Origin of Indo-European element in Armenian

[jgk3]

Re: Are Armenians white????

I think criticism is great. I never said you shouldn't. Just pointed out the fact that since you criticize others for their lack of support of the content they post, you should make sure not to do the same (in your future posts).

Fair enough, but I won't make any promises. Feel free to criticize me again though, it usually motivates me to check my sources again to re-formulate my arguments.

[retro]

Re: Are Armenians white????

This e-augment phenomenon, along with some other phonological developments, are used to convincingly argue that Indo-Iranian, Greek, Armenian and Phrygian comes from the dialects which were the last to leave the Proto-Indo-European homeland. But in ascribing sub-group status to these dialects, one must question whether or not they received these innovations due to genetic inheritance from a common ancestor. It appears more likely that this innovation sprang from one of the dialects, gained a lot of popularity in it and interfered with the internal grammatical knowledge of speakers of proto-Armenians, proto-Greeks, proto-Indo-Iranians, etc... all still living in the same homeland territory, but having already diversified dialectally into the distinct ancestors of those Indo-European groups. If the latter case is so, then the e-augment cannot conclusively argue that these languages form a sub-group.

Whilst Indo-Iranian, Albanian, Greek, Armenian and Phrygian are all thought to have ties to each other.

Lithuanian is another intresting Indo-European language, that is noted for it's arcane characteristic and it's my understanding that their are similarities between Lithuanian and Sanskrit/Old Persian.

Nomadic Indo-Iranic peoples where the first to domesticated the horse. Which is how they where able to traverse vast distances and expanded, so rapidly throughout Eurasia. So it's not unreasonable to associate these peoples with the spread of Indo-European languages.

Blatic Indo-European speakers are originally from further south and many people place Indo-European's Urheimat in the region, north of the Black Sea.

The Tocharians are intresting Eastern Indo-European peoples. Tocharian (Tarim Basin) are R1a Y-DNA, accompanied by both European and Asian mtDNA lineages.

Secrets of the Silk Road!

[jgk3]

Re: Are Armenians white????

Whilst Indo-Iranian, Albanian, Greek, Armenian and Phrygian are all thought to have ties to each other.

Lithuanian is another intresting Indo-European language, that is noted for it's arcane characteristic and it's my understanding that their are similarities between Lithuanian and Sanskrit/Old Persian.

I know that Lithuanian has this stereotype of arcane features, but what exactly does one mean when they try to relate it to similarities found in Sanskrit (and I'd imagine Avestan, are you sure it's similar to Old Persian?). Does it mean that Lithuanian and Indo-Iranian form a subgroup? That mysteriously, Sanskrit speakers found their way to Lithuania and dropped off their fancy ancient words there?

What's important to highlight here is that Sanskrit and Avestan are among the early birds of the attested Indo-European languages. They, along with Luwian, Hittite and Mycenean Greek, are the earliest peeks (2nd millenium BCE) one could get of Indo-European as a language family.

So again, when one refers to the "arcane"-ness of Lithuanian, what exactly do they mean? They mean precisely that it preserves the phonology of Indo-European at the state it was at when Sanskrit was first recorded into the oral traditions of the Rig Veda. They don't mean it has ties to Sanskrit speakers. This fact is surprising however, because Lithuanian is first attested in the 16th century, and yet it's being compared to Sanskrit from the 2nd millenium BCE in terms of how its words sound. It means that whereas the other branches underwent many innovations in their phonology and sound systems, Lithuanian held onto many phonological features of an earlier state of Indo-European not held by its cousins, and thus looks "old", "arcane". Does that mean its related to the Indo-Iranian language family? No. The consensus is that it's in the Balto-Slavic branch, and the linguists who were responsible for this classification are the very same ones who remarked at how its sound system is strikingly familiar to that of Sanskrit.

An example of this impression can be seen from this nice quote:

"Anyone wishing to hear how Indo-Europeans spoke should come and listen to a Lithuanian peasant."
- Antoine Meillet*

*One of the major linguists from France at the beginning of the 20th century. He was also one of the most important linguists who worked on Armenian as an Indo-European language.

Nomadic Indo-Iranic peoples where the first to domesticated the horse. Which is how they where able to traverse vast distances and expanded, so rapidly throughout Eurasia. So it's not unreasonable to associate these peoples with the spread of Indo-European languages.

It's not unreasonable to associate the spread of Indo-European language with the horse, but when the classification of Indo-European branches was formulated, with Balto-Slavic being distinct from Indo-Iranian, it was done for a reason. It means that Indo-European split into distinct groups that no longer innovated together, and that these groups only looked alike to the extent that they did not lose the features of their ancestor. The case with Lithuanian words resembling Sanskrit is a great example of this.

Blatic Indo-European speakers are originally from further south and many people place Indo-European's Urheimat in the region, north of the Black Sea.

The Tocharians are intresting Eastern Indo-European peoples. Tocharian (Tarim Basin) are R1a Y-DNA, accompanied by both European and Asian mtDNA lineages.

Upon my asking him of what he thought of J.P. Mallory and his ideas about where to place the Indo-European homeland, one of my professors one told me something like this: "He's an archaeologist. He works with physical artifacts, and tries to link these to language, which was not written down by the proto-Indo-Europeans." Basically, he told me, how could you positively link bones, genes, kurgans and horses to language, which leaves no trace from ancient times unless it's written down at some point? He believes that it's impossible to positively identify the Indo-European homeland on that basis, and I agree with his argument.

[retro]

Re: Are Armenians white????

Upon my asking him of what he thought of J.P. Mallory and his ideas about where to place the Indo-European homeland, one of my professors one told me something like this: "He's an archaeologist. He works with physical artifacts, and tries to link these to language, which was not written down by the proto-Indo-Europeans." Basically, he told me, how could you positively link bones, genes, kurgans and horses to language, which leaves no trace from ancient times unless it's written down at some point? He believes that it's impossible to positively identify the Indo-European homeland on that basis, and I agree with his argument.

The Lithuanians and other Balto-Slavic peoples have ties to ancient nomadic Indo-Iranic peoples inhabiting the Urals. Tocharian dates back to the 2nd millenium BCE and it branched and migrated eastwards along the silk road. At much the same time that the Indo-European Anatolian/Balkan cultures emerged.

It's my understanding that even though Armenian has a lot of borrowings from other languages, that it has Anatolian-Phrygian/Balkan associations.

Brixhe believes that "unquestionably, however, Phrygian is most closely linked with Greek." A conventional date of c. 1180 BC is often used, at the very end of the Hittite empire. It is certain that Phrygia was constituted on Hittite land, and yet not at the very center of Hittite power in the big bend of the Halys River, where Ankara now is.

From tribal and village beginnings, the state of Phrygia arose in the 8th century BC with its capital at Gordium. During this period, the Phrygians extended eastward and encroached upon the kingdom of Urartu, the descendants of the Hurrians, a former rival of the Hittites. It is believed that the Armenian people were the result of the fusion of these eastward Phrygian migrators with the indigenous Urartians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrygia

[jgk3]

Re: Are Armenians white????

The Lithuanians and other Balto-Slavic peoples have ties to ancient nomadic Indo-Iranic peoples inhabiting the Urals. Tocharian dates back to the 2nd millenium BCE and it branched and migrated eastwards along the silk road. At much the same time that the Indo-European Anatolian/Balkan cultures emerged.

The properties of language families are not subject to culture or genetics between different "peoples".

If Lithuanians (or whatever their ancestors liked to call themselves) had "ties" to ancient Indo-Iranian speakers, it can be demonstrated that this has no relevance to why their words are reminiscent of Sanskrit.

It's my understanding that even though Armenian has a lot of borrowings from other languages, that it has Anatolian-Phrygian/Balkan associations.

Phrygian is poorly attested, the only bits we get from their language are from kurgan burials with brief inscriptions about the life of such and such king. For someone to claim it unquestionably close to Greek, without defining how (in what ways) it is close to Greek, or how much closer it is to Greek compared to other branches, really doesn't mean... anything.

In short, Phrygian (due to the comparatively minute number and variety of available sentences to analyze it by) doesn't lend itself very well to revealing "associations" with other language families. But despite this, there is at least one important morphological feature in Phrygian that has been identified as common innovation in Greek, Armenian and Indo-Iranian: the e-augment, which I already described in a prior post. It's also been said that certain Phrygian sound changes from Indo-European follow similar patterns to proto-Armenian:

It has long been claimed that Phrygian exhibits a Lautverschiebung of stop consonants, similar to Grimm's Law in Germanic and, more to the point, sound laws found in Proto-Armenian,[4] I.e. voicing of PIE aspirates, devoicing of PIE voiced stops and aspiration of voiceless stops. This hypothesis has been rejected by Lejeune (1979) and Brixhe (1984).[5]

The hypothesis had been considered defunct throughout the 1980s and 1990s, but has been revived in the 2000s, with Woodhouse (2006) and Lubotsky (2004) arguing for evidence for at least partial shift of obstruent series, i.e. voicing of PIE aspirates (*bh > b) and devoicing of PIE voiced stops (*d > t).[6]

The affricates ts and dz developed from velars before front vowels.

Should be interesting enough to look into more closely.

But let's say that after lots of research, people finally decided to agree that Armenian and Phrygian formed a subgroup, or instead, that Phrygian and Greek formed a subgroup, this would be a linguistic statement, not a cultural or genetic one. Because Phrygian, like Armenian, as branches of Indo-European, are not ethnic groups*. Instead, they are branches of Indo-European, whose dialects are spoken by people not necessarily of a genetically or culturally traceable lineage that would lead to the proto-Indo-Europeans.

*If you want to talk about Armenian as an ethnic group, that's another story, but it would not relate to language families and associations between them.

[Armanen]

Re: Are Armenians white????

I know that Lithuanian has this stereotype of arcane features, but what exactly does one mean when they try to relate it to similarities found in Sanskrit (and I'd imagine Avestan, are you sure it's similar to Old Persian?). Does it mean that Lithuanian and Indo-Iranian form a subgroup? That mysteriously, Sanskrit speakers found their way to Lithuania and dropped off their fancy ancient words there?

What's important to highlight here is that Sanskrit and Avestan are among the early birds of the attested Indo-European languages. They, along with Luwian, Hittite and Mycenean Greek, are the earliest peeks (2nd millenium BCE) one could get of Indo-European as a language family.

So again, when one refers to the "arcane"-ness of Lithuanian, what exactly do they mean? They mean precisely that it preserves the phonology of Indo-European at the state it was at when Sanskrit was first recorded into the oral traditions of the Rig Veda. They don't mean it has ties to Sanskrit speakers. This fact is surprising however, because Lithuanian is first attested in the 16th century, and yet it's being compared to Sanskrit from the 2nd millenium BCE in terms of how its words sound. It means that whereas the other branches underwent many innovations in their phonology and sound systems, Lithuanian held onto many phonological features of an earlier state of Indo-European not held by its cousins, and thus looks "old", "arcane". Does that mean its related to the Indo-Iranian language family? No. The consensus is that it's in the Balto-Slavic branch, and the linguists who were responsible for this classification are the very same ones who remarked at how its sound system is strikingly familiar to that of Sanskrit.

An example of this impression can be seen from this nice quote:

"Anyone wishing to hear how Indo-Europeans spoke should come and listen to a Lithuanian peasant."
- Antoine Meillet*

*One of the major linguists from France at the beginning of the 20th century. He was also one of the most important linguists who worked on Armenian as an Indo-European language.




It's not unreasonable to associate the spread of Indo-European language with the horse, but when the classification of Indo-European branches was formulated, with Balto-Slavic being distinct from Indo-Iranian, it was done for a reason. It means that Indo-European split into distinct groups that no longer innovated together, and that these groups only looked alike to the extent that they did not lose the features of their ancestor. The case with Lithuanian words resembling Sanskrit is a great example of this.



Upon my asking him of what he thought of J.P. Mallory and his ideas about where to place the Indo-European homeland, one of my professors one told me something like this: "He's an archaeologist. He works with physical artifacts, and tries to link these to language, which was not written down by the proto-Indo-Europeans." Basically, he told me, how could you positively link bones, genes, kurgans and horses to language, which leaves no trace from ancient times unless it's written down at some point? He believes that it's impossible to positively identify the Indo-European homeland on that basis, and I agree with his argument.

Corrupt western historians and their Armenian lackeys in the west would have us believe that Armenians are not native to the Caucasus/Eastern Asia Minor. Don't buy into their bs.

[jgk3]

Re: Are Armenians white????

Corrupt western historians and their Armenian lackeys in the west would have us believe that Armenians are not native to the Caucasus/Eastern Asia Minor. Don't buy into their bs.

At what point in any of my posts have I said where Armenians come from? Armenians, in terms of our genes, come from the Middle East, more particularly the Near East. But our language's genetic history comes from proto-Indo-European, whose homeland is unknown unless you want to twist the arm of linguistics to serve ones own archaeological and/or patriotic desire to locate it in a certain geographical region.

Language and genetics do not follow the same rules if you want to trace their lineage. In the case of language, we don't have haplogroups to identify the path of their migrations. But sometimes, you do have historical records, attesting the migration of language speakers. For example, we know the English language is not native to "England" before the Anglo-Saxon invasion. We actually have historical documentation of the event of their migration from where modern Denmark and Germany, to England. In fact, we can split them into groups: Angles, Saxons and Jutes, all likely speaking their own language, but eventually coalescing into a single ethnic group, with a single standard language but several divergent dialects.

In the case of Armenia, we have a more difficult situation. According to western scholarship, the first time the name Armenia is attested is in the 6th century BCE, and they make a link between this name and the language that would come to be attested an entire 1000 years later, 5th century Classical Armenian. According to western scholarship, though it is not beyond doubt to speculate the existence of Armenian in this region prior to the 6th century BCE, it is emphasized that that date is its earliest attestation as a language, though none of its properties are known from this period until the 5th century AD.

Armenians, especially patriotic ones, hate this for some reason. They hate the possibility of being a younger nation than they would like to believe, so 1. They assume Urartians were Armenians. 2. They assume we got the name Hay from Hayassa. 3. They believe the homeland of Indo-European is Armenia.

Western scholarship, using the very methodology Armenians take for granted to even know that their language is part of its own branch, distinct from Indo-Iranian, find all the above assertions either highly unlikely, or very easily debatable. To which our response is, they are corrupt, and anyone who listens to them is their lackey.

There are additional spins on the ancient references to Armenia predating our language's attestation: 1. we have to deal with the fact that "Armenia"-like names have been attested in other languages prior to the 6th century, but Western scholarship doesn't tend to make the link between such names and the Armenia we know. 2. that Herodotus said, "Armenians are Phrygian colonists"... Things that Armenians for patriotic reasons tend to have strong opinions about, according to their own agenda of what to advocate as the history of our nation. In my opinion, these two domains have been overly talked about in Armenia and by academics serving the patriotic narratives of Armenia, but they inadequately demonstrate the plausibility of their theories in a manner Western scholarship would find convincing, and they blame the west for their corruption, rather than recognizing that the West doesn't take them any more seriously than Turks who try to prove that Anatolia has always been a Turkic speaking region since ancient times. Why? Because our agenda is nationalistic. That is why such domains, which are actually worthy of closer research, are ignored by UCLA, Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, etc... etc...

[Armanen]

Re: Are Armenians white????

At what point in any of my posts have I said where Armenians come from? Armenians, in terms of our genes, come from the Middle East, more particularly the Near East. But our language's genetic history comes from proto-Indo-European, whose homeland is unknown unless you want to twist the arm of linguistics to serve ones own archaeological and/or patriotic desire to locate it in a certain geographical region.

Language and genetics do not follow the same rules if you want to trace their lineage. In the case of language, we don't have haplogroups to identify the path of their migrations. But sometimes, you do have historical records, attesting the migration of language speakers. For example, we know the English language is not native to "England" before the Anglo-Saxon invasion. We actually have historical documentation of the event of their migration from where modern Denmark and Germany, to England. In fact, we can split them into groups: Angles, Saxons and Jutes, all likely speaking their own language, but eventually coalescing into a single ethnic group, with a single standard language but several divergent dialects.

In the case of Armenia, we have a more difficult situation. According to western scholarship, the first time the name Armenia is attested is in the 6th century BCE, and they make a link between this name and the language that would come to be attested an entire 1000 years later, 5th century Classical Armenian. According to western scholarship, though it is not beyond doubt to speculate the existence of Armenian in this region prior to the 6th century BCE, it is emphasized that that date is its earliest attestation as a language, though none of its properties are known from this period until the 5th century AD.

Armenians, especially patriotic ones, hate this for some reason. They hate the possibility of being a younger nation than they would like to believe, so 1. They assume Urartians were Armenians. 2. They assume we got the name Hay from Hayassa. 3. They believe the homeland of Indo-European is Armenia.

Western scholarship, using the very methodology Armenians take for granted to even know that their language is part of its own branch, distinct from Indo-Iranian, find all the above assertions either highly unlikely, or very easily debatable. To which our response is, they are corrupt, and anyone who listens to them is their lackey.

There are additional spins on the ancient references to Armenia predating our language's attestation: 1. we have to deal with the fact that "Armenia"-like names have been attested in other languages prior to the 6th century, but Western scholarship doesn't tend to make the link between such names and the Armenia we know. 2. that Herodotus said, "Armenians are Phrygian colonists"... Things that Armenians for patriotic reasons tend to have strong opinions about, according to their own agenda of what to advocate as the history of our nation. In my opinion, these two domains have been overly talked about in Armenia and by academics serving the patriotic narratives of Armenia, but they inadequately demonstrate the plausibility of their theories in a manner Western scholarship would find convincing, and they blame the west for their corruption, rather than recognizing that the West doesn't take them any more seriously than Turks who try to prove that Anatolia has always been a Turkic speaking region since ancient times. Why? Because our agenda is nationalistic. That is why such domains, which are actually worthy of closer research, are ignored by UCLA, Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, etc... etc...

I didn't mean to quote your post, it was retro's, my bad on that.

But you need to get of your 'western academia' high horse and realize that academia has been, still is, and will continue to be, influenced by politics. This is why turks spend millions on turkish studies chairs all over the US and western Europe.

Herodotus, is a pseudo historian, the fact that much of the bull about Armenians being Phyrgians is based on what this dude wrote should tell you enough about how reliable western sources can be.

And do you know why it is hard to find traces of Armenian artifacts? Maybe because of the countless invasions, looting, and destruction that has taken place since ancient times. Not to mention the majority of our historical lands are in turkish hands and the last thing they would like to see is for scholars to dig up further evidence to show how Armenians are native to eastern Asian Minor/Caucasus. Why do you think azeri's get butt sore when Armenians excavate sites in Artsakh? And going back to politics tied in with academia, why didn't unesco, the u.s. government, or the eu fully condemn the azeri's when they destroyed the Khachkars in Djulfa? Why did the recent report of the very political, ICG, state that Armenia is basically in the wrong for conducting 'unilaterial' excavations in Artsakh?

Urartu was a confederation, it had various tribes, both Indo European and Cacausian. The fact that the Urartuian language didn't change in almost 400-500 years shows that it was not an everyday language, but rather just for official use. Also, when you add in that it had a very limited vocabulary, it seems to point in the direction that the language was not alive, in the sense that any language which is spoken everyday tends to change over time, with the loss and addition of new words from foreign and domestic sources.

As for the Homeland of IE being Armenia, I say let's give it time. You are well aware of the findings that have been made public this past year, most ancient winery, most ancient shoe, etc. I think pretty soon much of the untarnished, and apolitical academia will come to realize that Armenia, and Armenians are indeed as old as 'Armenian patriots' have been claiming.

[retro]

Re: Are Armenians white????

Hello Armanen

I thought that you might be addressing me.

No doubt you belive that the West has been insdiously working to subvert Armenia's cultural identity, since the 5th century BC.

Herodotus(Book VII, Polymnia): According to the Macedonian account, the Phrygians, during the time that they had their abode in Europe and dwelt with them in Macedonia, bore the name of Brygians; but on their removal to Asia they changed their designation at the same time with their dwelling-place. The Armenians, who are Phrygian colonists, were armed in the Phrygian fashion. Both nations were under the command of Artochmes, who was married to one of the daughters of Darius.

It could well be that the eastward migration and integration of Phrygian/Greek elements into the Hurro-Urartians sphere gave rise Armenian nation. However no one really knows.

Whilst few people closely resemble their ancient ancestors genetically. As peoples lineages alter markedly over time, once you take into account admixture, genetic drift and diffusion. Cultural linguistics and ethnic ties often correlate to a certain extent. Since it's always been hard for people to jump language groups.

Although they integrated both Indo-European and Caucasian elements. The Urartians where principally an ancient Northern fertile crescent peoples. Urartian, Hurrian like Sumerian and Caucasian are ergative-agglutinative languages.

The Caucasus is ethnically a intermediary region between Western Asia and Europe. The maternal ancestry of Armenians as is the case with many other Caucasus and Western Asia populations is on blance closer to Europe. Whilst the Armenian paternal ancestry exhibits far greater phylogeographicly diversity and is closer to the Near East.

Armenian DNA Project - Results

According to Professor Levon Yepiskoposyan of the Institute of Molecular Biology in Yerevan: "Y chromosome haplotypes diversity in the modern Armenian population reveals strong regional structure with marked separation of mountainous (Syunik region in the south of Armenia, and Karabakh) and valley (Ararat valley, northern and western regions of historical Armenia) groups." The mountain groups have a greater concentration of R1b1 while the valley groups have a greater concentration of J2 & J1 (and to a lesser extent, slightly greater concentrations of G & E1b1b1).

Y-DNA Paternal Haplogroup Distribution of Armenian DNA Project Members (total: 291) (less 15 known paternal cousins & 0 undetermined haplogroups: n = 273). Updated 10 January 2011.

# Haplogroup R1b1 : 74 = 27%
# Haplogroup J2 : 57 = 21%
# Haplogroup G : 40 = 15%
# Haplogroup J1 : 30 = 11%
# Haplogroup E1b1b1: 25 = 9%
# Haplogroup I2 : 12 = 4%
# Haplogroup T : 12 = 4%
# Haplogroup R2a : 7 = 3%
# Haplogroup R1a : 6 = 2%
# Haplogroup L : 5 = 2%
# Haplogroup F : 2 = 1%
# Haplogroup Q1b : 2 = 1%
# Haplogroup A : 1 = 0.4%

mtDNA Maternal Haplogroup Distribution of Armenian DNA Project Members (total: 131) (less 4 known maternal cousins: n = 127). Updated 10 January 2011.

# mtDNA haplogroup H : 32 = 25%
# mtDNA haplogroup U : 20 = 16%
# mtDNA haplogroup J : 17 = 13%
# mtDNA haplogroup HV : 19 = 15%
# mtDNA haplogroup T : 9 = 7%
# mtDNA haplogroup W : 4 = 3%
# mtDNA haplogroup X : 5 = 4%
# mtDNA haplogroup K : 6 = 5%
# mtDNA haplogroup I : 5 = 4%
# mtDNA haplogroup N : 5 = 4%
# mtDNA haplogroup R : 2 = 2%
# mtDNA haplogroup F : 1 = 1%
# mtDNA haplogroup V : 2 = 2%


http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...ection=results

[jgk3]

Re: Are Armenians white????

I didn't mean to quote your post, it was retro's, my bad on that.

But you need to get of your 'western academia' high horse and realize that academia has been, still is, and will continue to be, influenced by politics. This is why turks spend millions on turkish studies chairs all over the US and western Europe.

Herodotus, is a pseudo historian, the fact that much of the bull about Armenians being Phyrgians is based on what this dude wrote should tell you enough about how reliable western sources can be.

I never advocated that he's right. You don't even know if I believe he's a pseudo-historian or not (he might be). I'm just saying that of the accounts we've heard of Armenians by odars during ancient times, Herodotus is one of them. It does not give you the right to dismiss that I'm on a "western academic highhorse".

And do you know why it is hard to find traces of Armenian artifacts? Maybe because of the countless invasions, looting, and destruction that has taken place since ancient times. Not to mention the majority of our historical lands are in turkish hands and the last thing they would like to see is for scholars to dig up further evidence to show how Armenians are native to eastern Asian Minor/Caucasus. Why do you think azeri's get butt sore when Armenians excavate sites in Artsakh? And going back to politics tied in with academia, why didn't unesco, the u.s. government, or the eu fully condemn the azeri's when they destroyed the Khachkars in Djulfa? Why did the recent report of the very political, ICG, state that Armenia is basically in the wrong for conducting 'unilaterial' excavations in Artsakh?

I agree. Still, that doesn't mean we should dismiss the conclusions made after years of tireless research on the part of individual academics (which shouldn't be generalized as one "corrupt" bunch, as they have just as divergent opinions at times as scholars working from Armenia might have with them) working in the west on Armenian documents that the Turks didn't manage to withhold from discovery and research.

Urartu was a confederation, it had various tribes, both Indo European and Cacausian. The fact that the Urartuian language didn't change in almost 400-500 years shows that it was not an everyday language, but rather just for official use. Also, when you add in that it had a very limited vocabulary, it seems to point in the direction that the language was not alive, in the sense that any language which is spoken everyday tends to change over time, with the loss and addition of new words from foreign and domestic sources.

Where are you getting this "didn't change for 400-500" years from, Urartian is attested from between the 9th and 6th centuries BCE, that would be 300-400 years. It is indeed claimed to not evolve at all during the time it was used, which was for mostly archival documents, suggesting it was a dead language, not even used by the royal courts. We do not have any direct evidence about the languages spoken by the people ruled under the Urartian yoke, but we can assume that Indo-Europeans likely existed there, especially since right after the fall of Urartu, the Medes referred to the region as Armenia (probably a politically motivated choice, to deliberately break all links to the name and identity of its former kingdom's name), which we link to the Armenian language, constituting its own branch of Indo-European. From then on, the name "Armenia" is always the name of the region, despite being ruled by royal families of various Indo-Iranian ethnic origins (Median, Achemaenian Persian, Parthian, Sassanian Persian) up until the Arab invasion, after which is still continued to be referred to Armenia and continues to be so today.

As for the Homeland of IE being Armenia, I say let's give it time. You are well aware of the findings that have been made public this past year, most ancient winery, most ancient shoe, etc. I think pretty soon much of the untarnished, and apolitical academia will come to realize that Armenia, and Armenians are indeed as old as 'Armenian patriots' have been claiming.

Again, those are archaeological findings which add to our knowledge of what kind of culture existed in a region. It doesn't say a word about what their language was like, unless you find inscriptions in: "the most ancient winery", "the most ancient shoe". That is why you cannot link the any of such findings to Indo-European. But people do it anyway, and call it science.

Proto-Indo-Europeans, for all we know, could have initially been relatively backward (technological equivalents to cowboys from the wild west vis-a-vis New England and Europe), and knew nothing about winemaking until they advanced into non-Indo-European speaking regions, settled there and learned from them. Perhaps they got the word for wine "*win/vin-o" from some other group, perhaps of Semitic (since the earliest period of this language family's attestation also uses this same root), or perhaps even from another language family that died out and did not get a chance to reveal itself to us. That's why you can't link the invention of shoes or wine to Indo-Europeans (and thus pinpoint the geographical origin of their ancestor to the location of such inventions), but you can say that proto-Indo-Europeans likely had a knowledge of such things, since they had words for them.