Talk:Gutian people

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TiaAmber.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Did the "kings" have a fixed mandate
The Sumerian kings list says, about the Gutian Rule period: "In the army of Gutium, at first no king was famous; they were their own kings and ruled thus for 3 years." Indeed the durations of the 19 reigns in the "Gutian Rule" period are abnormally short (no more than 7 years) and clustered close to multiples of 3: 1 year |XX 2 years |XXX 3 years |XXXX 4 years | 5 years |X 6 years |XXXXX 7 years |XXX Perhaps the list's comment above means that their "kings" were appointed for a 3-year mandate, or sometimes two? All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Transfer of info
Having contributed to parts of both articles, I have for a long time noticed that some of the info at Gutian dynasty of Sumer would better belong here at Gutian people / Gutium, and vice versa. I intend to try to straighten out the two articles, by transferring some info from one to the other, without losing any. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Kurd-related categories
It's fringe theory like about Goths, so we don't categorize article in "Kurdish people" or "Germanic people". --109.165.152.97 (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * So far we have several sources stating that the Guti or Quti lived in what is today Kurdistan, and as ancient peoples, may quite feasibly have contributed to the ethnogenesis of modern peoples in that same area. And then we have ONE source - an anonymous and edit warring IP number - for the opinion that this hypothesis is a "fringe theory". That's not how it works, anon. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't teach historian about history. First of all, Kurdistan is relatively new (cultural) region, irrelevant for ancient periods. So chronologically it doesn't fit. Talking about geography, Encyclopaedia Iranica states that modern scholars usually state that Gutium was located in the Zagros mountains to the east of Babylonia and the north of Elam. That area is actually today's Luristan, not Kurdistan. Kurd-related categories were put or by mistake or by antiquity frenzy nationalists who hoped that average person may assume that Gutians were connected by Kurds, which is absurd. Iranian tribes arrived some 1000-1500 years later, and Kurdish tribes were formed 3000-3500 years later. --46.239.14.76 (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I suggest you to read WP:AGF before calling edits as "vandalism". --46.239.14.76 (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * So today's Kurdish people must have dropped out of the sky from another planet, since according to you they couldn't possibly be biologically descended from any ancient peoples, and ought not to be suffered to take any pride in their ancestry traditions like other groups do. As for good faith, it's already gone out the window here based on your actions. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody is saying Kurds *don't* have Gutian ancestry, it's just that there is no particular reason to assume Kurds have any particular connection to the Gutians. The Kurds presumably were no more culturally or genetically impacted by the Gutians than other peoples inhabiting the area such as Assyrians, Chaldeans, Lurs, and local Persians and Arabs. It would be like saying "The Epigravettians contributed to the ethnogenesis of modern Friulians". Kyaxares (talk) 05:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Kurds were formed between 500 and 1000 AD from Iranian tribes, which were formed around 1500 BC but not in today's Iran but Central Asia. Antiquity frenzy isn't specific for Kurds only, Turkish nationalists claim Sumerians were of Turkish origin, Iranian professor claimed Jiroft culture was "proto-Iranian", etc. Of course, ancient peoples are absorbed in new one, but categorizing Gutians under "Kurdish people", Sumerians under "Turkish people" and similar is laugable. --46.239.14.76 (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You are spouting opinionated rhetoric, but we have an NPOV policy and clearly there is an opinion or school of thought among some scholars that the Gutians and Kurds may be connected, per NPOV we do not characterize this pov with derogatory and pejorative rhetoric such as "antiquity frenzy", and many of the scholars are not even Kurds themselves. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

No I'm not, you are. I corrected text and I've mentioned every single person who claimed Gutians to be among ancestors of Kurds. No trace of eminent scholars. I've used the same term as Dbachmann did in when he removed Gutians from Template:Kurds. Complain to him. --46.239.60.21 (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think so, because in a matter of seconds I can easily turn up hundreds of sources that have connected "Kurd" and "Gutian", and they include many prominent scholars who are not Kurds. You are convinced your pov right and all other povs are wrong, but it's always a lot easier than justifying your own behavior of edit warring and introducing your own bias into wikipedia, to simply shrug and name drop another editor (as you have several times now) as full logical justification, isn't it? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

In the matter of fact you can't find even one. I haven't done anything wrong, just corrected many items by using reliable sources and arguments on talkpage, and your harsh tone here is just product of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. --46.239.60.21 (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh no, you haven't done anything wrong... Well, maybe a little sockpuppetry, block evasion, and edit warring contentiously and disruptively all over wikipedia... But hey, what's wrong with that? Why should our rules be applied to you too? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I did some improvement in this section. Look it up. --Mrliebeip (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I looked through that ref and see that it does indeed quote a few opinions of other scholars regarding the Guti, so we should be able to directly quote any of the claims it mentions specifically about Guti. This seems like an impartial source (the way wikipedia itself should be), because it quotes two prominent scholars who thought the initial Kurds came out of the Guti (Speiser and Marr) and later, toward the end of the paper, it quotes one younger scholar who thinks the Guti were not a single ethnic group but several unrelated ethnic groups (Van de Mieroop). Any opinions in the material about Guti are on-topic and a good reference, however the claims in this paper about the DNA of Iranians, etc. that don't mention Guti, belong on some other article besides this one, per WP:SCOPE. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to retain my edit without the DNA part? If yes, where? And if the DNA part could also be retained, is it possible to modify it like this: ", tentatively ascribing it to carriers of the Y-Dna haplogroup R1a1." ? --Mrliebeip (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The main thing to keep in mind is WP:SCOPE - the scope of the article is easily identified, the topic is the "Gutian people". The Dna info doesn't seem to give us much insight on the Gutian people, at least the sources are not making any claim about the Gutian people directly from the DnA, so this would be WP:SYNTH (please read that policy link). There must be some article where the DnA info belongs, but it doesn't seem to be this one.  There are some good opinions cited in your source that do make direct claims about the Gutian people (aka Guti) that we could certainly use here, because they are on topic. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is a good place I think: Kurds --Mrliebeip (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good start. I have no idea what contributors there would say as I have never edited or watched that article. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources that I cannot found on the net
Collier's Encylopedia (Asiatic Tribes);

Kurds: The Kurds of whom there about 4.000.000 inhabit in the wide area of the Taurus and Zagros ranges from northern Syriai through eastern Turkey and northern Iraq, into western Iran. They are believed descended from a people known variously as Guti, Qurti, adn Karduchoi, who were living in these mountains in 2,000 BC.

Encylopedia Americana;

Kurdistan: A nonpolitical region in southwest Asia, inhabited by the Kurds. (...) The Kurds are believed to have descended from the Guti or Qurti people who inhabited the territory from about 2400 to 2300 BC.

Egon von Eickstedt-"Turks, Kurds and Iranians" (Türkler, Kürtler ve İranlılar) (page:55,56,57,59,60) also mentioned that the Kurds are descended from Guti/Qurtie. Also E. A. Speiser (University of Pennsylvania), Rawlison and Watson, A. Christensen, Reinach, E. Soanne,... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.174.135.253 (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources which are not comfortable with WP:SOURCE
Following sources are definitely not reliable for WP standards:
 * "How to Get Out of Iraq with Integrity": unreliable source.
 * "The Kingdom of Gutium": no academic source.
 * Kurds/History. p. 382.: a people called Kurdu, Guti or Carduchi in 530 B.C.? There is a time gap of ~1624 years between the historically Gutians in 2154 BC. In short: this source cannot be used in the introduction section.

And last but not least a theory remains a theory, and cannot lead to following POV-pushing: 1. --Mrliebeip (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You gotta be kidding, right? Where do you get your special litmus test of "academic" from, I'd like to know.  Try frinding out what the word means in an English dictionary.  How could the book specifically about "The Kingdom of Gutium" be "non-academic" just because basically you disagree with it? Give me a break... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hang on, sorry, I assumed it was a book by that title, then I clicked and saw some selfpublished website, that could be a problem... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That should definitely be removed as it is a WP:MIRROR of content written here. My bad, I should have checked.  I had no idea what you were talking about with that source or who came up with it, but I will try to find some valid ones. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If "The Kingdom of Gutium" is really academic then we need a direct link to the work. www.swartzentrover.com can't be regared as acedemic. Do you have a direct link to the academic work? --Mrliebeip (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed it already, WP:MIRROR means it was copied from our article in the first place and useless as a source. I don't know who added it, but it shouldn't have been. And I should have checked it sooner before my first comment. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I've been looking through the multiple references that supposedly link the Gutians to the Kurds. A few don't actually say that anyway, and the others look way less than what you would call academic. We should remove these surely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.36.164 (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Eller, Jack David. Kurdish History and Kurdish Identity. p. 153.
Looking at Sockpuppet investigations/Til Eulenspiegel and the edits by a sock, I thought this might be a useful excerp from Eller, p.153

"Later, when the Greeks (the famous “ 10,000”) passed through the Kurdish mountains, Xenophon tells of a tribe that he calls Kardukai or Kardoukhi that savagely harassed the retreating army. Whatever the veracity—or relevance—of these ancient references, it does seem that a name and a group of great antiquity can be and have been linked to the Kurds of today. It is doubted, however, that these ancient Kurds were a single race or ethnic group in the modem sense but, rather, an amalgamation of various waves of immigration over centuries. Many contemporary Kurds believe that they are descendants of the Medes, an Indo-European people who migrated from the Caucasus into the Iranian plateau three thousand years ago or more, but McDowall posits that, if the name ever referred to one particular ancestry, Kurd eventually became a generic term for a mixture of Iranian, iranicized, and other (including Semitic) peoples (1992a, 11).2 By the time of the Arab conquest of the Near East, the name Kurd was a term for the peoples living in the Zagros mountains of northwestern Iran, and the Arabs continued the use of the word as basically a regional or even socioeconomic term—meaning something like “mountain people” or “nomad”—rather than an ethnic one. Accordingly, there are mentions of entire tribes converting from Kurdish to Arab, or vice versa; some Kurds today apparently insist that they were originally Ncstorian Christians (Van Bruincsscn 1992a, 46)." Dougweller (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Changes
I changed the theory section after reading the sources. If you disagree, you are free to revert. Please also mention here the reason why you think my edit was wrong. Ferakp (talk) 06:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Questionable sources, questionable images
Firstly, this article echoes certain Kurdish-nationalist sentiments that the Gutians were somehow connected to today's Kurds. Yes, there has been some scholarship that has connected the two--however, this is not an established fact. Kurds, as a distinct ethnic group, did not emerge until the 12th or 13th century CE, three thousand years after the Gutians were around. The sources used to back up this claim that the Gutians were the ancestors of the Kurds are questionable--some are nearly 90 years old ("Art and Archaeology". 1931), others are not scholastic or academic in the slightest (Brendan O'Leary (2009). How to Get Out of Iraq with Integrity. University of Pennsylvania Press). It seems to be that, rather than being concerned with being factual, somebody is really trying to push a bias.

It should be noted in the article that a) Gutium was established prior to the split of Indic and Iranian speaking peoples and b) the earliest Indo-Iranian (of which, the Kurds belong) recorded in the region were the Mitanni, who established a kingdom around 500 years after Gutium fell (the language of the Mitanni is believed to be an unsplit Indo-Iranian language).

Therefore, there is no known linguistic connection between the Gutians and modern-Kurds. There are no known cultural ties besides both being mountain peoples. The only connection are geographic. The ethnogyms are similar, but still, a connection is far from established and even if the word "Kurd" comes from "Guti" it seems more that this was originally a term used to denote nomadic highlanders of various ethnic/cultural backgrounds rather than a specific group.

If the connection is purely geographic, then Assyrians, non-Kurdish Iranians, Arabs, Turkoman, Jews, etc. can all make a legitimate claim to begin the descendants of the Gutians as well. Perhaps the Gutians being the ancestors of these various peoples should be mentioned?

The other point that I wanted to make is that the following photo is used on the Lullubi page as well. On that page, it is claimed that the image represents a Lullubi prisoner of the Akkadian wars...so, according to that page, it portrays an enemy of the Gutians and not a Gutian. This needs to be cleared up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutian_people#/media/File:Prisoner_of_the_Akkadian_Empire_period_possibly_Warka_ancient_Uruk_LOUVRE_AO_5683.jpg

So I'm confused--why is it worth mentioning that the Gutians are the ancestors of the Kurds? Hell, here's an article that speculates that the Gutians were the ancestors of Armenians! Perhaps we should mention that an Armenian connection as well (note I am using this rhetorically, I do not actually think Gutians are the ancestors of Armenians)? https://www.academia.edu/28458746/Origin_of_Armenian

Preservedmoose (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)