| Revision as of 18:47, 16 June 2007 editAlex mond (talk | contribs)301 edits Dbachmann? Here is your answer for saying Kuro-Arax culture is different hypothesis than Armenian? PIE ("Graeco-Armeno-Aryan") and in language contact with, the Anatolian?? well???← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:22, 16 June 2007 edit undoDbachmann (talk | contribs)227,714 editsm Reverted edits by Alex mond (talk) to last version by DbachmannNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| 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 also embraced by Armenian patriotism as supporting the conviction that Armenians were the original inhabitants of much of historic Armenia.<ref>A. E. Redgate, The Armenians (2000).</ref> Thus, Kavoukjian (English 1987) tries to identify various peoples known from cuneiform and classical sources with the Armenians. Such attempts were firmly rejected 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> ; see also ]. | |||
| In accordance with some western sources, the ] have populated Eastern Anatolia for over four thousand years.<ref>{{cite web | url= http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armenian/papazian/armenians.html |title= The Modern Encyclopedia of Religions in Russia and the Soviet Union|accessdate=2007-03-01}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |first = Mack | last = Chahin | title = The Kingdom of Armenia | publisher = Routledge (UK) | pages = p. 182 | year = 2001 | id = ISBN 0700714529 }}</ref><ref name="Redgate">{{cite book |first = Elizabeth | last = Redgate | title = The Armenians | publisher = Blackwell Publishing | pages = p. 25 | year = 1998 | id = ISBN 0631220372 }}</ref><ref>] and ], ''The Early History of Indo-European (aka Aryan) Languages'', Scientific American, March 1990; James P. Mallory, "Kuro-Araxes Culture", ''Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture,'' Fitzroy Dearborn, 1997. </ref> Thus, many ancient records from ], ], and ] identify with the Armenians.<ref>International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1915; Eric H. Cline and David O'Connor (eds.) ''Thutmose III'', University of Michigan, 2006, ISBN 978-0472114672.{{page number}}</ref><ref>surviving in an early Babylonian copy, ca. 2200 BC, URI 275, lines I.7, 13; II.4; III.3, 30.</ref><ref>Horace Abram Rigg, Jr., A Note on the Names Armânum and Urartu, Journal of the American Oriental Society (1937).</ref><ref>no. 92 of Schroeder's 1920 ''Keilschrifttexte aus Assur''; W. F. Albright, ''A Babylonian Geographical Treatise on Sargon of Akkad's Empire'', Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 45. (1925), p. 212.</ref> Further evidence of Indo-Europeans in the Armenian Highland is from certain theories for locating the Urheimat (homeland) of the ]. The ] is identified with the speakers of the Anatolian languages, and even as an earlier Urheimat.<ref>James P. Mallory, "Kuro-Araxes Culture", ''Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture,'' Fitzroy Dearborn, 1997. </ref> Scholars ] and ] place the homeland in ], postulating the Armenian language as an in situ development of a 3rd millennium BC Proto-Indo-European language, as opposed to Diaknoff's view of a later Indo-European presents. | |||
| ==Notes== | ==Notes== | ||
| {{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
Revision as of 19:22, 16 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 also embraced by Armenian patriotism as supporting the conviction that Armenians were the original inhabitants of much of historic Armenia. Thus, Kavoukjian (English 1987) tries to identify various peoples known from cuneiform and classical sources with the Armenians. Such attempts were firmly rejected by Diakonoff (1984:129f.) ; see also nationalism and archaeology.
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.