Origin of Indo-European element in Armenian

[skhara]

I greatly oppose the notion of Aryanism trying to describe "Whites", blond hair and blue eyes.

I oppose such a notion as well.

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).

I don't understand you. Were Zorastrian Indo-Aryans not Aryans only the Ahriman worshipping ones were? Can you expand on this? Were did you learn this?

Ahriman (notice the similarity with Aryan? Arya-man)

They are not necessarilly related.

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.

It would not have mattered, and the German empire would not have stretched to Armenia anyway. Were would have placed the Slavs? His thoughts on Ukranians were that they should be treated no different than "redskins".

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.

That's what I'm refering to? Anyway, what's your opinion of the origination of the Indo-Europeans (Aryans)? Northern India?

[jgk3]

Alright, good opposition and questions, but I'll answer them all.

I have to point out, I made a horrible mistake when I wrote that statement about Indo-Aryans also being Zoroastrian... I'm sorry for this. The real statement should've implied that Zoroastrians were Iranian, and not Indo-Aryan.

1. Zoroastrianism was started by the Iranians, who were a group that had common ancestors with the Indo-Aryans, but the two groups point to a split at sometime around 2000BC. They may have very well been genetically related and are known to have close languages, but they had differences in culture and beliefs. The Indo-Aryans were in a more easternly position than their Iranian counterparts, in northern India, however, their culture did spread into the Iranian plateau at some point.

Now, here is where Zoroastrian kicks in. When some Iranians groups started migrating south, they encountered the Indo-Aryans, and wanted to conquer them. To help them along with this mission, their religion (although very much just a reconstruction of the old one that Indo-Aryans and Iranians both shared) denounced other religions, and so those who did not accept the new religion were persecuted. This is how the kingdom of Mitanni was pushed out of the Iranian Plateau, to later assume the location they became known for. They're known to have been led by an Indo-Aryan noble class.

2. About Hitler reaching Armenians, well, it would've been quite possible had he beaten the Russians. He'd treat us just like he treated the Slavs, if not worse.

3. Indo-Europeans aren't Indo-Aryans, but Indo-Aryans are Indo-Europeans. Their ultimate origin, as depicted by J.P. Mallory and Marija Gimbutas, was in the lands around the northern shores of the Black Sea, and according to J.P. Mallory in particular, the homeland stretched as far as the north and western shores of the Caspian Sea, so to explain the more eastern settlement of the Indo-Aryans. I've read J.P. Mallory's book, and I hold his thesis in high esteem. His logic is more than agreeable, however, even he acknowledges that new discoveries will be made in the future, and are quite capable of disproving his hypothesis should he make them too far flung. So he focuses on disproving the theories of other historians and linguists with his logic and resources, rather than to create new ones altogether. He likes to draw lines of constraints to limit the number of possibilities, and this is why I find it essential for anyone interested in the matter to read his book.

[skhara]

Maybe part of my problem with understanding you is your terminology.

Indo-European, Indo-Iranian, Indo-Aryan are all interchangeable terms to me.

Maybe by Indo-Aryan you are talking of the non-Dravidian "Aryan speaking (to me again this mean Indo-European, Indo-Iranian, etc)" people of Northern India -- essentially the Brahmins of today.

Iran is named after the Aryans. Iranians have called themselves Aryans 4000 years ago, and they do so today as well. And I do find interesting the Iranian claims that their people migrated from South Caucasia, or from the direction of the Armenian highlands.

[Armenian]

The only logical location where proto Indo-European languages could have first developed is within the region of the Caucaus and/or Asia Minor.

Besides linguistic evidences put forth by several prominent linguists that places the Indo-European homeland within Asia Minor, realize that several fundamental cultural characteristics of Indo-Europeans were originated within the Armenia Highlands. It is unfortunate that people generally tend to get hung up on one aspect of this study, linguistics, and ignore the other important fields of archeology and anthropology.

Oldest settlements and human remains come from the Caucaus/Asia Minor region. Oldest theologies and folklores come from the region in question. Domestication of various fundamental animals come from the same region in question. Cultivations of various staple grains and fruits come from the region in question. There is no where else on earth that can even remotely compare to the antiquity of Asia Minor and the Caucaus.

Caucaus/Asia Minor is the only logical location where human civilization could have first evolved or been created. Thus far, having seen all the linguistic archeological and anthropological record, I believe that the Caucasus/Asia Minor is the most probable location where speakers of proto Indo-European called home.

Even the Sumerians more or less believed that life first appeared upon the Armenian Highlands.

Regarding Hitler and the Armenians:

There was nothing within the geo-political approach of the Third Reich that would insinuate that Hitler may have attempted to harm Armenians had he won the Second World War. Such paranoid talk is a sad left-over, a by-product, of American, Soviet and xxx propaganda. All indicators are to the contrary.

[Armenian]

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.

I did not mean ethnic Persians, who are very similar to Armenians, I meant the population of the general region of Persia. As you well know, there is a significant, perhaps a majority, non-Persian element witin Iran that has been absorbed into Iranian society during the past twenty five hundred years.

Since Armenian and Persian societies were very integrated during the classical period, I believe that a significant number of Christian Persians, of all types, were absorbed into Armenian society, much similar to what occured with the Alans of Caucasian Albania.

[jgk3]

to Armenian: I suggest you read the sources of my point of view, as I have read sources of yours very deeply in the past. There was I time were I could strongly agree with your idea of Indo-Europeans originating from Asia Minor-South Caucasus, but then I read "In Search of the Indo-Europeans"... I recommend you look into this.

But just to give you a head start :P, I'll challenge your theory of Indo-Europeans originating from what is now known to be Armenian lands myself with the knowledge I possess, by asking you to account for the huge differences between the Indo-European languages in western Europe and those of the Iranian subdivisions, who both apparently would have followed the same heroic migration path of thousands upon thousands of kilometers without tiring, whereas, the Hittite subdivison moved westwards as slow as a turtle, to ultimately assume it's dominant position in Asia minor, a land adjacent to your supposed homeland. The Hittites arrived there at roughly 3000BC, a good 2000 years after the homeland can officially be recognized for differentiating. Explain me the logic of this. Your theory does not support the big picture, and merely explains the little details of Armenians, Persians and Doric Greeks, who by the way, only account for a fraction of the Greek genepool and identity. This totally ignores the farfetchedness of the heroic migrations all other sub-divisions would've had to take, and completely disregards any reasoning for the positions these sub-divisions, especially the European ones, would eventually take.

To Skhara: Indo-European is a major language group which almost all European nations speak, as well as your "brahmin" Indians, Iranians, Tocharians and Armenians, who live outside of Europe. This is where the term originated from. India to Europe, Indo-European.

Indo-Iranian speaks of the Iranians who broke away from the Indo-Aryans, to ultimately take their place north, west and south of the Caucasus, while the Indo-Aryans took up the eastern position of northern India. Both groups belong to the Indo-European major language group.

Armenian language is a sub-divison of Indo-European that stands on it's own, and cannot be traced back to the same sub-division the Indo-Iranians and Indo-Aryans take part of, nor the one Germanics, Balts, Slavs, Celts, Italics, etc... take part of. However, there are similarities in terms of vocabulary, but this can either be explained from the archaic roots of the Indo-European homeland which I still believe is north of the Black Sea, up till the north-western shores of the Caspian, and also due to the fact that Iranians have been neighbors of Armenian Culture and language for so long. It should be reconed however, that Armenian has similarities with many other Indo-European groups in terms of culture and language, however, I'd feel more comfortable discussing our similarities in vocabulary with European languages. I'll give you an example to brighten up the picture for you with two examples that only account for the tip of the iceberg in similarities. Armenian "(H)odi" refers to "smells" right? The English word Odour has common roots. Armenian "Gov" refers to Cow right? The English also use the term Bovine, a name for Cow, from Celtic/Italic roots. An expert can explain how the two groups changed their respective phonetic configurations, but they indeed share common roots that do not exist in any other major language group, such as Semitic, or Kartvelian. Instead, we belong to the Indo-European language group. All words in Armenian with roots from other major language groups are mere loan words, which developed on their own among the Armenians and their neighbors, but they aren't part of the original Indo-European vocabulary that our Indo-European ancestors (which accounts for a fraction of our total ancestors, even though their legacy lives on, as their language was passed on to become the dominant one among our people) once possessed. I hope this helps clear up the picture for you.

[jgk3]

[QUOTE=jgk3]
Indo-Iranian speaks of the Iranians who broke away from the Indo-Aryans, to ultimately take their place north, west and south of the Caucasus, while the Indo-Aryans took up the eastern position of northern India. Both groups belong to the Indo-European major language group.[QUOTE]

Dammit, I made a mistake again... Where I said Caucasus, I meant Caspian... And it was too late to edit that post, so I hope this clarifies. Altough Iranians were known to take positions directly north of the Caucasus (as in, not more north than a few hundred kilometers), such as the Alans, Sarmatians and Scythians, they did not travel westwards until the end of the Roman period, so to sack many Roman cities and mix with the natives there.

[Armenian]

to Armenian: I suggest you read the sources of my point of view, as I have read sources of yours very deeply in the past. There was I time were I could strongly agree with your idea of Indo-Europeans originating from Asia Minor-South Caucasus, but then I read "In Search of the Indo-Europeans"... I recommend you look into this.

Thank you for your advice my friend, but I have had that book in my possession for many years, I have read it from cover to cover and I still refer to it from time to time. Now, I suggest that you start reading various Armenian authors regarding this topic.

For appetizer, you may want to start with Martiros Kavoukjian's book in English titled "Armenia, Subartu And Sumer - The Indo-European Homeland And Ancient Mesopotamia." For your main couse you might want to consider reading H. Adjarian, E. Khanzadian, N. Adonst, G. Djahukian, Ghapantsian, Abrahamian. And for dessert, you might want to finish up with Gelb, Gamkrelide, Ivanov and T. Powell.

Asia Minor/Caucasus is the most logical location for the Indo-European homeland based upon available data as of this date.

But just to give you a head start :P, I'll challenge your theory of Indo-Europeans originating from what is now known to be Armenian lands myself with the knowledge I possess, by asking you to account for the huge differences between the Indo-European languages in western Europe and those of the Iranian subdivisions, who both apparently would have followed the same heroic migration path of thousands upon thousands of kilometers without tiring,

The differences between Indo-European languages in western Europe and those of the Iranian subdivisons can best be explained by - time and distance. In other words, time and distance forces evolution in languages. Also, when Indo-European arrived within western Europe they assimilated the natives. The European native sin turn incorporated their native languages into Indo-European. The same applies for the Persians who incorporated large numbers of non-Indo-Europeans within the lands they occupied.

whereas, the Hittite subdivison moved westwards as slow as a turtle, to ultimately assume it's dominant position in Asia minor, a land adjacent to your supposed homeland. The Hittites arrived there at roughly 3000BC, a good 2000 years after the homeland can officially be recognized for differentiating.

There is no evidence that Hittites arrived form anywhere else. Therefore, by suggesting that they arrived into Asia Minor you are making wild presumptions. A better approach to the Hittite's would be to claim that Hittites first began recording their language roughly 2500 BC.

Explain me the logic of this. Your theory does not support the big picture, and merely explains the little details of Armenians, Persians and Doric Greeks, who by the way, only account for a fraction of the Greek genepool and identity. This totally ignores the farfetchedness of the heroic migrations all other sub-divisions would've had to take, and completely disregards any reasoning for the positions these sub-divisions, especially the European ones, would eventually take.

The logic is that human culture first originated within Asia MInor/Caucasus.
Oldest settlements such as Catal Huyuk, Metsamor, Shengavit, along with various others are found within Asia Minor/Caucasia. The white/Caucasian race, that which is associated with Indo-Europeans, first originated within Asia Minor/Caucasus. The oldest Indo-European records come from Asia Minor/Caucasus. Oldest Indo-European cultural elements such as the war-horse, metal tools/weapons, the sacred symbol of the Swastika and various Indo-European Gods come from Asia Minor/Caucasus.

As I said before, simply stated, the fundamental reason why western Indo-Europeans are significantly different, in phenotype and culture, than the *natives* who remained within their homeland in Asia Minor/Caucasia (Armenians, Greeks, Iranians) is because of time, distance and cultural evolution. The Indo-European tribes that travelled outward from their homeland incorporated a lot of non Indo-European elements wthin their society. A good example of the aforementioned is the Hindus and the Scandinavians. Those who stayed behind, Armenians, Greeks and Iranians, incorporated non Indo-European elements when they began their political and cultural expansions throughout the Near East.

[jgk3]

well... That's an admirable response. There's no way to prove you wrong, and I'm happy to hear your references to those authors, I'll look into them.

But lets summarize the logic behind your approach then, in terms of the social implications of Indo-European language in the middle east at this early and fragile time.

In the Proto-Sumerian-Urartuan-Elamite? culture, pictographs and cuneform are the only retrievable evidence of written language. The language is not Indo-European, and so perhaps only a certain division of the society used it, perhaps the higher class? On top of this, the documents illustrated through written language got ever more simplistic the more you go back in time, and at this time, there was certainly no Aristotle-like behavior, that documented everything in the environment down to the last detail, so we know little about the true nature of society back then.

The only possibility for Indo-European language to have standed in such regions would be through an illiterate lower class speaking population. The commoners spoke Indo-European, but the noble class wrote in another language... Maybe this can shed more light on the matter of Hittites, describing how the Hatti natives were ruled by such a non-Indo-European speaking/writing noble class, until members of their society who decided to use Indo-European as an official state language assumed power, to ultimately create a transfer to their Hittite age.

So, this is logical, at least to me. But then there's the question of where this noble class non-Indo-European literacy came from? Was it related to the Dravidian language? So far, only Elamite can be traced back to an Elamo-Dravidian language group, as indicated in the famous book I've been recommending for no reason all this time. This I do not know, and if you have the answer, it would be a crucial piece to the puzzle of your theory.

There's also the issue of which other MAJOR language groups are closest to Indo-European in terms of interchangeable loan words... According to J.P. Mallory, it's the Finno-Ugrics, then the Kartvelian, and finally Semitic. I am not one to verify how true this is, but I've seen some sources that claim the Ugric sub-group's homeland in particular was in proximity with the northern limits of the Elam culture, placing it just northeast of the Caspian. Hungarian had some similarities with Sumerian in a handful of words when I checked some sources on the internet. The similarities, of course, also appeared somewhat in Urartuan and Hurrian. Perhaps this noble class's litterature was of Ugric origin? Who knows. But the proximity of the Ugric and Kartvelian homelands with J.P. Mallory's and your suggested homelands does not cancel out either one on it's own.

So, it sounds like I should really look into your sources, however, I do not expect to find many records of the early social implications of the Indo-European language during the times when Pictrographic and Cuneform writing was in common use in the Middle East. Now that you've explained your reasoning, I hold your idea in high esteem, as it goes well with the records of a "Fertile Crescent" phenomenon on the Araxes river, explaining the population boom that would've been required to make such an influence on the world, the development of irrigation and farming, and finally the metalworking that resulted in a military advantage among the Indo-Europeans when they came to conquer over non-Indo-European natives of distant lands.

[Armenian]

Here you go my friend, here are some links to Kavoukjian's book:
http://www.stvartanbookstore.com/ind...OD&ProdID=4609 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...81628?v=glance

Although I am not too sure about certain theories found within this work, the book in question, nonetheless, is a classic and that needs to be red by all Armenians who are interested in the Origin of our nation. Moreover, this book is the only English translation of its kind. The rest of the Armenian authors I mentioned have been printed only in Armenian and, in some cases, Russsian.