| Revision as of 11:25, 19 June 2007 editPaul Barlow (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers93,539 editsm white space← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:27, 26 June 2007 edit undoAramazd7 (talk | contribs)10 edits POV and undue weight in last sentencem, dont distort Diaknoff's words, and disclude Ivanov as the challenging view of DiaknoffNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | {{sprotected}} | ||
| {{Indo-European}} | {{Indo-European}} | ||
| ⚫ | {{sprotected}} | ||
| The '''Armenian hypothesis''' of the ] '']'', based on the ] assumes that the ] was spoken during the ] in the ]. It is an ] model and does not include the ] in its scenario. PIE ("]") would date to after 3000 BC and constitute a language group contemporary to, and in ] with, the Anatolian language family adjacent to the west. The phonological peculiarities proposed in the Glottalic theory would be best preserved in the ] and the ], the former assuming the role of the dialect which remained ''in situ'', implied to be particularly archaic in spite of its late attestation. ] would be practically equivalent to ] and date to the 17th century BC, closely associating Greek migration to Greece with the ] to India at about the same time (viz., Indo-European expansion at the transition to the ], including the possibility of Indo-European ]). The hypothesis has little or no support in ] which usually assumes a higher age of PIE by at least one millennium. Like the Glottalic theory itself, the hypothesis enjoyed some popularity during the ] and has fallen from scholarly favour since. | The '''Armenian hypothesis''' of the ] '']'', based on the ] assumes that the ] was spoken during the ] in the ]. It is an ] model and does not include the ] in its scenario. PIE ("]") would date to after 3000 BC and constitute a language group contemporary to, and in ] with, the Anatolian language family adjacent to the west. The phonological peculiarities proposed in the Glottalic theory would be best preserved in the ] and the ], the former assuming the role of the dialect which remained ''in situ'', implied to be particularly archaic in spite of its late attestation. ] would be practically equivalent to ] and date to the 17th century BC, closely associating Greek migration to Greece with the ] to India at about the same time (viz., Indo-European expansion at the transition to the ], including the possibility of Indo-European ]). The hypothesis has little or no support in ] which usually assumes a higher age of PIE by at least one millennium. Like the Glottalic theory itself, the hypothesis enjoyed some popularity during the ] and has fallen from scholarly favour since. | ||
| The Armenian hypothesis argues for the latest possible date of Proto-Indo-European (''sans'' Anatolian), a full millennium later than the mainstream ]. In this, it figures as an opposite to the ], in spite of the geographical proximity of the respective ''Urheimaten'' suggested, diverging from the timeframe suggested there by full three millennia. | The Armenian hypothesis argues for the latest possible date of Proto-Indo-European (''sans'' Anatolian), a full millennium later than the mainstream ]. In this, it figures as an opposite to the ], in spite of the geographical proximity of the respective ''Urheimaten'' suggested, diverging from the timeframe suggested there by full three millennia. | ||
| The hypothesis was |
The hypothesis was embraced by ] and ], supporting the conviction that Armenians were the original inhabitants of much of historic Armenia.<ref>A. E. Redgate, The Armenians (2000).</ref> Thus, Assyrian, Persian, and Egyptian records identify with the Armenians. Such attempts were not agreed by Diakonoff (1984:129f.)<ref>cited by P. Kohl and G. Tzetzkhladze, 'Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology in the Caucasus', in: Kohl, Fawcett (eds.), ''Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology'', Cambridge University Press (1996), ISBN 0521558395, p. 176</ref> | ||
| ==Notes== | ==Notes== | ||
Revision as of 03:27, 26 June 2007
| Part of a series on |
| Indo-European topics |
|---|
 |
Languages
|
| Philology |
Origins
|
|
Archaeology
Pontic Steppe Caucasus East Asia Eastern Europe Northern Europe Pontic Steppe Northern/Eastern Steppe Europe
South Asia Steppe Europe Caucasus India |
|
Peoples and societies
Indo-Aryans Iranians East Asia Europe East Asia Europe Indo-Aryan Iranian |
Religion and mythology
Others
|
Indo-European studies
|
The Armenian hypothesis of the Proto-Indo-European Urheimat, based on the Glottalic theory assumes that the Proto-Indo-European language was spoken during the 3rd millennium BC in the Armenian Highland. It is an Indo-Hittite model and does not include the Anatolian languages in its scenario. PIE ("Graeco-Armeno-Aryan") would date to after 3000 BC and constitute a language group contemporary to, and in language contact with, the Anatolian language family adjacent to the west. The phonological peculiarities proposed in the Glottalic theory would be best preserved in the Armenian language and the Germanic languages, the former assuming the role of the dialect which remained in situ, implied to be particularly archaic in spite of its late attestation. Proto-Greek would be practically equivalent to Mycenean Greek and date to the 17th century BC, closely associating Greek migration to Greece with the Indo-Aryan migration to India at about the same time (viz., Indo-European expansion at the transition to the Late Bronze Age, including the possibility of Indo-European Kassites). The hypothesis has little or no support in Indo-European studies which usually assumes a higher age of PIE by at least one millennium. Like the Glottalic theory itself, the hypothesis enjoyed some popularity during the 1980s and has fallen from scholarly favour since.
The Armenian hypothesis argues for the latest possible date of Proto-Indo-European (sans Anatolian), a full millennium later than the mainstream Kurgan hypothesis. In this, it figures as an opposite to the Anatolian hypothesis, in spite of the geographical proximity of the respective Urheimaten suggested, diverging from the timeframe suggested there by full three millennia.
The hypothesis was embraced by T. V. Gamkrelidze and V. V. Ivanov, supporting the conviction that Armenians were the original inhabitants of much of historic Armenia. Thus, Assyrian, Persian, and Egyptian records identify with the Armenians. Such attempts were not agreed by Diakonoff (1984:129f.)
Notes
- A. E. Redgate, The Armenians (2000).
- cited by P. Kohl and G. Tzetzkhladze, 'Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology in the Caucasus', in: Kohl, Fawcett (eds.), Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology, Cambridge University Press (1996), ISBN 0521558395, p. 176
See also
- Indo-Hittite
- Graeco-Armenian
- Graeco-Aryan
- Kurgan hypothesis
- Anatolian hypothesis
- Out of India theory
References
- T. V. Gamkrelidze and V. V. Ivanov, The Early History of Indo-European Languages, Scientific American, March 1990
- I.M. Diakonoff, The Prehistory of the Armenian People (1984).
- Robert Drews, The Coming of the Greeks (1988), argues for late Greek arrival in the framework of the Armenian hypothesis.
- Martiros Kavoukjian, Armenia, Subartu, and Sumer : the Indo-European homeland and ancient Mesopotamia, trans. N. Ouzounian, Montreal (1987), ISBN 0921885008.