Talk:Ardashir I

Major error identified. This needs urgent attention. The image "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Taq-1.png" which is shown on the right side of the Religion and state section does not belong in this article. On the text under the picture it is claimed that it is Ardeshir (Ardeshir I) that receives his kingship while it is Ardashir II that is decipted according to both the entry for Ardrshir II and the Sassanid Empire.

The image and text beneath it needs to be removed from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.122.26.70 (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

sasanid is third persian empire,hakhamaneshian ,parthian (arsacid , ashkanian)and then sasanid

Both the French wiki and Farrokh's recent book Shadows in the desert have Ardeshir born in Persis (Farrokh in Tirdeh). That is a far cry from Balkh!. 75.178.177.135 (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC) nl:Gebruiker:JcwfReply

Ardeshir I —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.70.254 (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

According to some sources, Ardashir is recorded to have married his own mother. This is a practice that was common among the royal families in Zoroastrian societies. Yazdgerd II, for example, married his own daughter. Its called khvaetvadatha. I believe this fact should be mentioned. Its mentioned in the following book in details:

'Close Relationships: Incest and Inbreeding in Classical Arabic Literature' by G. J. H. van Gelder, Pg 73, Published 2005 - --Theotherguy1 (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've just replaced some material deleted with no explanation, then found this on the editor's talk page, so I'm copying it here. Dougweller (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am new to this , Im not familiar to the whole editing process yet, but regarding the article of ArdeshirI , I must say we can not include assumptions into historical articles like these,Shahnameh is not a reliable historical source since as we all know Shahnameh is based on a mixture of historical and mythical events ,also it is known that the language of the Sassanid dynasty was Middle Persian which is the ancestry language of modern Persian NOT Kurdish , the Persian language belongs to the south western branch of Iranian languages while Kurdish or Median both belong to North western Iranian languages , so If we asume that Ardeshir I Sassanid was a Kurd then he must have had a North Iranian language as mother tounge not south western Iranian or Persian .

Also there are way too many sources such as the exchanged diplomatic letters bewtween Sasanid Royals and Chinese, Arabic and Byzantine officials where clearly the term King of Persia or Pars are used , If the Sassanids had Kurdish lineage surely they would have rejected to this usage . One example is Constantine Augustus letter to Shapur ,where he clearly sates , CONSTANTINE AUGUSTUS TO SAPOR, KING OF THE PERSIANS

Other reliable sources are Chinese sources ,like the story of Pirooz written in a formal and ancient aristocratic Chinese language. It was quite tough, but with the help of my Chinese friends and associates I got through it. It was written by Prince Nah-shieh (Narseh), who was the son of Prince Pirooz, who was the son of King Yazdgerd III-- the last Sasanid king of Persia. Narseh was a Chinese general stationed in the Tang Chinese military garrisons in what are today's Afghanistan, Tajikistan and parts of Uzbekistan.

In 751 A.D., the Chinese lost a decisive battle to the Arabs at Talas (now in Uzbekistan), and they retreated from their colonies in Central Asia. All the garrisons shut down, and the armies fled back into China. Many Persians and Sogdians followed the Chinese back into China and abandoned their homes in Central Asia in wake of the Muslim Arabic invasions. Some Sogdians came as widows who then married Chinese soldiers along with their orphaned children.

Pirooz requested only a simple burial and the Chinese emperor approved. The entire exiled court was in attendance along with the Chinese emperor. The Chinese emperor held Peroz's shaking hands. Pirooz looked west and said:

"I have done what I could for my homeland (Persia) and I have no regrets." Then, he looked east and said: "I am grateful to China, my new homeland." Then he looked at his immediate family and all the Persians in attendance and said: "Contribute your talents and devote it to the emperor. We are no longer Persians. We are now Chinese." 

Then, he died peacefully. A beautiful horse was made to gallop around his coffin 33 times before burial, because this was the number of military victories he had during his lifetime. Pirooz was a great Chinese general and great Persian prince devoted and loyal to his people.

Notice that Persians are mentioned as Barsi in this scipt , due the lack of Letter P in Chinese language .yet clearly Persians are separated from Parthians , Scythians and of course Medians in all sources from Arabic to Indian, Chinese, Roman and Budheist . — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthPosterIrani (talk • contribs)

Farrokh isn't a reliable source, but we may be able to find one. As that page isn't accessible through Google, could you please quote the letter and any details about it, and we should be able to source it elsewhere. Thanks.Dougweller (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Note someone removed the cat 'People of Kurdish descent' (editor seems to be removing Kurdish from a number of biographies). My talk page has details about the letter which should be here! Dougweller (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure about this letter (it might be quoted by Tabari) but the term Kurd means completely something different. Here is something on Ardashir: "his victorious campaign against the Kurds (a term that in pre-Islamic times designated the various nomadic lineages, rather than a specific ethnicity" [1]. See also Asatrian which has a important article with regards to the naming: [2]. As you can see, the transformation of the term "Kurd" to the modern ethnicity is a completely post-Islamic phenomenon. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. That's why we need to be very careful about using primary sources. I was concerned that what was meant by Kurd in the letter might mean, and in fact does seem to mean, something different from the modern definition. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Is it so simple? Lets think that, Kurd was a term that designated the various nomadic lineages. Then where were ethnic Kurds at that time? And why the term of Kurd was just used for the people who were living in Kurdistan area? For example, the Kurds who Ardashir faught againist, were living in today's Soran district. In the other hand scholars believe that term of Kurdistan comes from Korduene and it was exist since time of Xenophon. That means, its not the arabic word which represent nomadic people. If we accept the word as you (96.255.251.165) claimed, how will we decide about ethnic Kurds? Ethnic Kurds were born after Islam? (: How did all Kurds or all World suddenly accept term of Kurd as an etchnic lineage? About the point of insult in both letters (1, 2), i think thats normal. Ottoman Sultans had named Turks as etrak-i bi idrak = Purblind Turks. (there are similar examples in other kingdoms too) Ottomans werent Turks? Why did they insult to their own nation? So, that means, it was normal when some king or nation had power they scorned others. If we will not accept Kurds of Kurdistan as today's Kurds, then i think you should find a new theory about history of the ethnic Kurds. After islam a new nation was born? And we should say, Ardashir came from a nomadic group and he was not a Persian either. Btw, the thesis of Garnik Asatrian is very funny. But its mostly because politics of Armenia. During last years, Armenians started to find theories about Yezidis that, Yezidi is another nation.If there is real Kurd, that should be Yezidi. Because other all Kurds (as an effect of islam) got connections with Turks, Arabs and other middle eastern nations and they have changed genetically. Therefore, i just see his theory as a fear of Armenia. They just want to assimilate and control Kurdish community in Armenia. No need to discuss his theories.--Gomada (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC

Farrokh isn't a reliable source, but we may be able to find one. As that page isn't accessible through Google, could you please quote the letter and any details about it, and we should be able to source it elsewhere. Thanks.Dougweller (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Note someone removed the cat 'People of Kurdish descent' (editor seems to be removing Kurdish from a number of biographies). My talk page has details about the letter which should be here! Dougweller (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure about this letter (it might be quoted by Tabari) but the term Kurd means completely something different. Here is something on Ardashir: "his victorious campaign against the Kurds (a term that in pre-Islamic times designated the various nomadic lineages, rather than a specific ethnicity" [3]. See also Asatrian which has a important article with regards to the naming: [4]. As you can see, the transformation of the term "Kurd" to the modern ethnicity is a completely post-Islamic phenomenon. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. That's why we need to be very careful about using primary sources. I was concerned that what was meant by Kurd in the letter might mean, and in fact does seem to mean, something different from the modern definition. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Is it so simple? Lets think that, Kurd was a term that designated the various nomadic lineages. Then where were ethnic Kurds at that time? And why the term of Kurd was just used for the people who were living in Kurdistan area? For example, the Kurds who Ardashir faught againist, were living in today's Soran district. In the other hand scholars believe that term of Kurdistan comes from Korduene and it was exist since time of Xenophon. That means, its not the arabic word which represent nomadic people. If we accept the word as you (96.255.251.165) claimed, how will we decide about ethnic Kurds? Ethnic Kurds were born after Islam? (: How did all Kurds or all World suddenly accept term of Kurd as an etchnic lineage? About the point of insult in both letters (1, 2), i think thats normal. Ottoman Sultans had named Turks as etrak-i bi idrak = Purblind Turks. (there are similar examples in other kingdoms too) Ottomans werent Turks? Why did they insult to their own nation? So, that means, it was normal when some king or nation had power they scorned others. If we will not accept Kurds of Kurdistan as today's Kurds, then i think you should find a new theory about history of the ethnic Kurds. After islam a new nation was born? And we should say, Ardashir came from a nomadic group and he was not a Persian either. Btw, the thesis of Garnik Asatrian is very funny. But its mostly because politics of Armenia. During last years, Armenians started to find theories about Yezidis that, Yezidi is another nation.If there is real Kurd, that should be Yezidi. Because other all Kurds (as an effect of islam) got connections with Turks, Arabs and other middle eastern nations and they have changed genetically. Therefore, i just see his theory as a fear of Armenia. They just want to assimilate and control Kurdish community in Armenia. No need to discuss his theories.--Gomada (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

• I am not concerned about politic part of your message as these things are too complex and you have already possibly made pre-judgments. However, in pre-Islamic times, even Parthian and Middle Persian were mutually intellgible. The concept of a Persian ethnic identity that is being based solely on a variant of Middle Persian (Khorasani Middle Persian which was spread from Fars) plays into the hand of certain groups to create imaginary enemies (despite the fact that Iran has not been ruled by Turks for most of the Islamic times and even Pahlavids were mixture of Mazandarani/Azeri), but it is not historical. At the same time, I do not think the concept of a "Kurdish ethnic group" based on several related Iranian languages is firm either. So both terms "Persian" or "Kurd" have their problems, which is beyond the scope of this article. Anyhow, I think of Iranian dialects as continuum and "Kurdish" dialects/languages while considered NW Iranian have also a strong SW component as well..where as Talyshi is more NW. In other words, I do not think one can makeup ethnicities based on a continuum of dialects (what about say Lari, Laki, Tabari, Natanzi, Golpayegani,Kalhuri....etc.) These are all basically dialects of Middle Persian/Parthian. Unfortunately due to too much political considerations, no one wants to look at this objectively. I disagree with Asatrian on Yezidis, but his material seems more sound than say Mehrdad Izady.

• However, the Ottoman Sultans were of mixed ancestry and did not consider themselves "Turks". So consideration is important.

• But getting back to the issue at hand, "John Limbert (1968): The Origins of the Kurds in Pre-Islamic Iran. Iranian Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 41-51.".

• The Kurds mentioned by Ardashir are actually from Fars where there is no Sorani language (see the above source).
• I'll quote: "The Kurds that the Islamic historians mention as living in South and Southwest Persia were probably not true Kurds, but were nomadic tribes speaking Southwest Iranian dialect related to-modern Luri and Persian."
• Ill quote: "Most conclusive of all is the fact that Kurd in the older Persian or Arab sense meant simply nomad with no particular ethnic connotations. In this case, Ardavan V's letter becomes more insulting, since in effect he is calling Ardashir an ignorant nomad. The term was not even restricted to Iranian nomads--according to a tenth century work, the Persians called the Mesopotamian Arabs the "Kurds of Suristan." Thus it is reasonable (but hardly certain) that the so-called Kurds of Fars of Sassanian times were not true Kurds at all , but were Iranian nomads speaking dialects related to Persian."
• I'll quote: "Such southwest dialects as Luri and Bakhtiari are much more closely related to Persian than to Kurdish. If we reconstruct the ancient linguistic division, then the Kurds of the north spoke a language related to Median--that is, northwest Iranian, and the "Kurds" of the south spoke a language

related to Persian, or southwest Iranian."

• On the problem of history of ethnic Kurdish history, " If we will not accept Kurds of Kurdistan as today's Kurds, then i think you should find a new theory about history of the ethnic Kurds.".. Limbert says: "From what has been said, it should be clear that the early history of the Kurds cannot be reconstructed with any certainty."
  • "The Kurds were formed by an amalgamation of Northwest Iranians, migrating from the east, who absorbed various elements from the indigenous population of the Zagros mountains and imposed a linguistic unity upon them. Linguistically and geographically there is no basis for making a distinction between Kurds and Medes.
  • The Kurds that the Islamic historians mention as living in South and Southwest Persia were probably not true

Kurds, but were nomadic tribes speaking Southwest Iranian dialect related to-modern Luri and Persian. But getting back to the issue at hand, "John Limbert (1968): The Origins of the Kurds in Pre-Islamic Iran. Iranian Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 41-51."

• My own opinion on your question is given above..what we have today is a continuum of Iranian languages ( Dari-Persian (and note the term Persian is used in other literature as Iranian equivalent) gets close to Lari, Lari to Luri, Luri to Laki, Laki to Kalhuri, Kalhuri to Sorani, Sorani to Gurani and Kurmanji, and these are close to Talysh, Talysh is close to Tati, and from Gurani we get close to Zazaki, Gilaki and then Tabari). In the pre-Islamic era, on the other hand, we have attestation of two major languages, Parthian and Middle Persian, which were mutually intelligble. So to talk about "Kurds", or "Lurs", or "Persians" (in the narrow sense of some ethno-nationalists) is falacity as what we have is a continuum. So I disagree with both sort of identity makes.. Kurdish identity makers have taken several Iranian languages and are trying to claim a distinct identity for their speakers in pre-Islamic time..other identity makes should use the term Iranian (although their point that Persian has been used equivalently for Iranian in all neighboring literatures is valid and the term Persian should not be used for a single language).
• As per the term "Kurd" being used solely in "Kurdistan". That is not the case, Kurds are referenced in Fars (see Limbert),..In the Tabari language it is used for shepard/nomad. And in Arabic sources, Abu Moslem Khorasani is mentioned as a "Kurd"(which again here must mean nomadic background)..Even Rudaki in Central Asia uses the term for nomad..and Hamzeh Isfahani uses it for Deylamites and Arabs. Richard Frye,"The Golden age of Persia", Phoneix Press, 1975. Second Impression December 2003. pp 111: "Tribes always have been a feature of Persian history, but the sources are extremly scant in reference to them since they did not 'make' history. The general designation 'Kurd' is found in many Arabic sources, as well as in Pahlavi book on the deeds of Ardashir the first Sassanian ruler, for all nomads no matter whether they were linguistically connected to the Kurds of today or not. The population of Luristan, for example, was considered to be Kurdish, as were tribes in Kuhistan and Baluchis in Kirman"
• So as you can see the term has been used for people in Caspian sea, Khorasan (Rudaki uses it, Abu Moslem uses it), Fars (SW Iranian languages where both Luri/modern Persian are Middle Persian (Parsik) variants), Baluchistan, and Kuhistan (Qahestan or area centered around Araq'e 'Ajam).
• Finally, the Sassanids are part of the Iranian history so all speakers of Iranian continuum can rightfully claim it as part of their history. Specially, since at that time, there was no Sorani, modern Persian, Gurani, Luri..etc.. there was simply a continuum of highly mutually intellgible Middle Persian/Parthian dialects in the Iranian plateau and the ethnic term that was used was "Iranian" and the equivalent of this term term in non-Iranian literature was "Persian"(which did not cover a single language as some writers want to erroneously portray).
• However, whatever opinion we may or may not have, Wikipedia works with WP:RS. In this case, the article from Limbert is fairly clear. Primary sources need secondary intrepretation and I think Limbert has done a fine job of mentioning that in the letter, the term means nomad and was used as to sort of belittle Ardashir by Ardavan (who claimed a royal lineage). The limbert article can be accessed here: [5].
• I hope you do not take anything I said as an insult..Piruz Bet.--96.255.251.165 (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

You all seem to be forgetting one thing; not only was Ardashir I referred to as being a Kurd (social term or ethnic, not clear), but he was also a descendant of the Shabankareh tribe; a tribe with the very same name continues to exist near Kermanshah and they are ethnic Kurds. Znertu (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Did you solve all problem with John Limbert? (: Why are you surprised that the population of Luristan was considered to be Kurdish? You accept John Limbert's claim. Ok but what about Sharaf Khan Bidlisi's claim? 415 years ago, he has written in his Sharafnama that, Lurs are a Kurds. Btw, he was not a simple historian. He was ruler in Sasanid and Ottoman empires. That means, he can know about the people of region. It is not something new that, Kurds live in Fars and Luristan. The most famous Kurdish tribe of Fars province is Shabankara tribe. As Znertu has said, Ardashir was claimed to be descendant of Shabankara tribe.

• John Limbert believes that, term of Kurd comes from Gord of Persian word hero (which is Xurt in modern Kurdish) but on the other side, Persian historian Abul-Fazl Bayhaqi has written about Akrad (which means Kurds in arabic) of Fars region. If John is right, then why Bayhaqi didnt write Gordan and he wrote Akrad? By the way, in John Limbert's book cites that Estakhri has written about 5 Kurdish tribes of Fars. One of them named Jiluya and today there is a Luri tribe named Kuh-Giluyah.John believes that those nomadic people who were named as Kurds were Lurs. Estakhri and Sharaf Khan Bidlisi support him as , Lurs are Kurds. So what happened that, Lurs changed and they are not Kurds anymore? Rashid Yasemi believes that, Kurds' original home was Fars and has said Ardashir's grandfather Sasan has married with Ram Behesht of Bazanjan Kurds. (this Kurdish tribe has written by Persian geographer Estakhri) Those Kurds of Fars become Ardashir's supporters in his revolt againist Ardavan V. So, dont you think that, there is a mistake about solution of John Limbert?
• One more thing, John Limbert has said, Iranian schloar Rashid Yasemi is Kurd and on wikipedia is written that he could speak French, English, Arabic and Pahlavi.That means Pahlavi people are Kurds?--Gomada (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

If this letter exists, then why has it not been mentioned by some historian? Daryaee, Pourshariati, et.al? --Defensor Ursa 17:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thats not a reason to say, there is not letter. Everything should be mentioned by all historians? Btw, here are the letters (1, 2)--Gomada (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I never said there wasn't a letter. My intent was to say, if this letter was mentioned by other historians, what was their opinion? Neither book you listed gives an interpretation by the authors stating that letter proves Ardashir's ethnicity. Since the letter is a primary source, we are not allowed to interpret its meaning per Wikipedia:Reliable Sources; "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." --Defensor Ursa 14:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Looks like there is four issues, the second issue now being Shabankareh which I shall deal with separately as I will with SharafKhan and Lurs, and finally what primary sources say about Ardashir himself. However, wikipedia is not a discussion of primary sources but of secondary reliable sources supporting the primary sources.

• 1) Ardavan's alleged letter (note because it is a letter mentioned in post-Islamic sources and its authenticity cannot be verified) has no ethnic implication.

• I would read WP:synthesis and WP:RS. I did not understand your comment on Limbert. Limbert is fairly clear[[6].  :
• "Most conclusive of all is the fact that Kurd in the older Persian or Arab sense meant simply nomad with no particular ethnic connotations. In this case, Ardavan V's letter becomes more insulting, since in effect he is calling Ardashir an ignorant nomad. The term was not even restricted to Iranian nomads--according to a tenth century work, the Persians called the Mesopotamian Arabs the "Kurds of Suristan."(John Limbert (1968): The Origins of the Kurds in Pre-Islamic Iran. Iranian Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 41-51.".)
• "The Kurds that the Islamic historians mention as living in South and Southwest Persia were probably not true

Kurds, but were nomadic tribes speaking Southwest Iranian dialect related to-modern Luri and Persian." (John Limbert (1968): The Origins of the Kurds in Pre-Islamic Iran. Iranian Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 41-51.".)

• So basically Limbert is clear that Lurs are not Kurds (in the modern sense of Kurdish ethnic identity which is a post-Islamic phenemon).
• So basically, Limbert as a secondary RS source discounts any theory that would relate it to the modern definition of Kurd. Besides Limbert, Asatrian and Iranica are clear as well:
• "As per etymology and Ardashir, the latest and most definite would be Asatrian: "the form of kurt (kwrt-) in the Middle Persian treatise (Karnamak Artax-shir Pabakan), compiled presumably in the second half of the 6th century A.D. It occurs four times in the text (Kn. I, 6; VIII, 1; IX 1, 2) in plural form, kurtan, twice in conjunction with shah “chieftain, ruler” (kurtan shah), once with shupanan “shepherds” (kurtan shupanan), and only once in a bare form, without a supplement. It is clear that kurt in all the contexts has a distinct social sense, “nomad, tent-dweller”. It could equally be an attribute for any Iranian ethnic group having similar characteristics. To look for a particular ethnic sense here would be a futile exercise. "[7](G. Asatrian, Prolegomena to the Study of the Kurds, Iran and the Caucasus, Vol.13, pp.1-58, 2009.)

• C. G. CERETI, "KĀR-NĀMAG Ī ARDAŠĪR Ī PĀBAGĀN" in Encycloapedia Iranica."Then follows the description of Ardašīr’s triumph over Ardawān in the battle of Hormuzagān (see HORMOZDGĀN) and his victorious campaign against the Kurds (a term that in pre-Islamic times designated the various nomadic lineages, rather than a specific ethnicity)"
• so the alleged letter of Ardavan to Arashir given these secondary sources has no ethnic impplication.
• Note this is not just the opinion of Asatrian or Iranica or Limbert.. Basically every major Kurdologist in the field has mentioned this:

• David Mackenzie: "If we take a leap forward to the Arab conquest we find that the name Kurd has taken a new meaning becoming practically synonmous with 'nomad'" D.N. Mackenzie, "The Origin of Kurdish", Transactions of Philological Society, 1961, pp 68-86
• Martin van Bruinessen, "The ethnic identity of the Kurds", in: Ethnic groups in the Republic of Turkey, compiled and edited by Peter Alford Andrews with Rüdiger Benninghaus [=Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B, Nr.60]. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwich Reichert, 1989, pp. 613-21. excerpt: "The ethnic label "Kurd" is first encountered in Arabic sources from the first centuries of the Islamic era; it seemed to refer to a specific variety of pastoral nomadism, and possibly to a set of political units, rather than to a linguistic group: once or twice, "Arabic Kurds" are mentioned. By the 10th century, the term appears to denote nomadic and/or transhumant groups speaking an Iranian language and mainly inhabiting the mountainous areas to the South of Lake Van and Lake Urmia, with some offshoots in the Caucasus...If there was a Kurdish speaking subjected peasantry at that time, the term was not yet used to include them"
• Wladimir Iwanov:"The term Kurd in the middle ages was applied to all nomads of Iranian origin".(Wladimir Ivanon, "The Gabrdi dialect spoken by the Zoroastrians of Persia", Published by G. Bardim 1940.
• V. Minorsky, Encyclopedia of Islam: "We thus find that about the period of the Arab conquest a single ethnic term Kurd (plur. Akrād ) was beginning to be applied to an amalgamation of Iranian or iranicised tribes., "Kurds" in Encyclopaedia of Islam". Edited by: P. Bearman , Th. Bianquis , C.E. Bosworth , E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2007. Brill Online. accessed 2007
• Richard Frye,"The Golden age of Persia", Phoneix Press, 1975. Second Impression December 2003. pp 111: "Tribes always have been a feature of Persian history, but the sources are extremly scant in reference to them since they did not 'make' history. The general designation 'Kurd' is found in many Arabic sources, as well as in Pahlavi book on the deeds of Ardashir the first Sassanian ruler, for all nomads no matter whether they were linguistically connected to the Kurds of today or not. The population of Luristan, for example, was considered to be Kurdish, as were tribes in Kuhistan and Baluchis in Kirman"

• 2) Shabankareh and Ardashir
• No source (specially secondary which is what counts) was given for such a claim. The only thing I found is that in the Dehkhoda dictionary, the Shabankareh Kurds (whom I suspect to be Lurs rather than modern ethnic Kurds), claimed descent from the Sassanids. However, this is not sufficient. Since Buyids, Sharvanshahs, Samanids, and even Ghaznavids, and possibly Saffarids and host of other dynasties for legitimacy tried to claim descent from the Sassanids. This is no different than Safavids claiming to be Seyyeds or etc.. In the same dehkhoda dictionary, the Shabankareh Kurds are also called "Persian (Parsiyan)" by Ibn Balkhi ([8]).. Again my belief that they were Lurs not withstanding, I did not see Ardashir claim descent from Shabankareh Kurds.. But simply another Islamic dynasty among the dozens has claimed descent from Sassanids.
• On the other hand, the Karnamak of Ardashir traces his descent to the household of Sassan who ultimately relate themselves to the last Dara (Darius) of Achaemenids.

Why do you ignore Rashid Yasemi?--Gomada (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

• 3) Lurs, Baluchs..etc.and Sharafkhan..

As per Lurs or Baluchs or Daylamites being called Kurds in the post-Islamic era..it is the same issue of nomadic lifestyle and not to do with the more modern evolution of the term.

• V. Minorsky, "The Guran" , BSOAS, University of London, Vol. 11, No. 1 (1943 pp 75-103) comments on Sharafkhans statement: "This enumeration gives a clear idea of the main groups of the Iranian mountaineers, but only the Kurmanj, and possibly the Kalhur, come under the heading Kurd, whereas the Lur and the Guran stand apart, both for linguistic and ethnological reasons"

• G. Asatrian, Prolegomena to the Study of the Kurds, Iran and the Caucasus, Vol.13, pp.1-58, 2009. It seems, the social aspect of the term Kurd was prevalent even in the times of Sharaf Khan (16th century), who used the Tayefe-ye akrad (“race of Kurds”) to imply ethnic groups of different kinds but with similar lifestyles and social and economic setups. The Kurds, according to him, “are of four kinds (qism), and their language(s) and habits are different from each other: first, the Kurmanj; second, the Lur; third, the Kalhor; [and] fourth, the Gurann” (Scheref 1862: 13). One thing, however, is certain: the process of the evolution of this social term into an ethnonym took, no doubt, a long time-span (see Graph 1), going through different "

• Richard Frye,"The Golden age of Persia", Phoneix Press, 1975. Second Impression December 2003. pp 111: "Tribes always have been a feature of Persian history, but the sources are extremly scant in reference to them since they did not 'make' history. The general designation 'Kurd' is found in many Arabic sources, as well as in Pahlavi book on the deeds of Ardashir the first Sassanian ruler, for all nomads no matter whether they were linguistically connected to the Kurds of today or not. The population of Luristan, for example, was considered to be Kurdish, as were tribes in Kuhistan and Baluchis in Kirman"
• Martin van Bruinessen. "The ethnic identity of the Kurds", in: Ethnic groups in the Republic of Turkey, compiled and edited by Peter Alford Andrews with Rüdiger Benninghaus [=Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B, Nr.60]. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwich Reichert, 1989, pp. 613-21. The ruler of the autonomous Kurdish emirate of Bitlis, Sharaf al-Din Khan, composed a history of the Kurds, Sharafnama (1005/1596), in which he compiled detailed information on Kurdish dynasties of the past and all tribes of his day. He included Sunnis and Yezidis as well as Alevi Kurds, and the speakers of Zaza as well as of Kurmanji dialects, and even such groups that would not be considered as Kurds today, such as the Lor and Bahtiyari in Iran. Both authors paid little attention to the lower strata of society; where they spoke of Kurds they seemed to mean the ruling families and their tribal followers only. Not all tribesmen, it should be stressed, were pastoral nomads or transhumants. There were also sedentary tribesmen, who were free cultivators or had become townsmen

• Limbert: "In these last areas, the historic road from Baghdad to Hamadana and beyond divides the Kurds from their Iranian cousins, the Lurs.".. So Lurs are a separate Iranian people.(John Limbert 1968): The Origins of the Kurds in Pre-Islamic Iran. Iranian Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 41-51.".)

• Conclusion of this part: We can see that even by the time of Sharaf Khan, the term Kurd did not have its definition today.

Sharaf Khan wasnt a foreigner who would name his people wrongly. Sharaf Khan named Kurdish groups as Kurmanj, Lor, Gor, Kalhor. There is not mention of Zaza. Because the term of Zaza is not old, it has been created in last century. Zazas were named Kirmanj or Kird. That is same term of Kurmanj. Therefore, Sharaf Khan didnt claim them. Even the first book which was written in Zazaki is named Mewlida Kirdi means Kurdish Mawlid. Therefore, i dont need claims of Martin van Bruinessen. If he is right, where were Zazas 150 years ago? Why isnt there any information? At same time, Sharaf Khan counts the Bakhtiari tribe as among 400 Kurdish clans that migrated from Syria to Jabal and Khuzestan around the beginning of the twelfth century. People can speak different languages, but at same time they can be same nation.--Gomada (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Also wikipedia does not intrepret primary sources unless through supporting secondary sources. For example, lets look at this one:
• "Shiel, Lady (Mary). Glimpses of Life and Manners in Persia. London: John Murray, 1856.

The PERSIAN TRIBES The tribes are divided into three races-Toorks, Leks and Arabs. The first are the invaders from Toorkistan, who, from time 'immemorial, have established themselves in Persia, and who still preserve their language. The Leks form the clans of genuine Persian blood, such as the Loors, Bekhtiaris. To them might be added the Koords, as members of the Persian family; but their numbers in the dominions of the Shah are comparatively few, the greater part of that widely-spread people being attached to Turkey. Collectively the Koords are so numerous that they might be regarded as a nation divided into distinct tribes. Who are the Leks, and who are the Koords? This inquiry I cannot solve. I never met anyone in Persia, either eel or moolla, who could give the least elucidation of this question. All they could say was, that both these races were Foors e kadeem,-old Persians. They both speak dialects the greater part of which is Persian, bearing a strong resemblance to the colloquial language of the present day, divested of its large Arabic mixture. These dialects are not perfectly alike, though it is said that Leks and Koords are able to comprehend each other. One would be disposed to consider them as belonging to the same stock,. did they not both disavow the connection. A Lek will- admit that a Koord, like himself, is an “old Persian"(Foors-e-Qadim) but he denies that the families are identical, and a Koord views the question in the same light."

• Already mentioned that Ibn Balkhi mentions the Shabankareh were those groups of Persians (Parsiyan) who fought the Arabs, but then dispered and became nomads [9]
• Note Gamoda may not like the fact that the term Kurd (which was non-ethnic back then) does not cover Lurs today. But one can also say the term "Persian" does not cover Kurds where-as according to this source, these tribes also referred to themselves as "Persian" or "Old Persians".. So all of this is relative, and one can only use WP:RS secondary sources. Else imagine someone quotes the above source in Kurdish people? I have already mentioned the problem with the modern definition of "Kurd" and "Persian" which is diverging from its historical definitions to take linguistic meanings based on arbitrary Iranian dialects rather than a continuum.

Terms can be used wrong. Now, there is a Baloch tribe named KURD. But who say that Baloch people are Kurds? I dont offer a way to create history by relations of names. Turks had tried that, and almost all people of the World became Turks. So, i know that, this is not a logic way. There are always mistakes in history. Just because of less knowledge of Europeans about Iran, They called all land as Persia and all cuture was given as a gift to Persians. Its like history of MedoPersian Empire, in chronicles of greeks or in the Torah, its mostly named as Medopersia, but now everyone knows that empire as PERSIAN EMPIRE. By the way, You have already decided to divide Kurds. Leks are not another nation. If you dont know it, i suggest you to read more about them.--Gomada (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

[10] Joseph Wiesehöfer), Ardashir I, Encylopaedia Iranica Iranica has examined all angles and it has mentioned Tabari as well.

• "Sources on Ardašīr’s birth and early years vary on many points. According to one account given by Ṭabarī (I, p. 814) he stemmed from a noble family of Persis and was born at Ṭīrūda, a village in the district of Ḵīr and subdistrict of Eṣṭaḵr. His grandfather Sāsān (q.v.), whose name was to be given to the dynasty, is described as custodian of the temple of the Fire of Anāhitā (Bayt nār Nāhīḏ) at Eṣṭaḵr and his grandmother, Rāmbehešt, as a descendant of the princely family named Bāzrangī. His father was Pāpak (Bābag, q.v.), a son of Sāsān, and his successor to the “governorship of the people.”"
• "A second version may be adduced from the inscription of Šāpūr I on the Kaʿba-ye Zardošt (ŠKZ), which names Sāsān as a lord (hwtʾy) but not as Pāpak’s father (Mid. Persian, line 25). "
• "A third version appears in the Middle Persian romance generally known as the Kār-nāmag ī Ardašīr (Book of the deeds of Ardašīr, tr. Th. Nöldeke, Geschichte des Artachšīr i Pāpakān [ = Bezzenbergers Beiträge 4, 1878, pp. 22ff.]), repeated in Ferdowsī’s Šāh-nāma (Moscow, VII, pp. 116ff.) and echoed by Agathias (2.27). According to this, the local ruler Pāpak gave his daughter in marriage to Sāsān after learning of Sāsān’s descent from Dārā, i.e. the Achaemenid king Darius III, and Ardašīr was the child of their union. Thereafter, however, Sāsān disappears from the romance and Pāpak is treated as Ardašīr’s father. The discrepancy of the sources is variously explained. Some accept Ṭabarī’s version, dismissing the third as a legend, or suggest a possible adoption, consistent with Zoroastrian practice, of Sāsān’s son Ardašīr by Pāpak. Others surmise that, as in the case of Achaemenes, Sāsān may have been an ancestor and patronym of the Sasanian dynasty "

So these are the only sources that mention the ancestry of Ardashir based on primary sources.. Later Islamic dynasties (Daylamite (Buyid), Samanids, Shabankareh, Sharvanshahs..and even Ghaznavids,..tried to claim descendant from Sassanids). However it does not not work backward.--96.255.251.165 (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Rashid Yasemi has metioned Bazrangi/Bazanjan as a clan of Shabankara Kurds.--Gomada (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Just to conclude the above, since I basically had to use many secondary sources:

• The term "Kurd" in the post-Islamic alleged letter is not used in the ethnic sense per Limbert, Iranica, Asatrian..but simply means "nomad" as mentioned here:[11] So the issue is resolved by secondary WP:RS sources.

• The Sassanids actually claimed descent from the last Achaemenid king, Dara or Darius III. However, this claim might not be correct, but at the same time, Iranica discusses the different theories on Ardashir's ancestors. This is again a secondary source that should be included: [12].

• The Shabankara Kurds (whom I believe were likely Lurs as Ibn Balkhi also mentions them as "Parsiyan"(see Dehkhoda) as well) claimed descent from the Sassanids. But this is no different than Shirvanshahs, Buyids, Samanids,..etc. and a host of post-Islamic Iranian (and sometimes even non-Iranian dynasties) claiming descendant from Sassanids. There could be possibly a post-Islamic source claiming Ardashir's mother might have been from the Shabankareh, but I have not seen such a source. However, the most reliable sources on Ardashir's lineage is presented in the Iranica article based on the Middle Persian evidence[13].

• The claim that Lurs, Baluchs etc.. are "Kurds" is correct in term of the classical definition of Kurd , which was applied to all Iranian nomadic groups [14]. But the claim they are the definition of ethnic Kurds today (see the evolution of the term Kurd here:[15] ) is not correct. Just like for example primary sources mention Kurds as "fors-e qadim" (Old Persians) [16].

• There is too much nonsense nationalism going on in Wikipedia (note I do not mean any user here but just my experience again in the past week after a break) and in actual politics today. Even in the real world, there is a lot of nonsense. One is the new definition of Persian or Kurd which I have challegened collectively. The Sassanids are part of the Iranian history so all speakers of Iranian continuum can rightfully claim it as part of their history. Specially, since at that time, there was no Sorani, modern Persian, Gurani, Luri..etc.. there was simply a continuum of highly mutually intellgible Middle Persian/Parthian dialects in the Iranian plateau and the ethnic term that was used was "Iranian" and the equivalent of this term term in non-Iranian literature was "Persian"(which did not cover a single language as some writers want to erroneously portray). The Sassanid inscriptions provided a good clue to this as, as they constantly use Iranian as an ethnic term, while in the West, Arabic,..Armenian literatures, its equivalnet was "Persian". Now that the term "Persian" is being reduced by variety of people to a single language, this has created some confusion where for example some sort of nationalists/and Iranians feel deprieved while they also use the term "Persian" to construct an imaginary enemy. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Since Wikipedia works with WP:RS, that is all one needs to follow. The first two points in the conclusion section (just right above) apply to the article per Wikipedia article. Other parts were WP:RS discussing the historical usage of the term Kurd, which was primarily as a social group covering a wide range of Iranian groups rather than the linguistic groups it defined today.
• However, if anyone is not interested in all of that, the first two point apply: 1) One cannot use primary sources without secondary meaning. 2) Ardashir's ancestry has three theories discussed by Wieshofer.. Anything else seems to be a WP:OR/WP:synthesis without lack of reliable secondary sources not contradicting the statements above. The only source I saw that discusses that Ardashir's mother (not father which is the main lineage for dynasties) was from the Shabankareh Kurd is Kaveh Farrokh,..however this is not deemed reliable by other users. Perhaps there other reliable sources mentioning this? Then this could be added alongside the three theories mentioned in Iranica. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

That seems like a level-headed approach, but may I ask, why exactly is Kaveh Farrokh not regarded as a trustworthy source? Moreover, the statements he makes in his book are through other sources, but I can't see which ones they are because they are not in the example on Google Books; if anyone is in possession of the book, could he/she provide us here with the names of the sources? On a related note, the term 'Kurd' here is said to have solely been a social term; but can the Kurds which Ardashir I battled fill the definition of nomads or shepherds? Is it not possible that the term was used as both an ethnic and social one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Znertu (talk • contribs) 14:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I do not think it was an ethnic term per the above sources. I believe Doug Weller had a problem with the source you mentioned. You can ask him. Thanks--96.255.251.165 (talk) 06:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Dear unnamed (96.255.251.165), i think you dont read what you share, you just copy and paste what you need for your idea. First of all, stop to mention Kaveh Farrokh as the only source. In the book of your lovely John Limbert is written that; Rashid Yasemi has mentioned, Ardashir's grandfather has married Ram Behesht of Bazangan (Shabankara) Kurds. Kaveh Farrokh and John Limbert cited Yasami as source. Yasami has said, Shabankara Kurds supported Ardashir because of his Kurdish roots. He also claimed that, the Kurds' original home is Fars region. By the way, you started to change parts of artikles which related to Kurds, as Iranian. Dont worry, we all know that Kurds are Iranians, but i know what you try to do. If you really want to be fair, then change all Persians also as Iranian, not only Kurds.--Gomada (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Rashid Yasemi's viewpoint is not seen as reliable by Limbert with regards to Ardashir (vis-a-vis the letter) and he is just quoting Yesami without agreeing/disagreeing on the other stuff. Also I did not say Limbert was "lovely", I just quoted him per WP:RS. I don't have a problem with a WP:RS source mentioning such a fact about "Ram Behest". But the definition of Kurds back then in the Sassanid era would be different than modern linguistic definition per Limbert. For me it is not a big deal..if we attribute the author, we can mention such as "Rashid Yasemi believes that Sassan (Ardashir's ancestor) was married to Ram Behesht. I found a reliable source for this as well: [17]. So I think Ram Behesht is mentioned in some sources and it is work reporting it here that Sassan married Ram Behesht.
• As per "People can speak different languages, but at same time they can be same nation.".. the definition of Kurd was a social group back then and not a "nation". Bakhtiari/Lur/Zaza/Laks are not Kurds in the modern linguistic definition or in the modern "nation" definition. The Bakhtiari/Lur's language is rooted in Middle Persian, and Zaza seems closer to Caspian languages. Laki according to the latest linguistic data is separate branch: [18]. They are called "Kurds" in some history book as Iranian urban dwellers called tribal Iranian and even non-Iranian peoples "Kurds" (even those speaking languages very close to Middle Persian or modern Persian as in Rudaki). In the Tabari language, which is based on Parthian, the word Kurd still has this meaning. Although even by the 11th century, books such as Vis o Ramin mention Lur and Kurd next to each other.
• BTW why ignore the reference which mentions that Kurds and Laks used self-reference themselves as "Fors-e Qadim" (old Persians?). That reference is not by a foreigner but she is quoting how Kurds and Laks view themselves.
• I do not believe there is a "Kurdish nation" or "Persian nation"..there is simply a continuum of Iranian languages (with Bakhtari/Luri being much closer to modern Persian and Laki being in between Kalhori and Lur..etc.) and all these ethnicities are simply Iranian. The definition of "Kurdish nation" with arbitrary Iranian languages is very arbitrary and is not historical. It is in my opinion a new construct. Rather the speakers of these languages are a branch of the Iranian nation. During the Sassanid time, the sources above are unanimous on the definition of "Kurd". Sassanids consistently considered their ethnicity as "Iranian" and the language they used on their coin, inscriptions and etc. is called "Parsik" (which again means from Fars and is not related to any ethnicity).
• Sharaf Khan would be a primary source and it needs WP:RS to intrepret him and per the primary definition, only tribal groups were called "Kurds" and not peaseants who might even have spoken some of the Kurdish languages (Kurmanji) (see Van Bruinessen or Minorsky above). Sharaf Khan's definition is still social and partly geographical..not a nation in the modern sense and extends to tribal groups rather than peseants (per van Bruinessen above).
• The definition of "Kurdish" or "Persian" ethnicity from subset of Iranian languages is new. See Abul Hasan Masudi's definition of Persian (all Dari, Old Azari, Fahlaviyat dialects (which would include Persian)..):"The Persians are a people whose borders are the Mahat Mountains and Azarbaijan up to Armenia and Arran, and Bayleqan and Darband, and Ray and Tabaristan and Masqat and Shabaran and Jorjan and Abarshahr, and that is Nishabur, and Herat and Marv and other places in land of Khorasan, and Sejistan and Kerman and Fars and Ahvaz...All these lands were once one kingdom with one sovereign and one language...although the language differed slightly. The language, however, is one, in that its letters are written the same way and used the same way in composition. There are, then, different languages such as Pahlavi, Dari, Azari, as well as other Persian languages.". Persian or Fors or etc..is a term used for Iranian for a long time by Greeks, Arabs, neighboring nations and not related to any dialect and then self-reference by Iranians (not as an ethnic group). Other terms are "tat" or 'ajam..
• Kurdish nationalism (no offense but that is what you seem to be following) has found convienient to having a group of Iranians classified as "Fors/farsi" and then showing some sort of enmity towards this group. It In a sense, by having such an enemy, it has hurted the Iranian speakers in the region. And itself has not been successful, because you will find hardly any Lors or Bakhtiaris or Mazandaranis (my background..) agreeing with them or consider them as part of them.
• However, there is no really "Persian ethnicity"..it is simply Iranians that speak variety of Iranian languages and Persian is used as its synonym in the West. Speakers of Dari-Persian do not call themselves "Farsi" but simply as ethnic Iranis. Same as me. For example in Afghanistan, at least 5 different groups (some Turco-Mongol) speak Persian. Kurd is another term that has a social meaning and after the Islamic era, a term used for all Iranian and Iranicized nomads. The transformation of these terms into modern ethnicities is fairly new and articles using these terms need to be carefully considered, and only use WP:RS.
• The Chinese are a smart people as they did not become separate "nations" based on dialects and disparate languages or modern political theories [19]. However, Iranians (including nationalists from speakers of Kurdish languages) are doing their best to divide Iranians into different nations by arbitrary picking one or three/four Iranian languages and making them into Nations...the end result is you have oppression of Iranians by non-Iranians (Kurds in Iraq, Talysh in Azerbaijan, Kurds in Turkey, Tajiks in Uzbekistan). --96.255.251.165 (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

BTW, I removed Princess "Rodak" which is a term I have not seen anywhere. As per Ram Behesht, I think the Dehkhoda dictionary mentions it, so it is okay to mention according to some sources, Ram Behesht married Sassan. I did not remove it and I'll add it. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

It would be good to know the original source as well though--96.255.251.165 (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Laki, according to the latest linguistic data is separate branch, Faramarz Shahsavari is your source? Who is Faramarz Shahsavari? Whatever, i will not even discuss that with you. Thats nonsense. There is something you dont understand, language and nation are not same things. Kurdish people can speak different languages, but they are Kurds. If you ask me, Gorani, Zazaki (Kirmanjki), Sorani, Kurmanji, Laki.. all are languages which are spoken by Kurds. Thats normal, when there is not education in languages, people use them different. For example; There is not article in Sorani and Gorani, but there are in Kirmanjki and Kurmanji, or all have similar vocabulary, Kirmanjki-Kurmanji, Kurmanji-Sorani, Sorani-Gorani.Kurmanji is a kind of bridge between all. But of course there are so different words and different forms too. There is different vocabulary between two neighbour Kurmanji or Kirmanjki villages too. Because, there was not an education in those languages for a long time. So, people just kept or created what they need. Today, the only group which create Kirmanjki literature is Vate group and here what they think for their language and nation. J. Îhsan Espar, Malmisanij and others consider Zazas (Kirmanj) as Kurds and they say, Kirmanjki (Zazaki) is a dialect of Kurdish. Its easy (for you and others) to say, they are not Kurds or its not related to Kurdish. But, Those people are protectors of their language and they create their own culture. SO, i dont believe that, you or another person know better than them about their langauge. The second important thing, before founding of Turkish republic, there is no nation called as Zaza.(Nowadays, people (not all) use it because the pronauciation is easy) Look at history of Zaza (Kirmanj) people. Sheikh Said (Sheikh Said rebellion), Seyid Riza, Koçgiri Rebellion. The leaders and most of community of rebellions were Zaza Kurds but, nobody claim that, They wanted to create a land which is named Zazaistan or something else. They wanted to create a free Kurdistan, because they were Kurds. Or according to some latest theories, Gorani is not connected to Kurdish. Yes, they can speak different language then Kurmanji, Kirmanjki or Sorani. But they consider themselves as Kurds. Khana Qubadi was a Kurdish poet of Gorani language. He has named his language as Kurdish in 1700s. As you can see, Kurdish people know themselves, but because of politics many countries (Turkey, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Armenia) wanted to divede Kurds. But, as i said , Kurds know who they are. I dont need to discuss about that. But, even Kurds speak different languages or dialects, that doesnt mean; they are different nations. So, if you have problem about Zazaki, dont discuss it with me, ask it to Malmisanij (or Vate group), he is the master of Kirmanjki.--Gomada (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ok the topic is, Ardashir's ancestry. I hope, you dont claim people as nationalist just because, they try to tell the true about their nation. Ok you always repeat, John Limbert says this, accepts that. Who is John Limbert? He was a Ph.d candidate and a diplomat when he had claims about Kurdish identity, kurdish tribes of Fars! How can he be so reliable source? He just has his own ideas, he compares his theory with Yasami and he (Limbert) also accept, we cant proof that The tribes of Fars region were not real Kurds. So, can you stop to tell us his claims?--Gomada (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

On Laks or Zazas..there is also opposite opinion. My personal experience with the Zazas that I have met over the internet has been they see themselves as a separate Iranian group. You can ask for example the guys in Wikipedia Zazaki (say the admins there). Actually, the people that voted against Wikipedia Zazas were not Turks, Arabs, or any other Iranian groups you might think. You might want to see who actually opposed that wikipedia. I personally do not have a claim either way (my family is mainly from the Caspian and Kermanshah) and I am not a political person (and I do not like the Iranian government as it is anti-Iranian). Neither do I like the previous Iranian government or the ones before it.

My opinion on this matter is simply based on my rsearch. I do believe that Zazaki is closer to Caspian languages (at least it is classified that way).

On Laki, the article by that atuhor is purely lingustic. "Kurdish" even in the 1700 could have had geographical/social meaning. That same family of dialects is also called Avromani, Fahlaviyat, etc. My belief is that we simply have a people who speak a continuum of left-over Middle Iranian (Parthian/Middle Persian) dialects and the speakers of these variant dialects cannot be considered as separate nations or even ethnic groups.. They are simply sub-groups of Iranians as the Chinese of have many different sub-groups but are one nation. They are all Iranian. To take several Iranian dialects and claim them as a separate nation will not only hurt that group that does so, but also it weakens Iranians in the long term. That is why I believe the Chinese model is right and if Iran had not been ruled by variety of foreign invaders, then what I just mentioned would have been the case. That is why that Qajar era source mentions "Fors-e-Qadim" (or Old Iranian). Just like Arabs have variety of dialects. I have no political intention, but based on a purely linguistic consideration, Mackenzie has said that there is no special property in any "Kurdish" dialect that is not shared by at least one Iranian language outside of it [20]. For example you consider Anaraki or Vasfi or etc. The theory that Kurds are Medes is now not accepted as the Medes were already absorbed/mixed and disintegration (as the Old Persians did), and by the time of Sassanids there was an Iranian nation. Anyhow you may disagree/agree. My opinion is based on personal research and I think everyone is free to form their own opinion. Simply, we have Iranians who are descendants of Middle mutually intelligble Persian/Parthian dialects and due to not having political power and lack of education, some have seen themselves as disparate groups. However, the Chinese ethnic group stood united and it is prospering. Even Arabs (majority perhaps Arabicized) with their widely different dialects (more than Iranian dialects) are "Arab..but Iranians on the other hand are dividing and trying to create nations based on dialects or group of dialects. So that same problem also plagues "kurdish nationalism" and eventually Zazak or Lak is becoming a different ethnic group, since your definition of Kurdish is also arbitrary: "Nation with different languages and dialects"...whereas "Kurdish" in the historical sense was not in my opinion an ethnic group but referenced a sub-group of Iranians. Anyhow, those are my opinion on this: "Iranians are remnants of Iranians speaking Middle Iranian languages".

Back to the main discussion. Limbert's work meets definition of WP:RS as it is published in a good journal and what he says about the pre-Islamic usage of the term Kurd is widely agreed upon by scholar. He deems it very unlikely that the tribes of Fars were real Kurds (by which he means spoke languages that are direct ancestors of Sorani/Kurmanji) . He says: "Thus it is reasonable (but hardly certain) that the so-called Kurds of Fars of Sassanian times were not true Kurds at all , but were Iranian nomads speaking dialects related to Persian". So he is stating the more reasonable theory in my oopinion that these groups were probably related to Lurs.. However, I do disagree with him on the fact that since Parthian/Middle Persian were mutually intellgible..at that time, there was no such divisions.. To reiterate, I added Ram Behesht. Infact I never removed Ram Behesht, I inserted it. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

People or admins on Zazaki wikipedia? Are you kidding? How many people are there? Only one admin who behaves as a king there and another guy who has 3-4 accounts. Those two guy demolished all zazaki wikipedia. I reported them, but the problem is, Zazaki wikipedia is a small wiki and its not so important for stewards. This guy who has 3-4 accounts created 12,000 articles. Can you imagine that? Actually, not articles. Empty pages (for example: 1,2, 3...) or same content (1, 2, 3...) pages. He just created those pages to show that, Zazaki wikipedia has many articles. Wikipedia should be like that? Do you think that, its possible in another wikipedia? That is not even wikipedia. Thats mess, nothing else. As i said, they have kingdom there. For example, they have created article named Zazana and Zazaistan. Those two guys create a history (: In the articles is claimed that Zazana is name of land of Zaza people :D read about Zazana They dont even use original zazaki alphabet.Anyway, i told them, i will not let them to mess up zazaki wikipedia. But the admin is an old and sick man, therefore i dont waste my time with them. I let him to satisfy himself.He is fan of Ebubekir Pamukçu who was agent of turkish republic. Ebubekir Pamukcu worked for turkish agency. He tried to assimilate Kurds and therefore he worked for idea which there is no Kurd. But then MİT saw that, their organization is not successful about that. They gave a new mission to him. If we cant control Kurds then we can divide them. Ebubekir Pamukcu who has said, there is no Kurd and no Zaza for long years, he suddenly started to say Zazas are not Kurds etc. The admin who you claim is his fan. Look at all history of article of the week in the zazaki wikipedia. You can see Ebubekir Pamukcu's article is shown every month (: Thats not normal. Anyway, so if you really have a claim, please dont come to me with ideas of such people who dont know what they do.

• You still deny Sharaf Khan. You claim that,"Kurdish" even in the 1700 could have had geographical/social meaning. What do you mean? You deny Shaddadids, Saladin, Mir Jafar Dasni and all Kurdsih history? There was not Kurdish identity in the past? I would like to write much. But i really dont have time for that.--Gomada (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

On Sharaf Khan see what van Bruinessen states. About the others, Saladin, Shaddadis were Kurdish in terms of the language concept today. However, "Kurdish" still had a social/geographical meaning. Some of those from that extant social/geographical meaning were Kurdish by today's definition. Overall as I said, we have people who are descendants of Middle Persian/Parthian speakers (Iranians ) and modern ethnic concepts did not apply then..they were simply Iranian and I do not believe they saw themselves as distinct units. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.145.11 (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Now that's plain wrong, by the turn of the millenium, 'Kurd' had most certainly taken on an ethnic meaning. There are sources of said time (such as historians which were close to Saladin) out of which we can deduce that not only was there a sense of being ethnic Kurds, but there was even a degree of Kurdish solidarity (which did not limit itself to tribal affiliations).Znertu (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well this is what van Bruinessen asserts. Martin van Bruinessen. "The ethnic identity of the Kurds", in: Ethnic groups in the Republic of Turkey, compiled and edited by Peter Alford Andrews with Rüdiger Benninghaus [=Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B, Nr.60]. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwich Reichert, 1989, pp. 613-21. The ruler of the autonomous Kurdish emirate of Bitlis, Sharaf al-Din Khan, composed a history of the Kurds, Sharafnama (1005/1596), in which he compiled detailed information on Kurdish dynasties of the past and all tribes of his day. He included Sunnis and Yezidis as well as Alevi Kurds, and the speakers of Zaza as well as of Kurmanji dialects, and even such groups that would not be considered as Kurds today, such as the Lor and Bahtiyari in Iran. Both authors paid little attention to the lower strata of society; where they spoke of Kurds they seemed to mean the ruling families and their tribal followers only. Not all tribesmen, it should be stressed, were pastoral nomads or transhumants. There were also sedentary tribesmen, who were free cultivators or had become townsmen..".

Best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.145.11 (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Let me rephrase, the term had certainly -also- taken on an ethnic meaning. Van Bruinessen may have written that; but if contemporaries of Saladin wrote the following (interpreted by a certain Boris James), then we cannot but conclude that Kurds were an ethnic group back then: Ibn Shaddâd (Bahâ’ al-dîn), Al-nawâdir al-sultaniya in Recueil des Historiens des Croisades (RHC), or. vol. 3, 1884, Paris, p. 313. A Kurdish amir, Abû ’l-Haydjâ’ al-Hadhbânî sent a letter to Saladin after the latter left Jerusalem at the end of 588/ 1193 leaving all the military troups in this threatened city : “If you want us to stay in the Holy City you will have to stay with us or leave a member of your family, because the Kurds will never obey the Turks and no more the Turks will obey the Kurds”.It is quite clear here that the opposition between the two groups is not an opposition between two life-styles. The author knows what he is refering to by Kurds or Turks. This imputation of identity is probably the result of a common selfattribution/ self-representation. More interesting is when the mobilization of the sense of belonging is at stake. Ibn Khallikân, Kitâb wafayât al-a‘yân wa anbâ’Abnâ’ al-zamân, vol. 7, p. 153, 155. During the negotiations relating to the investiture to the Fatimid vizierate, 'Isâ alHakkârî, a Kurd, persuaded Qutb al-Dîn Tulayl to drop his candidacy in favor of Saladin: “Saladin and you are both from the same group. He is from kurdish origin(inna aslahu min al-akrâd). Then you won’t let the power pass to the Turks. He promised to increase his income. So he obeyed Saladin (atâ‘ahu)”. The value of the generic term of Kurd seems here to be ethnologic. ‘Isâ is not describing a life-style. In imputing this identity he is mobilizing a useful item. Did this argument really lead Qutb al-din to drop his candidacy ? The fact that ‘Isâ promised to increase his income might have been the reason for his involvement with Saladin. Of course these two elements are not dissociable. More than a irrepressible sense of belonging to the group ethnicity is very often a tactical choice a mobilizable ressource. The most interesting occurence is the following. Al-Isfahanî, Conquête de la Syrie et de la Palestine par Saladin, Paris, 1977, trad. Henry Massé éd. Geuhtner, p. 375-6.“When al-Mashtûb went out from jail, [in rabî’ II 588] he was welcomed by his son happy and in good shape. Yet he found him with a turkish hair-style – that is to say with braids – he showed his displeasure, he took on a serious tone and said : “The Kurds don’t have those manners with their hair” ; Then he cut the braids and trimmed the hair. People thought this was a bad omen for the father : “This announces a misfortune that will strike him”.Here is the clearest manifestation of Kurdish ethnicity. What is important here is not the hair style but the fact that the character considers it peculiar to his group. He sets boundaries between his group and the rest of the world. This statement leads us to consider Frederik Barth’s work (Ethnic groups and boundaries). The cultural content is not the most relevant element in envisaging ethnicity. The individual inserted in the group establishes boundaries and for that calls on cultural and ethnic tools (language, race, life-style, hair-style). James, Boris. "Uses and Values of the Term Kurd in Arabic Medieval Literary Sources" Znertu (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you and that is an interesting page and I had come across almost the same passage long time reading Minorsky's book on Shaddaddids. Infact, I used to make sure that Saladin was not vandalized by adding Minorsky, amongst others at that time..His page was being vandalized by nationalist Turkish users claiming him as Turkish (unfortunately, there is several dozens of such pages now being attacked from Nart Saga, Scythians to Saladin..).

At the same time, one cannot deny the other usage of the term Kurd as well. However, both Turkoman and Kurd in these passages in my opinion are tribal identites as well as linguistic. Turkoman being Oghuz/Turk speaking tribes and Kurds being Iranian speaking tribes. This was enough to separate the two, but I do not think for example Saladin would have felt that Daylamites are different grouping. the critera for being Kurd at the time was two-fold: Iranian languages and tribal identity. In different regions, Iranians were called different nomeclature. Daylamites for example is another important Iranian tribal group and even one author has mentioned the name Kurd to them. Overall, both the terms "Kurd/Persian" were much more encompassing (with some Qajar and Safavid sources simply stating Kurds as Old Fors) as they did not describe a single Iranian language. For example, we know Ferdowsi was Persian..but then Qatran Tabrizi who spoke Old Azari has also stated his language as Persian or the Marzaban Nama in old Tabari is called fors-e-Qadim (Old persian). As I see it, I believe in a continuum of peoples (iranians) rather than distinct identities. But at least up to the 9th/10th century there was one definition. Sharaf Khan Bidli also did not use a linguistic definition and for him Kurds were the Iranian speaking tribal heads and those affiliated with such tribes. So if someone say spoke Kurmanji but did not belong to a tribe, he was not a Kurd (per Van Bruinessen). I think the shift to just considering Kurds as people speaking Kurmanji/Sorani is 20th century..much like the shift that someone are working with the word Persian. And that is why I have always preferred the term Iranian. Overall..the Kurds are part of the Iranian nation and we cannot persume a complete separate identity (rather it is a continuum of Iranian languages) from other Iranians, specially in pre-Islamic times (which is what this article is about). --108.18.145.11 (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I changed him being from a Persian family to being from an Iranian family. According to Ardavan I, the emperor of the Parthian Empire, Ardashir was from a Kurdish family. In Kar-Namag i Ardashir i Pabagan, Ardavan I writes to Ardashir:

You've bitten off more than you can chew and you have brought death to yourself. O son of a Kurd, raised in the tents of the Kurds, who gave you permission to put a crown on your head? (Source: J. Limbert (1968). The Origins and Appearance of the Kurds in Pre-Islamic Iran. Iranian Studies, 1.2: pp. 41-51).

It is, therefore, inaccurate to portray him as being Persian, when the Emperor of the Parthian Empire referred to him as being a song of a Kurd, raised in the tents of the Kurds.

Whether Kurd 2000 years ago had the same meaning as Kurd today is irrelevant. It is an established fact that Kurds are an heterogenous nation (meaning: combination of various Iranian nations who inhabited the Iranian plateau). The fact is, he was known as a Kurd when he lived, and it is, therefore, historically inaccurate to portray him as having been a Persian simply because you think/believe the meaning of Kurd has changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.82.163.173 (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

People accept that the Persians 2500 years ago were the same as the Persians today. Why is that? Persians, just like Kurds, are also a result of various Iranian tribes in Fars Region uniting, and they become known as Persians.

It is, to be honest, quite pathetic that Persians, Turks and Arabs try to discredit Kurds by claiming that the Kurds of today have nothing to do with Kurds of 5000 years ago. Since 5000 years, people living in the region that is today known as Kurdistan, have been referred to as being Kurds (or ancient variations of the same name, for example Karda and Kardu). I suppose is part of the Turkish-Arab-Persian effort to destroy the Kurdish history and heritage. If Kurdistan was an independent country, this falsfication of history by Persian, Turkish and Arab nationalsit would not have happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.82.163.173 (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

See History_of_the_Kurds#Name, and for the Karnamag, look at Kurds#Name, Kurd simply means "nomad" in ancient writings and it does not refer to the ethnic group, and beside that, you should provide a reliable reference for your edits. -- Kouhi (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Source: Ardavan's (Parthian king) writing in the book Kar-Namag i Ardashir i Pabagan.

Source 2: The Rise of the Sassian Dynasty: House of Sassan screenshot: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZW9JZsWYAA8vv8.png.

Attested that Ardashir was born a Kurd in the Shaban tribe. Shaban tribe exists today, and identify as Kurds, and are from Kermanshah in Iranian Kurdistan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabankara).

I don't get where you get him being Persian from. The only actual sources from that time refer to him as being a Kurd, not a Persian. It is completely irrelevant whether Kurd was a general term or not. The fact is, he was known as a Kurd and people of that time identified him as such (a Kurd). They did not identify him as a Persian. So I fail to see your logic to identify him as Persian instead. 83.82.163.173 (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.82.163.173 (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Shabankara weren't ethnic Kurds, but rather they were nomads of Northern Iranian descent. The sources you've mentioned state nothing about Ardashir being an ethnic Kurd; instead, the first book uses "Kurd" in the classical sense and the second book only vaguely mentions the Shaban tribe (no mention of Kurds). Armanqur (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

This article has lots of irrelevant and rather weirdly worded information. Also, the citations aren't cited properly (no pages or links), I can't even find most of the sources. Furthermore, lots of the information in the article is not about Ardashir, but history of the events leading up to Ardashir. I plan to fix all this in the nearest future - do note that article will most likely be a lot shorter, since lots of irrelevant/badly cited stuff is gonna get removed/replaced. --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Many people say that the word Kurd in the letter from Artabanus means nomad, but in the book Karnamag-i ardeşiri babekan. Do you think the Kurdish Med king is called the nomadic Med king Is something possible? The claim of kwrt nomads in Persian is not just nonsense, I would like to inform you that Kurdish is an older and rooted language than Persian. 78.162.144.42 (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply