 02:41, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there is a large Hurrian-Hittite bilingual text K Bo XXXII which has been used to expand upon the ideas of Diakonoff and is the reason behind the Uralaltaic speculations by the likes of Neu. I am not very familiar with where this sort of up-to-date info might be available on the net but will do my best to find out.Zestauferov 02:50, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: copied from the [[Talk:Hurrian]] page.

message: did Hurrians actually use the Avestan script - most of the edits by the anonymous user who put this in have been vandalism but I don't know enough about this subject to revert. Trödel|talk 16:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avestan 

message: I just cut this sentence out of the article:
Ironically, there is much more evidence for the Hurrian origin of Biblical Hebrew culture (but not the Hebrew language) which is otherwise at odds with its linguistically related Canaanite surroundings.
"Much more evidence"?  Like what?  Let's see the quality of that evidence here on the discussion page, if there really is any, and then if it holds up, we can consider reintroducing that claim into the text. Codex Sinaiticus 05:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What evidence? 

message: * The article has now been restructured with clear headlines separating Language, History, Culture, and the Indo-Aryan connection.
** Since Mitanni is a separate Wiki-article, information specific for Mitanni should better be printed there.
*** All about the Indo-Aryans and their connection with the Hurrians is disputed and rather speculative. Since the article Hurrians is not about Indo-Aryan culture or languages this section should be kept short. It would be better to move or organize another entry for the Indo-Aryan issue.
**** I do miss some images in the article!
--JFK 18:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article restructured 

message: It says: "This convinced earlier scholars the elite in the Hurrian society was an Indo-Aryan ethnic group who invaded the region with their horses and chariots, like the Vedic Indians."
This implies that contemporary scholars disagree but then, what is the view of contemporary scholars? 193.149.191.1 20 April 2006 
The contemporary (post 1950) view is the early Hurrians received cultural influences from Indo-Iranian people. In the same manner the Hurrians influenced the Hittite culture some centuries later. In the early 20th century school of archaeology cultural changes always meant conquest by a superior people. Modern archaeology does not need conquest to explain cultural changes. --JFK 14:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can se why invasion need not be the only source of cultural changes but surely some form of Indo-Aryan immigration is needed since none of the neigbours seem to be Indo-Aryans? Or is long distance trade the prime suspect? Anyway it would be a good idea to mention the modern scholarly view along with the view of the earlier scholars already listed in the article. 193.149.191.1 06:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earlier scholars? 

message: It says: "This was around the same time that an aristocracy speaking Urartian, similar to old Hurrian, seems to have first imposed itself on the native Indo-European speaking population around Lake Van, and formed the Kingdom of Urartu." 
Was the "native" (i.e. pre-Hurrian) population really Indo-European speaking? What is the source for this – other than Armenian nationalistic sentiments? I believe that according to one theory it wasn't until the end of (or even after) Urartu that Indo-Europeans (Phrygians?) penetrated this area. 193.149.191.1 20 April 2006
I agree, this statement is unsourced. It was kept from the earlier article. I suggest a move to the last section "Connections and origin theories". --JFK 14:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not something that's unknowable or absurd -- personal and place names could provide the evidence -- but it really needs a citation. -Ben 14:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur with JFK, but don't move the whole sentence, just the word "Indo-European" needs to be moved... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native Indo-European speaking population? 

message: A map of the zone where these peoples lived would be really nice for us geography-ignorant =) --euyyn 23:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  map of the zone 

message: Hurrian language is language of Northeastcaucasian Folks (Waynach: Chechens, Ingushs, Batsbijs and Daghestanians: Avars, Darginians, Lezginians, Tabasarans, Aguls, Tsahurs). Hurrian language has NO COMMON with Georgian (Kartvelian) and Kurd Languages ( Diakonov I.M., Starostin S.A.)--81.24.84.11 17:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the occurance of two people in the same place at different times proves nothing in their connection to each other. Eg, the Sumerians have little connection to the Arabs in language in southern Iraq. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  about Hurrian Language 

message: " Mani researchers who consider Hurrian language as proto-Kurdish regard the ergativity of the Kurdish language as one of the important syntactical connections between the two languages".
Ergativity of Kurd language< Alarodian substratum. And Pashto (with Tadjiks Mountain dialekts) has partly ergativity but Kurd, Pashto and Mountain Dialekts of Tadjik (Pamirian-Tadjik) languages are Indoeuropean (!), Nostratic. Who is author of "protokurdic" Hurrian language? This idea is idea of no established and incompetend linguists. What account of Hurrian language was iranian type as "yek, du, se, chahar, pyandj, shesh..." (Farsi)? Indoeuropean languages are YOUNG and good wellcnown languages with invariable "eins, zwei, drei.., odin, dva, tri..." "Protokurdic" language for the Kurdian is Protoiranian (with Alarodian substratum as in Osset Iranian language)< Indoeuropean< Nostratic.--Awarenstuermer 10:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  about ergativity of Kurd language 

message: ...seems to me that in this day and age of all aspects of islam being a big important subject, and me having been looking around at least 2 times on the web, and having found nothing at all about this, well, why not have something about this very important subect in wikipedia ? Is this not one of the most important modern areas of knowledge concerning this group of people ? According to Prof Roderick Davidson of George Washington Univ. when one [whom I guess must also be a good moslem, though having died for the cause seems to be prima facie adequate in most if not all cases] gets to heaven after having died in battle one is served, and one's servants are young maidens with Hurri Eyes. I may be incorrect here, but my guess is that this is the place for me to be asking the above question.John5Russell3Finley 20:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might try looking at Houri.  Also you may want to find out, the prof. make this up, or is he quoting some authoritative text? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   What do their eyes look like ?? 

message: I removed "The prehistoric culture of northern Mesopotamia is described in the Tell Halaf, Tell Brak, Ubaid and Uruk period articles." I'm not sure why it was added, but this is why I removed it. Those cultures are at least hundreds, and some thousands of years seperated from the beginning of Hurrian influence in mesopotamia. Accordingly, it's pretty irrelevant. Hurrians appear no earlier than the old Babylonian kingdom, and the written form of their language shows that they first interacted with cuneaform(hence, their entry to Mesopotamia would be around this time) around 2200 BC. They don't have anything to do with the Halaf, Hassuna, Ubaid, and Uruk cultures at all. Thanatosimii 16:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to understand the reason for your statement, since modern science suggests that the Armenians entered the Armenian Highlands in the second half of the 3rd millennium BC, around 2400-2000 BC, from the north (Yamnaya culture). This connection can be traced with the Trietian-Vanadzor culture, Hayasa and Etiuni. 2A02:2A56:385F:0:78AE:43BE:DED1:B578 (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anachronistic 

message: Removed a load of Kurdish relations or connections to Hurrians, they are also unsourced. --Vonones 23:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kurdish connection 

message: Right now, it looks like Renfrew has misunderstood Diakonov.  A correct summary is in Mallory, p.35-36 (He should know, he's the editor of JIES, which carried Diakonov's article in 1985).  Diakonov links Armenians to Urartu (as one of their successors), which was long after the Hurrians and Mitanni.  When Diakonov is neither the only nor the ultimate authority on this, and other summaries of his work are available, as well his article for direct citation, citing Renfrew for a convenient misreference to Diakonov is cherry-picking and WP:TE. rudra (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diakonov according to Renfrew 

message: I acctually see no connection between Kurdish and Hurrian lanugage. But there are schoolars who say that it is a connection with the languages.
However, regardless of the language, the Hurrians were Kurds (or like other say "they were ancestors of the kurds"). The Hurrians were a tribe, NOT an ethnic group no matter what others have written about them. They and other peoples like Urartu, Gutis, Kassites, Lulus were all a part of the land of "Karda" /"Kurti".
I will tell you here why they were not an ethnic group but only a tribe of the Kurds /Karda.
Imagine you lived in mesopotamia for about 4000 years. Imagine you are a sumerian. You hear about the hurrians or meet them and you write about them, of course you will say "they are a people".
They don't have a connection between modern Kurdish (or some schoolar say they have) but they are indeed a part of Kurdish history. Not only the name "kurd" but culture and much is like modern Kurds are.
This should be more shown in the article.
--Kurdalo (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When were the Kurds metioned in historical or Archaelogical text? When were the Hurrians mentioned. Prove your point as it has not been yet. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 06:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk like this on Wikipedia scares me. "Scholars claim there is, but I know there isn't". "Imagine" surely can never be proof of anything. Please don't allow any of these unsubstantiated imaginings to appear on the article without solid proof. 82.173.192.255 (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kurds 

message: what is the etymology of the word turukku and who are they?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.55.105.238 (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurrian tribe Turuk-ku?? 

message: The Hurrians enter the orbit of ancient Middle Eastern civilization toward the end of the 3rd millennium BC. They arrived in Mesopotamia from the north or the east, but it is not known how long they had lived in the peripheral regions. There is a brief inscription in Hurrian language from the end of the period of Akkad, while that of King Arishen (or Atalshen) of Urkish and Nawar is written in Akkadian. The language of the Hurrians must have belonged to a widespread group of ancient Middle Eastern languages. The relationship between Hurrian and Subarean has already been mentioned, and the language of the Urartians, who played an important role from the end of the 2nd millennium to the 8th century BC, is likewise closely related to Hurrian. According to the Soviet scholars Igor M. Diakonov and Sergei A. Starostin, the Eastern Caucasian languages are an offshoot of the Hurrian-Urartian group.As we can be convinced, no Southern Caucasus and Georgia here is present. No language relationship between Georgians and Hurrians is present. Alive continuation of Hurrian language: NAKH-DAGHESTANIAN Peoples (they - ALARODIAN). And Hurrian origin according to genetics have the Armenians, the Kurds, many Turks, Syrians and even Jews of Israel. The Hurrian world-it the great world, a great civilization.--89.221.200.219 (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedia Britanica about Hurrians 

message: I read the article from Britannica above. Seems like the Hurrians came from the north (Caucasus), this also fits in with the Chechan/Georgian languages, who have originated from the Hurrian language. Perhaps they invaded Middle East from north?
Could the Hurrians have been Chechans/Georgians that imposed their rule on a native Middle Eastern population (clearly, other people have been living there during the time of the Hurrians)? Among the candidates for a Kurdish ancestor, are the Guti/Kurtis. If the Hurrians created a kingdom that stretched over the Guti lands, it would be similiar to the Ottoman empire, that included Kurdistan and Kurds, or the same with the Persian empire or many other empires throughout the world, it's a fact that a kingdom or empire doesn't consist of a single ethnic group.
What I'm trying to say is that, could the Hurrians have been invaders that ruled over the Kurds, like many others have?
Later on in history, we see the Mittanis who seem to have taken control of the Hurrian elites ruling the lands. The "Mittanian" language can in some possible way be connected to Kurdish, if we go really far. One interesting thing is the Kurdish Mittani tribe, obviously they must have some connections with the Mittani.
This is an interesting theory worth investigation, problem is that then it would mean that the IndoEuropeans were present in Middle East long before the theory accepted by so many schoolars of their original homeland in Central Asia. This would instead connect the IndoEuropean homeland with the Anatoalian hypothesis, based on IndoEuropean migration through agriculture.
It's a bit messy, but it would be giving many answers.
--Diyairaniyanim (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Mitanni language had not nothing to do with Indo-European/Indo-Aryan, it was the Hurrian language.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

text: you are blind actually kurds ancestor exist much before aryans and also mitanni elite spoke indo aryan and worsihp indo aryan gods and also armenians are not releated to urartuans at all by language and genetic 176.234.90.100 (talk) 07:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kurds and Hurrians, once again 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattic_language
According to this article, Hattic may be related to Northeast Caucasian. According to that article presented in html, Hattic may be related to Northwest Caucasian. It is true that Northeast and Northwest might be related, but that is highly doubtful by most linguists.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.70.176 (talk) 07:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict with another article 

message: Please change the following short section to the rephrased version of it I provide immediately following it, in order to correct its grammar and clarify its meaning. 
Yamhad
... Yamhad eventually weakened to the powerful Hittites, but this also opened Anatolia for Hurrian cultural influences. 
Yamhad
... Yamhad eventually weakened vis-a-vis the powerful Hittites, but this also opened Anatolia for Hurrian cultural influences. 
Radphilosophe (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Sam Sailor Sing 06:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2014 

message: Why in article is ignored the modern position of linguists on Caucasian interplay with hurrian? Kasian showcased that there is no link between nakh languages and hurrians except several borrowings. Nowadays, predominant position is that there is no proof of Starostin hypothesis (see article Gamkrelidze Caucasian Languages in Britannica) and nobody supports that hypothesis. Also, Starostin by himself admitted the doubtful characteristic of his theory in his last days of life.
Despite that, in wiki the hurrians pseudo-chechen origin is widely promoted. Asatrian (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like you know your stuff; why don't you update the article? Furius (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some links from Zimansky that claim that the NE Caucasian connection to Hurrio-Urartian languages is far from substantiated or universally accepted. Seems like a lot of Chechen-nationalists are really pushing the NE Caucasian connection, but they only cite Jaimoukha, who wasn't even a linguist or anthropologist, so I've been removing those sources and replacing them with Zimansky, who is an actual Urartologist. According to him (granted, his articles are a couple decades old) the connection is possible but far from determined, and he says any linguistic connection is meaningless anyhow. If there are better, more recent sources that definitively state that there is no connection between Hurrio-Urartian and NE Caucasian, they should be added.--Preservedmoose (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship towards caucasian languages 

message: Under “history” > “late Bronze Age” it says that Egypt is to the east, the Kassites are to the south, and the Assyrians to the west. These are reversed. 
It should be Egyptians to the south, kassites to the southeast, and Assyrians to the east. 47.210.17.145 (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch -- although I did think Egypt to the southWEST was a bit more specific; let me know if you disagree.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome, absolutely! 47.210.17.145 (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2023