Origin of Indo-European element in Armenian

[jgk3]

Who knows anything about this? I want to start a discussion about it, that is, if anyone is willing to contribute.

[skhara]

This theory was posed by linguisists Gamkrelidze and Ivanov.

There is a bunch of information about it on this website:

http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/6507/chronicle120.html

Also. I have read some commentary by a couple of Iranians who say that their ancient texts point to migration of their people from the mountains of South Caucasia.

I think the movement of the Sarmatians should also be looked at.

[karoaper]

This theory was posed by linguisists Gamkrelidze and Ivanov.

There is a bunch of information about it on this website:

http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/6507/chronicle120.html

Also. I have read some commentary by a couple of Iranians who say that their ancient texts point to migration of their people from the mountains of South Caucasia.

I think the movement of the Sarmatians should also be looked at.

nice site, the tree of Indo-European languages is impressive.

As far as the Indo-European connection, I heard that Armenoids had originally come down to Armenia from the north several millenia BC. And originally they were blue eyed and lighter skinned. This of course changed with time. I had a hard time believeing this, but it's interesting to note that Hayk is actually blue eyed and blond. I know he's a mythical hero, but still, it's like there was a memory in our ancestors' minds of being lighter.

[jgk3]

Unfortunately, the theory you support completely ignores the strong presence of Non-Indo-Europeans in Asia Minor and Southern Caucasus prior to 1200BC .The Urartuans and the Hurrians (both non-Indo-Europeans) were around in this region at the time, and their roots are very mysterious. Archaeological evidence suggests that the Southern Caucasus region was not populated before 6000BC, and linguistics show some ties in the Urarto-Hurrian group of languages (although relatively limited in retrievable scripture) with that of Sumerian and Elam, both non-Indo-European.

Although there were Hittites in the region too, their presence could not be dated back to before 3000BC in Anatolia, and their vocabulary CERTAINLY suggests that the natives which they assimilated had a great non-Indo-European impact on their language. The natives were known as the Hatti, and the Hittite newcomers were so influenced by them, they took up the same name. Yet, the Hittites maintained archaic Proto-Indo-European mechanisms that cannot be discovered in many other Indo-European languages, suggesting that they differentiated very early from the Proto-Indo-European homeland, perhaps by staying near the homeland altogether, which is suggested to be the lower Caucasus by those Soviet scholars. However, the similarities between the Greek-Armenian-Indo-Iranian group of Indo-European languages includes several developments in phonetics that occured after the differentiation of the Indo-Europeans who would later emerge as Western Europeans, Northern Europeans, "Tocharians", and Hittites. So it is hard to believe that the Hittites and Armenains were ALWAYS adjacent, considering the huge gaps between their languages in terms of phonetics and vocabulary. The same can be said for the Indo-European ancestors of the Greeks, as they would've had to pass directly through the Hittites to assume the lands they did.

On top of this, it is hard to believe that it took the Hittites 2000 years to migrate to such an adjacent territory, as linguistics suggest that the Proto-Indo-European homeland had not differentiated into the various migrating Indo-European tribes until roughly 5000BC.

I have more to say on various other topics that are very important to Armenian Indo-European identity, but I'll leave you to digest this load of info for the time being. Afterall, I want this to be a discussion, not a one sided documentation.

[jgk3]

nice site, the tree of Indo-European languages is impressive.

As far as the Indo-European connection, I heard that Armenoids had originally come down to Armenia from the north several millenia BC. And originally they were blue eyed and lighter skinned. This of course changed with time. I had a hard time believeing this, but it's interesting to note that Hayk is actually blue eyed and blond. I know he's a mythical hero, but still, it's like there was a memory in our ancestors' minds of being lighter.

I'll deal with this matter soon, but you're on the right track, acknowledging that we do have lighter coloured ancestors.

[skhara]

nice site, the tree of Indo-European languages is impressive.

As far as the Indo-European connection, I heard that Armenoids had originally come down to Armenia from the north several millenia BC. And originally they were blue eyed and lighter skinned. This of course changed with time. I had a hard time believeing this, but it's interesting to note that Hayk is actually blue eyed and blond. I know he's a mythical hero, but still, it's like there was a memory in our ancestors' minds of being lighter.

karoaper,

This may sound like a dumb question, but could you please define "Armenoid"?

Also, where did you see blond and blue eyed depictions of Hayk?

I did a quick image search, and here is what I found:

http://www.armenia.com.br/hayk.h1.jpg

[Armenian]

As far as the Indo-European connection, I heard that Armenoids had originally come down to Armenia from the north several millenia BC. And originally they were blue eyed and lighter skinned. This of course changed with time. I had a hard time believeing this, but it's interesting to note that Hayk is actually blue eyed and blond. I know he's a mythical hero, but still, it's like there was a memory in our ancestors' minds of being lighter.

First, the phenotype typically associated with *Armenoid* is Anatolian, not northern. In the ancient world, Hittites, Hurrians, Mittani and perhaps some elements of the Urartian peoples were Armenoid.

Second, the term Armenoid is a modern term created by one European anthropoliogist about a century ago. In a scientific anthropological sense, the Armenoid type does not exist. The type in question is seems to be merely a union of various sub-groups of the greater Caucasian (white) race.

Third, no one knows what color hair and eyes our primordial god and namesake Haik had. I don't know where you got that information form, but is a false. Also, there is no such thing as an Armenian race, we are a nation within the greater Caucasian/Whiterace. Our national phenotype is as diverse as the tribes that united a long time ago to form the Armenian nation.

I have heard some Armenians claim that we were all blonds... That's bullkaka. I have also heard some Armenians claim that we were all dark. That's total bullkaka as well. Simply put, we Armenians are a uniuon of perhaps over two dozen different tribes of the ancient world. Nations such as the Hays, Hittites, Hurrians, Mittani, Armens, Urartians, Phrygians and various other ancient races, all with physical variations, evolved into the Armenian nation as we know it today.

There is, however, a significant number of non-Armenian, that is non-Caucasian/white, elements within the modern Armenian nation. I am sure you can pick out the types in question, they tend to look Arabic or have small narrow eyes. Some believe that this element within Armenian society is a result of hundreds of years of Turkic and/or Arabic rape of Armenians. I, on the other hand, believe that the foreign element within the Armenian nation is a result of many Christian Middle Eastern peoples such as Assyrians, Turks and Persians that were assimilated into Armenian society during the middle ages. Note: Persia, prior to the Islamic invasions of 650 AD, had the largest Christian population in the world. And there were Christian Turks during the Crusader period.

Final analysis: There are pure Armenians with blond hair, balck hair, brown hair and red hair. Armenians may be tall, short, fat or skinny. There are Armenians who are geniuses and then there are Armenians who are total idiots. Nonetheless, Armenians are physically, spiritually and culturally Indo-European (Aryan). However, we also carry a significant amount of blood and culture of the various ancient peoples of the Caucasus.

[Armenian]

Unfortunately, the theory you support completely ignores the strong presence of Non-Indo-Europeans in Asia Minor and Southern Caucasus prior to 1200BC .The Urartuans and the Hurrians (both non-Indo-Europeans) were around in this region at the time, and their roots are very mysterious. Archaeological evidence suggests that the Southern Caucasus region was not populated before 6000BC, and linguistics show some ties in the Urarto-Hurrian group of languages (although relatively limited in retrievable scripture) with that of Sumerian and Elam, both non-Indo-European.

Armenians are a mix of Aryans and Caucasians. However, the Aryan element out-did the Caucasian element witin Armenian national culture during clasical times. Physically, we Armenians are Anatolian-Caucasian mix.

The roots of your aforementioned peoples are not as mysterious as you might think. The Urartians, Hurrians, Hyksos, Hittites, Sumerians were all of Caucasian and Anatolian stock as far as any serious historian or anthropologist can tell. They all can trace their ethnogenesis to various locations within Asia Minor.

Your claim that the Southern Caucaus was not popluated prior to 6000BC is utterly false. Human settlements go back 100,000 to 500,000 years within the region. Moreover, vast areas of the region in question has not been studied yet. Also you are ignoring Anatolia which has the oldest settlements in the world. Moreover, even Sumerians thought that their ethnogenesis was within the Armenian Highland.

And finally, just because a Indo-European language has not been recored within Anatolia prior to the Hitties does not mean that it did not exist there as a lesser language family. Overwhelming modern evidence suggests that Indo-European, Caucasian, and Semitic languages evolved close to each other within Asia Minor.

One clould say that Aryans were simply late bloomers within their Anatolian homeland.

[jgk3]

Hayk may not have necessarily had blond hair and blue eyes, and that picture looks more realistic to what he may have looked like, however, our gene pool does include those features, as the identity of "Armenian" in times where they paid tribute to their conquerers was synonymous with "Christians of Asia Minor/South Caucasus".

This means that you did not have to be a "descendant of Hayk" in order to be recognized as an Armenian. You could've had Kurdish, Turkish, Arab, Kartvelian, Je-wish, Georgian, Laz, Greek, "Souriani", Persian, etc... roots, and become recognized as an Armenian in the longrun, simply by joining their christian community.

However, the original "Armenians", descendants of Hayk, may have much more fair coloured than the majority of his "descendants" of today. Even the Greeks speak of times when their people were very fair coloured, and how this changed with the colonization of Phoenicians, mixing with the darker coloured natives they assimilated, and finally, with the arrival of the Turks.

Linguistic and archaeologic evidence of ancient Illyrian/Thracian cultural presence among the Indo-Europeans during the Bronze and early Iron Ages in the Balkans and Anatolia, indicates that the "Graeco-Armenian" (not a very coherent term, considering the much later rising of the actual identity of Armenian) Indo-European migration came from the northern shores of the Black Sea and into the Balkans, before differentiating into the tribes who would emerge as Myceneans, Illyrians and Thracians. The Thracians would later advance into Asia Minor as Phrygians, who would conquer the Hittites, while the Muski, the Assyrian name for the tribes of the same migration, would go further east, to mingle with the tribes of the "confederation of Nairi", including a tribe known as Hayasha-Aza, known by the Hittites who once ruled them, to be a rebellious Indo-European tribe with great cultural and linguistic influence in the lands east of the Hittite empire.

I'm guessing Hayk came from the "Hayasha"? This tribe was most likely composed of a dominant Asia Minor/South Caucasus native genetic background that's existed since the dawn of history. So no, Hayk wasn't Blond hair and blue eyed, however, he probably looked somewhat like what the picture suggests, and probably did not have many genuine features of Semites, as they would only mix with the Armenians who lived in proximity with the Tigris River.

[jgk3]

Aryan is not a good term for us, as Aryans refer to the Indo-Aryans, the ancestors of the high caste of India. They were much more prevalent throughout central Asia and modern day Iran, until the Indo-Iranian tribes kicked in, and reduced their status to nothing by making their religion associated with Arihman, the ultimate evil god of the Zoroastrian religion. So the Indo-Aryans continued there existance in northern India, and nowhere else.

Also, I now acknowledge, after looking up some new articles on the Urartuans, that I was wrong by stating the region of the Lower Caucasus was uninhabited prior to 6000BC.