Origin of Indo-European element in Armenian

[karoaper]

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

Armenoid was a loosely used term. I guess I'd define it as the people who are our direct ethnic ancestors. In other words, they might not have been known as Armenians, but ethnically and genotypically they were our ancestors.

As far as Haik being a fair person, I can't tell you now where I got it. It was something I heard or read or saw somewhere several times when I was a little kid. Also, it's bizarre how scarce the net is when it comes to such peculiar info.

[jgk3]

[QUOTE=Armenian]
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.

The Indo-European language evolved in closer proximity with the Finno-Ugric and Kartvelian (your "Caucasian") language group, than with the Semitic language group, although it should be noted that they have some common attributes, although they are very rare. The Afro-Asiatic group evolved in Northern Africa, and Semitic was one of it's subgroups. It took the language a while before reaching the middle east, and by the time it did reach it, the Indo-European infrastracture had already assumed form. The middle-east experienced the decline of the Sumerian language group, which may very well have been related to what the Urartuans, the Hurrians and the Elamites (who are linguistically related to Dravidians) spoke, to the degree where they once shared a Proto-Language. So the semites of the Afro-Asiatic group eliminated this archaic Sumerian language, while the Indo-Aryans and Indo-Iranians eliminated the archaic Elamite language. However, although they were eliminated, we can be sure that they left their traces behind within the languages that replaced them.

[jgk3]

Armenoid was a loosely used term. I guess I'd define it as the people who are our direct ethnic ancestors. In other words, they might not have been known as Armenians, but ethnically and genotypically they were our ancestors.

Our ancestors came from a variety of very different and unique groups.

[karoaper]

Our ancestors came from a variety of very different and unique groups.

Well it's not like people came together and immediately become known as Armenians. They had already defined a common cultural and ethnic thread for centuries before they made up the majority of the country called Armenia.
And as far as the "theory" about the Armenoids being people who had migrated from up north, it's just one of many theories. Everything is a theory at this point. No one can argue 100% percent where we came from originally and whether we're native Caucasians or Aryans or a mix. One can theorize only at this point. Armenians seem to be quite unique in this sense of having an origin that has proven to be difficult for historians and anthropologists to trace and map.

[jgk3]

Armenians where too much of a "cauldren" race to have ever established universal cultural norms. Even Christianity had a limit to the degree it could bind us all together under a single culture.

And theories mean less and less these days, with the abundance of archaeological finds and credible textual documentation of the different peoples of the region, unless the theories are centered around such finds. And as you can see, we are uncovering more and more evidence on exactly who and what we were.

[skhara]

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.

You forgot another significant type that looks Indian with Dravidic features. I guess there was some gypsies who got assimilated some time back.

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.

Well I think that we can call this fact. The "dubious" looking characters are the result of assimilation. Is that better than rape? From what I've read the fetusus created from rape were mostly aborted or the infant would be killed. Armenians were not the only people under Turks who did this.

By the way, I doubt the assimilation of Persians would have done any damage to the Armenian gene pool. Persians are of very similar "color" to Armenians any way.

[skhara]

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.

Yes both some Greeks and some Armenians say such about their respective people, and in both cases both Greeks and Armenians argue against it. What I believe to be the truth is that there were blondish people in both who were never any where close to a majority. And as far the "darkenning", both assimilated various Middle Eastern people.

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 doubt if highly accurate evidence will be found. This is confusing speculation.

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.

The type in the picture I would say is in the "Balkano-Caucasian" anthropological cluster. By the way, how do we even know there was a Hayk? He is a mythical figure, just like Romulos and Remes were for the Romans.

[jgk3]

Whether or not you believe my "speculation" does not really matter to me. However, I'd look into these elements of Armenian pre-history, and do some research, should the ideas feel too alien to my approach.

If you want a reference to where I gathered the information discussing the Tracian/Illyrian migration spreading it's culture into Asia Minor and eventually the Armenian Plateau between 1200-800BC, well: In Search of the Indo-Europeans, by J.P. Mallory.

Although the book does not get too deep into the issue of Armenians and their origins, the logical support behind this "speculation" of mine is there for you.

Also, when I say Hayk, I really mean the "original" Armenians, or at least pre-Armenians. It's just nicer to refer to Hayk, it gives a face to these people, as well as a cultural background.

[skhara]

Whether or not you believe my "speculation" does not really matter to me.

Well its not your speculation, you got it from somewhere right?

The reallity is that every one of these theories is speculation and I don't necessarily believe or disbelieve any of them. So far I like the Armenian Highlands theory.

I think that indeed it is possible that there were plenty of langauge branches present in the Armenian Highlands. And that possibly the "Aryan" language was one of them. But then again, perhaps not.

[jgk3]

Well its not your speculation, you got it from somewhere right?

The reallity is that every one of these theories is speculation and I don't necessarily believe or disbelieve any of them. So far I like the Armenian Highlands theory.

I think that indeed it is possible that there were plenty of langauge branches present in the Armenian Highlands. And that possibly the "Aryan" language was one of them. But then again, perhaps not.

Although the initial info I used was not created out of my own hands, it is my interpretation of the various articles and books I've read which discuss the matter. It is hard to say whether or not it is my speculation, but I certainly should not be credited with the first hand discovery of finds that lead to these conclusion. I am a curious and social scholar, not an archaeologist.

I greatly oppose the notion of Aryanism trying to describe "Whites", blond hair and blue eyes. The real Aryans were the Indo-Aryans, who roamed in northern India during the Vedic period, as well as the Iranian Plateau until the Zoroastrian Indo-Aryans destroyed their identity by placing it with the ultimate evil god of their religion, Ahriman (notice the similarity with Aryan? Arya-man).

The ones who's identity survived (the ones in northern India), spoke in Sanskrit, and emerged as todays higher caste Indians, the Northern Indians. these Aryans subjugated the Dravidian natives, considering them a lower caste, as third or fourth class citizens. The caste system was common among early Indo-Europeans who took up new lands that already had native populations and cultural infrastructure. Examples are the Indo-European Myceneans and the native Pelasgians who had to live with less rights than their overrulers, until they were eventually genetically absorbed. This process even exists among Indo-Europeans newcomers who conquer Indo-European natives, like the Anglo-Saxons did in the British Isles with the native Celts, Picts and Britons.

Anyways, the notion of "the Aryan race" was created by White supremists from Europe in the late 19th century, to bolster their view of how they were a divine race, who must rule all others. They also created Subdivisions within the Aryan race, praising the ethinic groups who were "more Aryan than others". If you are willing to submit to this system similar to the archaic caste system in many ways, then you'll find Armenians possibly in your "Aryan group", but they will be at the bottom of the food chain. For example, if Hitler won WWII and went on to conquer the Armenians, he would not treat us as a superior race who deserves a status equal to Germanic people.

Anyway, believe what you want, but I'll continue to oppose the notion of "Aryan" unless it stays within the boundries of northern India.

However, if you are refering to the Indo-Aryan cultural and linguistic presence in that of Armenians, then I am not so quick to disagree.