By: Dr. Adnan Bozan

Introduction:
Since the earliest times, the question of the Kurds and their state has remained a recurring theme in historical and political debates, and indeed one of the most persistent questions surrounding the indigenous peoples of the Near East. Many wonder: Did the Kurds ever have a state that bore the name “Kurdistan” in this exact form and wording? And can we, in light of historical, archaeological, and anthropological evidence, speak of an ancient Kurdish political entity that took shape in the geography of Upper Mesopotamia, Anatolia, the Zagros, and Greater Iran? Or is the matter nothing more than the label of a “people without a state,” as some prefer to describe it?

The answer to this complex dilemma does not lie in terminology or wording alone, but in the historical and geographical essence. Human history has never known permanent names for states and political entities; names changed with the rise and fall of kings, dynasties, and ruling families. The Saudi Arabia we know today did not bear this name a century ago, but was known as the Hijaz or the Arabian Peninsula. Iraq only came to be known by its modern name in the Islamic era; its lands were once called Sumer, Akkad, Babylon, Assyria, and Mesopotamia. The same applies to Kuwait, Qatar, Syria, Turkey, and Iran. And yet, no one denies the historical existence of the Arab, Persian, or Turkish peoples in their ancestral lands. So why is it that only the Kurds are to be deprived of this natural right, on the pretext that the name “Kurdistan” was not inscribed on ancient maps in the way it is today?

The Kurds are not an intruding people upon geography, but rather one of the indigenous peoples who have contributed to shaping the history of the region since the dawn of civilization. For thousands of years, Mesopotamia, Northern Mesopotamia, and Eastern Anatolia were home to peoples connected to the modern Kurds, such as the Subarians, Lullubians, Kassites, Hurrians, Mitanni, and Medes. These peoples established empires and kingdoms that played a significant role in forming the political, cultural, and civilizational landscape of the ancient Near East. In the writings of Greek and Roman historians, names such as the Carduchi, the Kardueni, and the Kardo appear repeatedly—all referring to Kurdish peoples who inhabited the mountains and plains between the Tigris and Euphrates.

Although the term “Kurdistan” as a geographic and political designation was first documented during the reign of the Seljuk Sultan Sanjar in the twelfth century CE, this does not mean that the Kurds had no emirates, states, or entities before then. The name “Kurdistan” continued to be used in Ottoman and Safavid sources up to the early twentieth century, denoting a vast land inhabited by the Kurds—territory now divided among Iraq, Turkey, Syria, and Iran. Moreover, European maps from the sixteenth century onwards, drawn by Italian and French travelers and geographers, depicted Kurdistan as a distinct region, even if not a unified state in the modern sense.

Throughout the Islamic ages, the Kurds succeeded in establishing dozens of emirates and principalities that enjoyed internal autonomy and wide political authority. From the Ardalan Emirate to Soran, Botan, Baban, Hakkari, Bahdinan, and Bitlis, as well as smaller entities such as Shabankara and Muhammadiya, these Kurdish polities resembled miniature states with their own armies, systems, and laws. They were ruled by Kurdish princes who formally acknowledged the authority of great powers such as the Ottomans or Safavids, but who maintained actual independence in managing their internal affairs. The most prominent of all Kurdish entities was the Ayyubid dynasty, led by Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi (Saladin), which extended from Egypt to the Levant and the Hijaz, reshaping the political map of the Islamic world.

Thus, the issue is not one of names but of existence. If there was no entity in the past called “Kurdistan” by that exact word, that does not negate the existence of Kurdish states, emirates, and kingdoms under other names. If the term “Kurdistan” only appeared in the twelfth century, this does not mean the Kurds did not live on their land before then—just as the name “Iraq” only appeared in the Islamic era, yet no one doubts the antiquity of its land and civilization.

Kurdistan, with its towering mountains, fertile plains, and flowing rivers, was never just neutral geography, but a civilizational crucible that formed the stage of a long and complex history. From the Sumerian tablets that referred to political entities in Mount Sinjar, through the Median kingdom that overthrew the Assyrian Empire, to the Kurdish emirates of the Islamic ages, the Kurds have always existed as an indigenous people writing their history under different names—yet remaining the same people, preserving their language, culture, and customs despite the vicissitudes of time and the pressures of great empires.

Therefore, the real question is not: “Did the Kurds have a state called Kurdistan?” but rather: How did the Kurds, despite political fragmentation, manage to preserve their existence over thousands of years, remaining a living people who today demand their right to a state that expresses their identity on their historical land? Kurdistan, at its core, is not merely a geographical label or a temporary political demand, but the expression of a long historical accumulation of a people who lived on their land, contributed to building the region’s civilization, and whose states and emirates bore many names and fell under many powers. To view Kurdistan in the mirror of history is to see that the Kurdish question is not a product of modern times, but the natural extension of a nation’s journey—one that has preserved its existence and now awaits what other peoples of the region have already attained: the transformation of their historical geography into a modern state that bears their name and identity.

First: The Kurds in Ancient Times

The Kurds are among the oldest peoples to have settled in the Fertile Crescent, particularly in Northern Mesopotamia, the Zagros highlands, and Eastern Anatolia. Cuneiform and archaeological sources, dating back to the third millennium BCE, attest to the presence of peoples and communities that scholars widely agree are connected to the modern Kurds, whether in terms of geography, cultural traits, or historical continuity.

The region was home to a number of entities and peoples whose names appear in ancient texts:

1. The Subarians (Subarians):
The Subarians emerged in Northern Mesopotamia during the third millennium BCE. They were a mountain people whose homeland extended across what is today Northern Iraq and Southeastern Turkey. Sumerian and Akkadian texts mention them as a significant military and cultural force, constantly in contact—and often in conflict—with the Sumerians and Assyrians. Some historians argue that the Subarians laid the first foundations of the Kurdish mountain identity, characterized by settlement in highlands, reliance on agriculture and herding, and a strong tendency for independence from the great empires of the lowlands.

2. The Lullubi (Lullubi):
The Lullubi inhabited the eastern Zagros mountains and left their mark in Akkadian royal inscriptions. The most famous of these is the Victory Stele of the Akkadian king Naram-Sin (ca. 2250 BCE), which depicts his triumph over the Lullubi. Although Akkadian texts portrayed them as rebellious enemies, their deep-rooted presence in the mountains makes them one of the most prominent Kurdish ancestors. Fierce warriors, they launched raids on the plains and defended their independence with tenacity—reflecting the tribal-political structures that later continued in Kurdish society.

3. The Kassites (Kassites):
In the second millennium BCE, the Kassites emerged in the Zagros mountains before descending into Mesopotamia to seize power in Babylon after the fall of the Hittite state. The Kassites ruled Babylon for over four centuries (ca. 1595–1155 BCE), the longest period of political stability the city ever experienced. This achievement demonstrates their ability to transition from a mountain life to ruling great urban centers, reflecting political and organizational adaptability. Many scholars regard the Kassites as a fundamental component in the historical formation of Kurdish identity.

4. The Hurrians (Hurrians):
The Hurrians played a pivotal role in Northern Mesopotamia, founding advanced kingdoms stretching from the Khabur River in Syria to Lake Van in Turkey. They flourished in the second millennium BCE and later participated in establishing the Mitanni kingdom. Their cultural influence was immense, contributing to the transmission of musical, religious, and legal traditions in the region. Some historians link their heritage to later Kurdish culture.

5. The Mitanni (Mitanni):
The Mitanni were among the most prominent Kurdish-Hurrian polities to appear in Northern Mesopotamia and the Levant during the fifteenth century BCE. They founded a powerful kingdom with its capital at Washukanni (near present-day Ras al-Ayn), extending their influence as far as Aleppo and inland Syria. The Mitanni engaged in prolonged struggles with the Hittites, Assyrians, and Egyptians, making them a decisive factor in the politics of the ancient Near East. They became renowned for their advanced military system, particularly their mastery of horses and chariot warfare—a legacy that remained significant in later Kurdish traditions.

6. The Medes (Medes):
The Medes represent the first great apex of Kurdish history, establishing a vast empire in the seventh century BCE that stretched from the Iranian plateau to Assyria and Anatolia. Allied with the Babylonians, they overthrew the Assyrian Empire in 612 BCE, marking a major turning point in regional history. Historians regard the Medes as the clearest example of an ancient Kurdish polity, for they built a centralized state with institutions and monarchy, and were capable of imposing broad regional authority.

Historical Names Associated with the Kurds

In addition to these peoples, Greek and Roman historians mention names such as Carduchoi, Kardo, and Kardueni. The Greek historian Xenophon (401 BCE), in his Anabasis, referred to the “Carduchians,” who confronted the Greek mercenary army during its retreat from Babylon through the Zagros mountains. He described them as fierce fighters inhabiting rugged terrain, launching sudden attacks on their enemies. This description matches the image later attributed to the Kurds: a mountain people, warriors, and resistant to subjugation.

The Significance of These Evidences

The succession of these names—Subarians, Lullubi, Kassites, Hurrians, Mitanni, Medes, and Carduchians—is not a mere incidental mention in ancient texts, but rather a continuous chain of peoples inhabiting the same geographical area known today as Kurdistan. This geographic and cultural continuity indicates that the modern Kurds are the natural extension of these ancient peoples, and that Kurdistan has never been an empty land but the homeland of an ancient people who contributed to the civilization of Mesopotamia and the Near East.

Second: Kurdish Geography – Kurdistan

To speak of Kurdistan is not merely to recall a geographical term that emerged in the Middle Ages or appeared in the administrative records of the great Islamic empires; it is, at its core, an affirmation of a deep historical continuity linked since the dawn of civilizations to the presence of the Kurds as an indigenous people, rooted in the heart of the Near East. This land, later known as Kurdistan, was never an empty space awaiting an identity to be assigned to it, but a continuous homeland for peoples who bore the features and traits of the Kurds, and who contributed to shaping the political and cultural history of Mesopotamia, Anatolia, and the Iranian plateau.

The name that became widespread in the Islamic Middle Ages—when the Seljuk Sultan Sanjar in the 12th century designated an entire province as Kurdistan—was the natural culmination of a continuous legacy of Kurdish settlement in these mountains and plains. Geography here is not just terrain, but a vessel of identity and a stage for the interaction of Kurdish tribes and communities, who, across many centuries, managed to preserve their presence despite the challenges posed by successive empires. The uniqueness of this geography lies in its position as a link between three of the greatest civilizational centers of the ancient world: Mesopotamia, Anatolia, and Greater Iran. This made it, throughout history, a contested zone among major powers and a source of recurrent conflicts, while at the same time remaining a land with a distinctive cultural character that reflected the authenticity of its inhabitants.

References to Kurdistan in the works of Muslim geographers such as al-Muqaddasi, al-Istakhri, and Yaqut al-Hamawi make it clear that the name was not the product of a fleeting political moment, but a description of a real socio-geographical reality. These geographers precisely identified the Kurdish mountains and regions, distinguishing them from Iraq or Persia, and recognizing them as the homeland of a people with distinctive characteristics. This scholarly-geographical acknowledgment confirms that the Kurds were viewed in Islamic historical consciousness as a distinct community, tied to a defined land and a solid identity.

Thus, Kurdistan is not merely the drawing of borders on a map or an administrative term that appeared in documents, but the natural extension of a people whose existence has been tied to a specific geography for thousands of years. The land of the Zagros and Taurus mountains, its rivers, springs, and fertile valleys, was not simply the backdrop of Kurdish life, but one of the most important elements in shaping their identity, and a cornerstone of their resilience in the face of attempts at erasure and assimilation. To speak of Kurdistan in its historical and geographical dimensions is, in truth, to speak of the continuity of a people who succeeded in making their land a mirror of their identity, their geography a fortress of memory, and their name a title that transcends centuries to remain alive to this day.

The First Appearance of the Term “Kurdistan”
Historians agree that the first official use of the term Kurdistan dates back to the reign of the Seljuk Sultan Sanjar in the 12th century CE (around 1150), when he designated a province with this name as an administrative unit within his state. This was not a random choice, but rather an implicit recognition by the political authority of the time that this region possessed a national and geographical distinctiveness connected to the Kurds. Since then, the term has appeared repeatedly in historical chronicles and official documents, both under the Seljuks and in subsequent eras.

The Continuity of the Term Across the Ages
During the Ottoman–Safavid period, the name Kurdistan continued to be used to describe the mountainous regions inhabited by Kurds. Ottoman records referred to the Eyalet of Kurdistan as an administrative unit, while Safavid documents mentioned the lands of the Kurds or provinces of the Kurds. The name persisted in manuscripts and maps until the early 20th century, before the division of the region among modern nation-states. This demonstrates that Kurdistan is not a modern ideological construct, but a political-geographical reality recognized for centuries.

Kurdistan in Islamic Geography
Muslim geographers and historians did not overlook the distinctiveness of Kurdish geography. Al-Muqaddasi, in Ahsan al-Taqasim, referred to the mountainous regions inhabited by Kurds, regarding them as areas with unique social and urban features. Al-Istakhri, in al-Masalik wa al-Mamalik, described the Zagros and surrounding mountains as the homeland of the Kurds, distinct from Iraq and Persia. Yaqut al-Hamawi, in his Mu‘jam al-Buldan, repeatedly mentioned the lands of the Kurds and their mountains, affirming their presence as a recognized group within the geography of the Islamic East. These testimonies reinforce the idea that Kurdistan was never an unknown or identity-less land, but one well-known and accurately described in Islamic geographical tradition.

Geographical Extent
Geographically, Kurdistan spans a vast area cut across by the Zagros and Taurus mountain ranges, forming a kind of mountain crescent encircling Northern Mesopotamia. Today, this expanse includes:

• Southeastern Turkey: Van, Diyarbakir, Erzurum.

• Northern Iraq: from Kirkuk, Erbil, and Sulaymaniyah to Duhok and Mosul.

• Western Iran: from Kermanshah, Sanandaj, and Mahabad to Urmia.

• Northeastern Syria: the Jazira region—Kobani, Qamishli, Ras al-Ayn, Derik, and Afrin.

This expanse was never defined by modern borders, but was a continuous human-cultural space, where towns and villages shared related languages, dialects, and customs—forming a coherent fabric that distinguished the land of the Kurds from others.

Natural Features and Their Role in Identity Formation
The rugged mountainous nature of Kurdistan was not merely a geographical backdrop, but a decisive factor in shaping Kurdish identity. The mountains provided a natural fortress that allowed the Kurds to preserve their autonomy against great powers such as the Assyrians, Persians, and Ottomans. Meanwhile, the abundance of water sources and small rivers—such as the Greater Zab, the Lesser Zab, and the Sirwan—made the region agriculturally rich, providing the basis for Kurdish settlement for thousands of years.

Kurdistan Between Continuity and Division
Although Kurdistan has always been a geographically and demographically coherent region, the great regional powers never allowed the formation of a unified Kurdish state. Instead, they divided the land among various provinces, eyalets, and principalities. With the rise of modern nation-states in the Middle East in the 20th century, Kurdistan was definitively partitioned among four countries (Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria) through international agreements such as Sykes–Picot (1916) and the Treaty of Sèvres (1920), which theoretically recognized the Kurds’ right to self-determination, only to be annulled by the Treaty of Lausanne (1923).

Conclusion
Kurdistan, therefore, is not a modern term born of political motives, but a profound historical-geographical reality recorded in Islamic chronicles, as well as in Ottoman and Safavid documents, grounded in a stable human and physical reality spanning millennia. This land was never uninhabited; it was the natural homeland of the Kurds, who, across centuries, established successive kingdoms and principalities that preserved the distinctiveness of land and people despite political attempts at fragmentation or assimilation.

Accordingly, Kurdistan is not a product of modern imagination nor an invention imposed on the maps of the 20th century, but the outcome of a long historical accumulation that reflects the organic bond between the Kurds and their land. The changing names across eras—from Subarians, Kassites, Mitanni, and Medes to Kurdistan—did not erase the reality of continuity; rather, they confirmed that peoples and identities may change names under political circumstances, but inhabited geography and collective memory endure. Kurdistan thus represents, at its core, the story of a people who knew how to safeguard their existence amid the storms of history, turning their mountains into fortresses, their land into identity, and their name into a civilizational legacy transcending time.

Third: Kurdish Emirates and States in the Islamic Era

The entry of Kurdistan into the Islamic era following the Arab conquest of Mesopotamia, Persia, and the Levant in the 7th century CE was not merely an administrative transition or a new political subordination. Rather, it was a historical turning point that reshaped the position of the Kurds and their role in the regional map. From the very outset of their involvement in Islamic affairs, the Kurds emerged as an important human and military force. Many of them participated in the great conquests and contributed to consolidating the foundations of the nascent Islamic state, whether in the armies or in administration. Yet, more important than their military participation was their preservation of their geographical and social distinctiveness. Their mountains and lands remained a natural fortress that allowed them to maintain relative autonomy, even under the rule of major central states such as the Umayyads and the Abbasids.

Kurdistan’s unique geographical position—stretching between Baghdad and Damascus on one side, and the Iranian plateau, Anatolia, and the Caucasus on the other—made this land a point of contact and conflict between the great powers of the Islamic world. Situated at the heart of commercial and military routes, it served as a vital link between the Arab East, Anatolia, and the Caucasus, granting the Kurds a central role that could not be overlooked. This strategic location often made them the target of invasions and pressures from regional powers, but it also gave them the opportunity to build local emirates and states. These were able to balance nominal allegiance to the caliphate or other great powers with internal independence and political sovereignty.

As the medieval Islamic centuries unfolded, Kurdish emirates and states emerged as tangible examples of Kurdish agency in regional politics. They founded principalities that enjoyed wide-ranging powers—from tax collection and judicial authority to minting coins and raising local armies—powers that in essence paralleled those of modern federal systems. In other cases, the Kurds succeeded in establishing major states that extended beyond Kurdistan, such as the Marwanid, Shaddadid, and Hasanwayhid dynasties, culminating in the Ayyubid state founded by Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn (Saladin), which became one of the greatest Islamic powers of the Middle Ages.

Tracing the trajectory of these emirates and states makes it clear that the Kurds were not merely auxiliary military elements within the caliphal armies, nor merely guardians of frontiers. They were political actors in their own right, repeatedly attempting to consolidate Kurdish statehood within the broader Islamic world, according to the circumstances of each era. These Kurdish polities formed a fundamental pillar of medieval Islamic history, demonstrating how the Kurds succeeded in combining the preservation of their own identity with active participation in the major events of the Islamic ummah.

1. Local Kurdish Emirates

From the 8th century CE onwards, Kurdish tribes established local emirates that maintained autonomous authority while professing nominal allegiance to the Abbasid Caliphate or other dominant powers. Among the most prominent were:

• The Ardalan Emirate: One of the oldest and most enduring Kurdish emirates, founded in the 14th century in eastern Kurdistan (modern-day Iran) and lasting until the 19th century. It was distinguished by its ability to manage its internal affairs and to maintain balanced relations with both the Safavids and the Ottomans, securing a significant place in Kurdish history.

• The Soran Emirate: Established in Rawanduz in northern Iraq during the 18th–19th centuries, reaching its peak under Prince Muhammad Kor (Muhammad Pasha of Rawanduz), who attempted to unify the Kurdish emirates under his banner and resisted both Ottoman and Persian power. Soran embodied an ambitious Kurdish political project for unity before the modern era.

• The Botan Emirate: Renowned for its pioneering role in the Kurdish cultural renaissance of the 19th century, particularly under Prince Bedir Khan Beg (1802–1868), who led a major Kurdish uprising against the Ottomans. Botan became a center of Kurdish literature and journalism, publishing the first Kurdish newspaper Kurdistan in Cairo in 1898 with Bedir Khan’s support.

• The Baban Emirate: Based in Sulaymaniyah, it was one of the most influential Kurdish emirates of the 17th–18th centuries. It founded Sulaymaniyah as a cultural and political center, a city that remains significant to this day.

• The Emirates of Bitlis, Hakkari, and Bahdinan: These controlled strategic areas of Kurdistan and managed to maintain a delicate balance between Ottoman and Safavid authority. Their rulers often enjoyed broad powers comparable to those of modern federated states.

In addition to these, many other Kurdish principalities emerged—such as Shwankara, the Hadhbani, the Mahmudi, and the Sadiqi dynasties—stretching across the Zagros mountains, eastern Anatolia, and northern Iraq.

2. Major Kurdish States

Beyond local emirates, the Islamic era also witnessed the rise of major Kurdish states with significant regional influence:

• The Marwanid Dynasty (990–1085 CE): Established in Diyarbakır and the Jazira region, it controlled a strategic zone between the Abbasid Caliphate and the Byzantine Empire. The Marwanids represented one of the earliest Kurdish experiments in building a fully institutionalized state.

• The Hasanwayhid Dynasty (959–1015 CE): Founded by Hasanwayh ibn Husayn al-Kurdi in the Zagros mountains, it extended over wide areas of western Iran and eastern Iraq, playing a key role in balancing the Abbasids and the Buyids.

• The Shaddadid Dynasty (951–1199 CE): Based in the Caucasus and Armenia, the Kurdish Shaddadid rulers managed vast territories stretching from Arran to Tabriz. They held their ground against Byzantines and Seljuks, making them a formidable force in the medieval Caucasus.

• The Ayyubid Dynasty (1171–1250 CE): Founded by the Kurdish leader Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-Ayyūbī (Saladin) after he ended Fatimid rule in Egypt, creating one of the greatest Islamic states of the Middle Ages. The Ayyubid empire extended from Egypt to Syria, the Hijaz, Yemen, and northern Iraq. Saladin’s victory at the Battle of Ḥaṭṭīn in 1187 and his recapture of Jerusalem remain among the most celebrated moments in Islamic history. The Ayyubid state embodied the zenith of Kurdish presence in Islamic history, transforming into a great power that shaped the course of the Crusades.

3. General Characteristics of Kurdish Emirates and States

Kurdish emirates and states in the Islamic era exhibited a number of defining features:

• Political and administrative autonomy: Most emirates exercised wide internal authority, including minting coins, administering justice, and collecting taxes.

• Strategic location: The Kurdish mountains served as a natural barrier between rival empires, giving Kurdish rulers the role of mediators or regional players.

• Preservation of identity: Despite Ottoman, Safavid, and Arab pressures, Kurdish emirates preserved the Kurdish language and culture, and even fostered Kurdish literature and poetry.

• Balance of loyalty and rebellion: While Kurdish emirates maintained nominal allegiance to major powers (caliphate, Ottomans, Safavids), they often rebelled to safeguard their autonomy.

In conclusion, these emirates and states demonstrate that the Kurds in the Islamic Middle Ages were not a marginal people or merely auxiliary soldiers in others’ armies. They were political actors with recurring projects aimed at consolidating Kurdish statehood in accordance with the dynamics of each era. Thus, the discourse on Kurdistan as a land, identity, and polity is not a modern projection, but rather a natural extension of continuous historical experiences from the Islamic conquests up to the dawn of the modern age.

Fourth: The Question of Naming and the Modern State

The ongoing debate about the existence or non-existence of a "Kurdish state" in history often revolves around naming—namely: did there exist a state literally and contemporarily called "Kurdistan"? This very question reflects a methodological shortcoming in reading history, as it overlooks a fundamental fact: most states in the region—and indeed the world—did not exist under their current names, but rather bore different names across the ages, shifting according to ruling dynasties or political and administrative circumstances.

A name in history is nothing more than a circumstantial reflection of political power or a ruling dynasty, whereas geography and peoples are what represent deep continuity. Therefore, the absence of a state in history explicitly called "Kurdistan" does not, by any means, imply that the Kurds never established states or political entities, nor does it negate their right to establish a modern state named "Kurdistan" on their historical homeland.

• Saudi Arabia as a Model:
  The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia did not exist under this name before the twentieth century. Historically, the region was known by several names, such as the Hijaz, the Arabian Peninsula, and Arabistan (as the Ottomans referred to it in some documents). The name "Saudi Arabia" appeared only when the Al Saud family unified Najd, Hijaz, and Al-Ahsa into a modern state that carried their name. Does this mean that the Arabs had no land or identity before the emergence of the name Saudi Arabia? Certainly not. The name was simply the result of a new political circumstance, without anyone denying the Arabs’ historical continuity on that land.

• Iraq:
  The same applies to Iraq. The name "Iraq" was not in use in ancient times. Instead, the region was known by names such as Sumer, Akkad, Babylon, Assyria, and Mesopotamia. Over time, as ruling powers shifted, other names appeared, such as "the Land of the Black Soil" during the Abbasid era. Nevertheless, no one denies that the geography remained the same and that the peoples who succeeded one another belonged to the same territory that later came to be called Iraq.

• Kuwait:
  Kuwait, too, was known in history by different names such as Kazima and then Al-Qurain, before its modern name settled as "Kuwait." Despite this change in naming, no one questions the Kuwaitis’ right to have their modern state under their current name.

• Qatar:
  The same is true for Qatar. Ancient Greek sources referred to it as "Catara" or "Katara," and its names varied over time until it stabilized as "Qatar." Does the absence of the name "Qatar" in ancient inscriptions mean that the people who lived on that land did not exist? Certainly not.

The Lesson Learned:
These examples—Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, and Qatar—are living evidence that names change, but geography and peoples remain. Thus, the absence of the name "Kurdistan" in ancient times by no means implies the absence of Kurds from history. In fact, the Kurds established emirates, states, and empires that bore different names: the Medes, Kassites, Hurrians, Mitanni, the Marwanid state, the Hasanwayhids, the Shaddadids, the Ayyubid dynasty, and others. All of these entities were Kurdish in essence, even if they did not literally bear the name "Kurdistan."

The term "Kurdistan" was first officially used during the reign of the Seljuk Sultan Sanjar in the 12th century, when he designated a province by that name. Later, the term became widespread in Ottoman and Safavid documents and remained in use until the early twentieth century. This shows that the name itself has a long history, even if it was not used from the dawn of time.

Towards the Modern State:
From this, we understand that the issue of naming cannot serve as a pretext to deny the Kurds’ right to statehood. The political history of the world demonstrates that nations often reproduce their names and political identities at different stages. If the Arabs could establish a modern state called Saudi Arabia, if Iraqis could form a state named Iraq, and if Kuwaitis and Qataris could establish states under their current names, then it is all the more justified for the Kurds—who have lived on their historical land for thousands of years and founded dozens of emirates and states—to have the right to establish their modern state under the name "Kurdistan."

Therefore, the issue of naming is nothing more than a fragile veil concealing a solid truth: the Kurds are an ancient people, deeply rooted in a clear geography, and the heirs of a political history rich with states and emirates. The establishment of a modern state named "Kurdistan" is not a historical novelty, but rather a natural continuation of a long civilizational process.

Accordingly, the essence of the matter lies not in naming, but in historical identity and enduring geography. Like the Arabs, Persians, or Turks, the Kurds did not need to call their state "Kurdistan" in ancient times to prove their political existence. The Ayyubid dynasty was not called "Kurdistan," yet it was Kurdish, as were the Marwanids, Hasanwayhids, and others. What history proves is that the Kurds remained present as a political and social force through the centuries, and that the emergence of the name "Kurdistan" in the medieval era was only the culmination of a long legacy—affirming their natural right today to have a modern entity bearing this name, expressing the continuity of their history.

Fifth: The Kurdish Presence as an Indigenous People

The debate over the authenticity of the Kurds is not new; it has been tied for centuries to historical and political controversies in which certain powers attempted to erase the identity of this people or deny their roots. Yet historical documents and archaeological sources clearly reveal that the Kurds are not newcomers to the region but rather among the most ancient peoples of the Near East, who have lived on their land for thousands of years.

Cuneiform studies conducted by several Western scholars—including the renowned French Assyriologist Jean-Marie Durand—have shown that tablets dating back to the Sumerian period mentioned Kurda as a recognized political entity in the regions of Sinjar and Upper Kurdistan, that is, in the very heart of today’s Kurdish geography. This discovery places the Kurds among the oldest peoples with a documented political existence in the history of Mesopotamia.

Likewise, ancient Assyrian and Babylonian texts refer to peoples inhabiting the Zagros Mountains under various names, such as the Lullubi, Subarians, and Kassites. Contemporary researchers broadly agree on their ethnic and cultural connection with today’s Kurds. These groups were not mere peripheral tribes, but founders of kingdoms and empires whose authority lasted for centuries—such as the Kassites, who ruled Babylon for nearly four centuries, and the Mitanni, who established one of the most prominent kingdoms in northern Mesopotamia and the Levant.

The Medes then appear in the seventh century BCE, marking a decisive stage in Kurdish history. The Medes founded the first great empire on the Iranian plateau—originating from the mountains of Kurdistan—and succeeded in overthrowing the Assyrian Empire, the superpower of its time. This historic moment can only be read as proof of the Kurds’ firmly established role as a significant political and ethnic force since antiquity.

What is striking is that Greek and Roman historians, such as Xenophon, explicitly mentioned peoples known as the Carduchi who inhabited the mountains between the Tigris and Zagros. They described them as fierce fighters whom empires could not easily subjugate. This description aligns closely with what later history preserved about the Kurds: a mountain people, warrior-like, freedom-loving, and resistant to domination.

This historical accumulation proves that the Kurds are neither a modern migrant community nor a recently formed minority. Rather, they are an indigenous people of Mesopotamia and the ancient Near East. Their identity was forged over millennia through interaction with their geographical environment—mountains, plains, and rivers—and with neighboring peoples such as the Sumerians, Akkadians, Assyrians, Persians, and Arabs. Despite the transformations the region has undergone, the Kurds preserved their linguistic, cultural, and social distinctiveness, making their presence today a natural continuation of deeply rooted origins.

Thus, speaking of the Kurds as an indigenous people is not merely a modern nationalist claim, but a documented historical and scientific fact, confirmed by cuneiform records, classical historians, medieval Islamic sources, and modern anthropological and archaeological studies. This gives them full legitimacy to regard themselves as among the earliest inhabitants of the region—alongside the Sumerians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Persians, and Arabs.

Conclusion
History, as modern academic studies agree, cannot be measured by names alone, nor reduced to the terminology imposed by ruling authorities throughout the ages. Rather, it must be measured by the actual presence of peoples and their entities, and by the civilizational and political imprints they left on the stage of events. From this perspective, it becomes clear that the Kurds are not a marginal or accidental group on the Near Eastern stage, but an indigenous people deeply rooted in the geography of Upper Mesopotamia, the Zagros, and eastern Anatolia—actively shaping the history of the region for thousands of years.

The land known today as "Kurdistan" witnessed the rise of successive states and principalities: from the Subarians, Lullubi, Kassites, and Mitanni in the cuneiform ages, to the Medes—whose empire many historians consider the first distinctly Kurdish political entity—through to the Kurdish Islamic dynasties such as the Marwanids, Hasanwayhids, Shaddadids, and Ayyubids, and finally to the Kurdish emirates that persisted until the nineteenth century.

The changing political names of states and empires in the region—from Sumer, Babylon, and Assyria to Persia, Byzantium, and the Abbasid Caliphate, and eventually to modern Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Syria—never erased the Kurds’ presence on their land. Just as the Arabs did not have a “united Arab state” before the twentieth century, yet are considered an indigenous people with the right to self-determination, so too the Kurds did not need to name their state “Kurdistan” in every historical era to prove their authenticity and political existence. Names shift with ages and rulers, but enduring geography and continuous identity form the true measure of historical presence.

Today, when the Kurds raise their demand for a contemporary Kurdish state called "Kurdistan," they are not inventing a political project from nothing, nor claiming a construct unknown to history. They are reclaiming a natural right as an indigenous people who contributed to the region’s civilization and paid the price of freedom through centuries of struggle and resistance. The demand for a Kurdish state is a logical extension of history, parallel to what other peoples of the region did in building their modern nation-states after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the rise of nationalism and the principle of self-determination.

History has taught us that denial does not erase facts. Attempts to obliterate Kurdish identity never prevented them from preserving their language, culture, and collective consciousness. Today, they stand—like other peoples of the East—before a historic entitlement: to transform their enduring geography, long known as Kurdistan, into a modern state that translates their historical presence into recognized political sovereignty. Thus, the Kurdish question is not merely a contemporary political dispute, but the continuation of a long trajectory of a people who endured through time and still seek to secure their rightful place among the nations of the world.

ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

• Bois, Th. (1966). The Kurds. Beirut: Khayats.
• Bruinessen, M. van (1992). Agha, Shaikh and State: The Social and Political Structures of Kurdistan. London: Zed Books.
• Gunter, M. (2011). The Kurds: A Modern History. Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers.
• Izady, M. R. (1992). The Kurds: A Concise Handbook. Washington D.C.: Taylor & Francis.
• McDowall, D. (2004). A Modern History of the Kurds (3rd ed.). London: I.B. Tauris.
• Minorsky, V. (1943). “The Kurds,” Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. 2. Leiden: Brill.
• O’Shea, M. T. (2004). Trapped Between the Map and Reality: Geography and Perceptions of Kurdistan. New York: Routledge.
• Olson, R. (1989). The Emergence of Kurdish Nationalism and the Sheikh Said Rebellion, 1880–1925. Austin: University of Texas Press.
• van Bruinessen, M. (1997). Kurdish Ethno-Nationalism versus Nation-Building States. Istanbul: Isis Press.
• Yildiz, K. (2004). The Kurds in Iraq: The Past, Present and Future. London: Pluto Press.
• Natali, D. (2005). The Kurds and the State: Evolving National Identity in Iraq, Turkey, and Iran. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
• Edmonds, C. J. (1957). Kurdish Nationalism. Journal of the Royal Central Asian Society, 44(1).
• Hassanpour, A. (1992). Nationalism and Language in Kurdistan, 1918–1985. San Francisco: Mellen Research University Press.
• Izady, M. R. (1997). Ethnic Groups of Kurdistan. Washington D.C.: Columbia University.
• Jwaideh, W. (2006). The Kurdish National Movement: Its Origins and Development. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.