Origin of Indo-European element in Armenian

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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]

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]

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.