Talk:Hurrians

copied from the Talk:Hurrian page.
Jorge Stolfi 14:49, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

They spoke an agglutinative language unrelated to neighboring Semitic or Indo-European languages but showing some affinity with other Subarean languages & Kiengi-Sumerian. Quite authoritative, considering all one has to build on is a handful of Hurrian names found on inscriptions at Nuzi, some lists of sacrifices and what else? http://www.lib.washington.edu/NearEast/hurrlang.html Is this built on Emmanuel Laroche, Glossaire de la Langue Hourrite? Or I.M. Diakonoff and S.A. Starostin, Hurro-Urartian as an Eastern Caucasian Language 1986? The Encyclopedia of World History has this to say of Hurrians:
 * '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)


 * 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)

Hi Wetman! The info above pertains to the "Hurrian" kingdom of Mitanni who were at first thought to have been identical with the Hurrians. The real question is where the conviction that there was a substantial Hurrian common population in Mittani came from (e.g. why do we assume Herodotus was talking about Hurrians?). I have not found this source yet and so I cannot criticize it as invalid. (But just because I do not know about the details of the connection it does not mean that it cannot exist). I will put your reference into the article but your conviction about "a handful" is misleading (though I suppose it depends upon which font size you mean :-P ). Zestauferov 02:21, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

- This entry needs an introductory section that gives the current mainstream description of Hurrians. That could be followed by some of this imaginative speculation, if any of it can be attributed to a printed or on-line source. Trying to edit the existing text, which is the product of Zestauferov's enthusiasms is not feasible. Wetman 20:10, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

For anyone who does not know already, Wetman's insecurity does not allow him to believe in editing anything I have contributed but is on a campaign to have anything contanimated by me re-written entirely. Zestauferov 02:20, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(Pooh! perfect nonsense.) Wetman 10:46, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oh then in that case please list the articles I have made any major contributions to which you think do not need re-writing?Zestauferov 12:38, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC) _____

Hesiod's theogony seems to owe significant episodes to Hurrian paragons. Say this in the mirror three times with jelly beans in your mouth. This is self-important owlish jargon. Can some information be transmitted here, or should we drop this sentence? Wetman 10:46, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Now I've seen everything. I think I am getting a clear picture of the kind of person you are now, forgive me please but if I'm right I can't believe someone like you has the gall to approach criticizing any of my contributions. The contributer means the genealogies of the gods given by Hesiod seems to have significant parralels in Hurrian mythology. Zestauferov 12:38, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Significant"&mdash; but not identifiable apparently. Hesiod's Theogony we know. But what's this Hurrian version? There is no Hurrian literature or surviving mythology. Some names of gods, are there?... and what is this "Tikunani Prism" so authoritatively being referred to here? A misprint? A paperweight? Google reveals no genuine usages. Wetman 02:10, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(( ''End of contents from old Talk:Hurrian page. Jorge Stolfi 14:49, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)'' ))

Jorge please edit back in the Tikunani reference when you have time. Thanks Zestauferov 04:47, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Jeorge, why don't you want to mention the Alarodian languages? Zestauferov 03:11, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Levzur what are Khurits?Zestauferov 01:49, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Avestan
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)

What evidence?
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)

Article restructured
--JFK 18:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 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!

Earlier scholars?
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)


 * 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)

Native Indo-European speaking population?
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Just because Herodotus mentioned possible connections of Phrygians to Armenians, does not mean that we have to take everything in face value. In addition, Hittites spoke indo European Language as well, and they certainly were immediate neighboors of Hurrians. In addition, Rulers of Mittani possibly spoke Indo european as well, which puts Hurrians in disadvantaged or second class position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.212.167.62 (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hurrians and Kurds
"Many researchers believe that the Hurrians (Khurrites) are the ancestors of the modern Kurds, and that their language was influence by the immigrating Mede tribes.[citation needed] Recent genetic analyses of the Kurdish people support these studies" These lines are in need of strong resources. The referred resource does not support these thesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hattusili (talk • contribs)


 * There ist no scietifical proof for that claim. The only source goes to an single website which is hosted by a private person on the website of his dsl-provider. And Mehrdad Izady is not a known objective historian. --LACongress 07:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No scientific proof? What kind of a disgusting attitude is leaving an empty "dark-propaganda" purposed reviews without a simple click to the web site which comes up at top after googling "Hurrian Kurd" words https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov / pmc / articles / PMC5256937 /. Enough of these turko-persians disinformations in every single article on internet about Kurd. Also, why the wikipedia adminstration is hesitating to add well proved articles when the subject include anything related to Kurds and insisting to not be contradicted to fascist concerns of these guys? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamPolska (talk • contribs) 18:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelashin (talk • contribs)

The first source shows that there are researchers believing that the Hurrians (Khurrites) are the ancestors of the modern Kurds but instead of saying "many researchers" their names must be given.(at least the most important ones.) But non of the sources directly refer to a genetic study about this issue so the second sentence must be deleted if there are no other strong sources.--Hattusili 13:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Being descendants of Hurrians doesn't mean Kurds to do not be descendants of Medes. So, does being son your mom mean you not being son of your dad? Easy logic.
 * Hurrains + Medians + All other sub groups = Proto-Kurds --- time > Neo Kurds = Kurmanj + Soran + Hawrami + All other sub groıps — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamPolska (talk • contribs) 18:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The first source shows the mainstream view of the origins of Kurds as it is now proved that Kurds are not descendant of Medes . You see here that even Iraqi government accepts this view . On the genetic connection of Kurds and their Hurrian ancestores there is already two verifiable evidences that clearly connect Kurds with Hurrians. and I see nothing wrong with that. In addition to this, I will try to provide more sources and more information on that matter. Kelashin 13:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no opposition about Kurdish-Hurrian connection but i think the sources about genetic relation are not reliable. It would be better if we can find more clear sources. --Hattusili 15:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyhow, the above belongs to section 7: Connections and origin theories. The article Hurrians is about the historical Hurrian people, not their possible descendants. The issue of Kurdish origins are extensively dealt with in the articles Kurdish people and History of the Kurds.--JFK 15:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who can actually read Hurrian texts and who's studied their grammar, I can attest that any professional linguist or Near Eastern scholar would consider the connection to the Kurdish language as essentially crackpottery. The Kurds speak an Indo-Aryan language related, distantly, to Persian and Sanskrit. The Iranian peoples were not present in Anatolia until much, much later than the period in question, not until perhaps the time of the Persian empire. (It's difficult to know for sure.) At any rate, Hurrian and Urartean are not even Indo-European languages, and no scholar has made any very convincing case that they are related to any other known language. The one partial exception is that by Starostin and Diakonof, who claimed based on lexical evidence and a number of posited sound-laws that Hurrian and Urartian are related to the North-East Caucasian languages now spoken in Daghestan. This is not entirely implausible; the proto-homeland according to some scholars was at that time south of the Caucasus, not north where they are today. However, the concensus of the Northeast Caucasian specialists (as, e.g., represented in an article by Johanna Nichols in a festschrift to Howard Aronson) is that Diakonof's work is shoddy and does abide by the strictures of the comparative method that linguists use to determine genetic relatedness of languages. This is separate from the question of BIOLOGICAL relatedness, however. I am not an expert in this field, so I can only speak about the linguistic evidence, and all of that evidence suggests that the Hurrians were not originally even remotely near Indo-European cultures despite some of the evidence that the Mitanni state may have had an IE elite ruling class. Trwier 16:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Are Kurds originally iranian or are they iranianized non-iranians? sehzades (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Kurdic is an Iranian language with a few Hurrian loan words. To say Hurrians are modern Kurds is a misleading statement at the moment, until further research shows up. It is true that genetically there is evidence of a long continuity of Kurds in the region, but to say the Hurrians are modern Kurds, is like saying the Celts are southern Germans. I have amended the page appropriately.John D. Croft (talk) 07:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Just an addition Northeast Caucasian is spoken not only in Daghestan but also in Chechnya, Northern Georgia and Ingushetia Nakh 05:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The Hurrian–Kurdish connection makes no historical sense and is based on a vague name resemblance. As far as can be discerned, Iranian-speaking peoples did not live this far west in the first millennium BC. Instead, the Kurdish language appears to originate in western Iran, and to have expanded west only in the first millennium AD. The one modern people who could plausibly have some historical connection to the Hurrians are the so-called Modern Assyrians, Syriac Christians – besides the Armenians, whose connection however seems to be mostly to the Urartians. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Kurds are almost certainly the Corduene. A very late arriving Iranic language ethnic group, who settled in east-central Anatolia. Hurrians-Urartians were NOT Iranic speaking, and NOT even Indo-European. They also predate the arrival of ANY Iranic speaking people in the Near East by well over 1000 years. Furthermore, they dissapeared almost 1000 years before Kurds even are attested in the region. Therefore there is no way Hurrians-Urartians are Kurds. Neither, for the same reasons, are Gutians, Kassites, Kaskians, Colchians, Manneans etc Kurds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.25.101 (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Gutians are hitoricly kurds 176.234.90.100 (talk) 07:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

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

about Hurrian Language
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)

Exactly the unique ergative from of Kurdish lnaguage (in compare with other Iranian languages) and the fact that Modern Kurds live in the Ancient Territory of Hurrians, is a best mighty evidence to consider thick connections between Modern Kurds and Ancient Hurrians.


 * 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)

People from southern Iraq are Babili, Sumeri, and some Arabs who came from the Arab Peninsula after the Islamic conquests. These people became Arabized, they are not originally Arabs or only from Arabic origins... so the same can apply to the Hurrians that they Aryanized after the arrival of the Indo-European tribes to the Hurrian region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRS222 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Ergativity also exists in Nakh and Daghestan, Basque etc... languages too... If you think living in same place is fact than Turks are Greeks, Native americans are British and Latins.. Maya, Aztecs were latins also... Tatars living on some Russian lands are Slavs... feels like your "best mighty evidence" fails... Nakh 05:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

about ergativity of Kurd language
" 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)

What do their eyes look like ??
...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)


 * 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)

Thanx, clearly I have the spelling wrong. Prof was tops, and not a chance I want anybody blaming him for my mistake. However the info and link is good right here, and maybe somebody else can use it too.John5Russell3Finley 22:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Anachronistic
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)

The claim that Armenians started moving into Urartu lands as early as the 3rd millennium is anachronistic. They only appeared, at the earliest, in the Late bronze Age collapse. John D. Croft (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 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)

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

Diakonov according to Renfrew
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)

Kurds
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)

Something more: All this with kurds should be more written, and also the present of Indo-Aryan (Kurdish belongs to Indo-Aryan) with the Mittani kingdom. (by the way, Metînî is also a kurdish tribe at the same area the Mittani kingdom were :) ) --Kurdalo (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Kurds have zero connection to Hurria-Urartu. Kurds are an Indo-Iranic speaking people who are probably the much later arriving Corduene. Hurrians and Urartians were not Iranic, and were extant long before Iranic peoples appear in the Near East. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.25.101 (talk) 11:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Hurrian tribe Turuk-ku??
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)

Encyclopedia Britanica about Hurrians
''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)

Kurds and Hurrians, once again
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)

Kurds are without doubt Indo-Iranian speakers. The speakers of these languages just did not exist in the region before 1000 BC, there is no historicity for their presence prior to that. So that fact, and the fact that the Hurro-Urartian language, Gutian language, Kassite language and Colchian language were NOT Iranic languages or even Indo-European, and predate the arrival of Iranic speaking peoples by some considerable time.

Also, the Mitanni language was NOT Iranic, it was from a different branch of Indo-European (Indo-Aryan, and even among Iranic languages themselves, the earliest recorded peoples (Persians and Medes) spoke different branches to Kurds. The Kurds appear to be the much much later arriving Corduene.
 * 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))


 * 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)

Conflict with another article
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)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2014
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)
 * Yes check.svg Done Sam Sailor Sing 06:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Relationship towards caucasian languages
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)
 * It sounds like you know your stuff; why don't you update the article? Furius (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)

Armenians in 2nd Millenium BC? Really?
Unsourced claim that Armenians entered the region in 2nd millenium BC should be removed. There is zero evidence for Armenians in Hurrian-Urartian lands between 2000-1000 BC. The first concrete proof of Armenians is in the 6th century BC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.25.101 (talk) 11:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's actually widely accepted that Armenians entered the region by 1200 BCE. Diakonoff, Greppin, Gamkrelidze, and Ivanov all accepted the presence of Armenians in the region by 1200 BCE at the latest. While I don't think Paul Zimansky stated definitively that Armenians were in the region, he stated that it was certainly possible.

"Far from being grounded on long standing cultural uniformities, [Urartu] was merely a superstructure of authority, below which there was plenty of room for the groups to manifest in the Anatolia of Xenophon to flourish. We need not hypothesize massive influxes of new peoples, ethnic replacement, or any very great mechanisms of cultural change. The Armenians, Carduchoi, Chaldaioi, and Taochoi could easily have been there all along, accommodated and concealed within the structure of command established by the Urartian kings."
 * and

"Armenian presence in their historical seats should then be sought at some time before c 600 BC; ... Armenian phonology, for instance, appears to have been greatly affected by Urartian, which may suggest a long period of bilingualism."
 * Diakonoff was the one who proposed Armenians absorbing Hurrian elements. Incidentally, he is the same researcher who proposed a NE Caucasian/Hurrio-Urartian linguistic connection. The debate doesn't seem to be whether Armenians were present in Urartu, but when they entered (whether it was 1200 BCE or sometime before) and where they entered from (were they originally from the northern Lake Van region or did they come from the west, near modern Malatya)?Preservedmoose (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is much evidence to the contrary, as modern science suggests that 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) 16:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

D Asatrian (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Generic evidence shows that Armenians carry the genes of the original humans in the Near East, and the last admixture events occurred between 3000 BC and 2000 BC — Armenians have not had significant admixture since 1200 BC. Genetic analyses of Urartian skeletons have also shown that modern Armenians are the people who show the least genetic difference. In other words, we have conclusive proof that Armenians are not only indigenous, they literally are Urartians. The question is now entirely about how the Armenian language emerged. — [ kentron hayastan ]  05:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2023
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)
 * ✅ 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)
 * Awesome, absolutely! 47.210.17.145 (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)