Does genetics prove Iran/Armenia is the original land of Indo-Europeans?

[tyuiopman]

The IE language which was spoken in the west of Iran was X which according to your link, proto-IE *bʰerǵʰ is changed to burg, not Armenian barjr or Avestan bərəzəm, Semitic and Urartian words are from burg in X language, not Armenian or Iranian words. I believe just X language was spoken in the west of Iran.

According to the link I copied and pasted here yesterday, the Old Armenian word was burgn. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/բուրգն#Old_Armenian. Pronounced with a hard G, not a soft G (J) sound.

According to Ivanov/Gamkrelidze and Diakonoff (as cited in the Petrosyan article I linked to you yesterday that you seem to have ignored), the Old Armenian word was burgn. The Urartian word was burgana. The Greek word was purgos. The Syriac word was burgaa. None of these are that dissimilar from *bʰerǵʰ or bhrgh. Actually, the Greek is the most dissimilar to the modern German, which is ironic because Greek and German are a) both centum and b) Greek is spoken the closest geographically to German.

 

[tyuiopman]

This is my theory about the history of my country and I don't know any European research about Guti, Suedi, Almani, Germani, Asgardi, Subari, Semnoni, Dani, ... people who lived in the west of Iran, if you know I am also interested to read.
But about linguistics I know some good researches, for example read Germania Semitica by German linguist Theo Vennemann.

Subari as in Shupria/Subartu? That's hardly western Iran. By Asgardi do you mean Asgari? By Almani do you mean Armani? By Germani do you mean Kurman? It seems that a) you're rendering words in ways that make them look Germanic (i.e. Armani as Almani), secondly I fail to see how many of these other words compare to German to begin with.

Again, just because there might be similar sounds or similar words doesn't make them German.

So really what you're doing is you're not fitting your theory around the evidence but fitting your evidence around your theory. That's no way to make an argument if you want anybody to take you seriously.

 

[tyuiopman]

I can compare any two random languages and find similarities. I could say Eurasia was settled first by Polynesians (not picking on them, but this just seems super unlikely, which is why I chose them).

Teuila>Teuton.

Samoa>Shem.

Tausa'afia>Taurus. It was probably originally Taursa'afia but they dropped the R and I won't address that.

Sefia>Suber. F can be B. B=P. Suber=Shupria. Sefria=Super. Shupria. Actually, Sumerian probably comes from this too.

Talia>Italia, obviously.

La'ei>Luri. I was probably originally Larei.

Etc. etc. etc.

Go through this link. I'm sure you'll see these, and more, possible connections.

https://www.momjunction.com/articles/pacific-islander-baby-names_00400744/#gref

 

[Cyrus]

According to the link I copied and pasted here yesterday, the Old Armenian word was burgn. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/բուրգն#Old_Armenian. Pronounced with a hard G, not a soft G (J) sound.

According to Ivanov/Gamkrelidze and Diakonoff (as cited in the Petrosyan article I linked to you yesterday that you seem to have ignored), the Old Armenian word was burgn. The Urartian word was burgana. The Greek word was purgos. The Syriac word was burgaa. None of these are that dissimilar from *bʰerǵʰ or bhrgh. Actually, the Greek is the most dissimilar to the modern German, which is ironic because Greek and German are a) both centum and b) Greek is spoken the geographically closest to German.

Ok if you believe proto-IE *ǵʰ is changed to /g/, not /j/ (dz) in Armenian, then the same Armenian language was spoken in the west of Iran from the 3rd millennium BC, but I think there are some loanwords in Armenian and burgn is one of them. Indo-European *ǵʰ sounds like /zh/ (like in visual), not /g/, we can find similar sounds just in Satem languages, like Armenian.

 

[tyuiopman]

Ok if you believe proto-IE *ǵʰ is changed to /g/, not /j/ (dz) in Armenian, then the same Armenian language was spoken in the west of Iran from the 3rd millennium BC, but I think there are some loanwords in Armenian and burgn is one of them. Indo-European *ǵʰ sounds like /zh/ (like in visual), not /g/, we can find similar sounds just in Satem languages, like Armenian.

It's what I believe based on the research of the respected linguists that I provided you. Burgn is the phonetic transliteration of Armenian բուրգն.

But your argument is that "burg" (i.e. the Germanic word) is the most conservative version of the word. But the Germanic "burg" is pronounced with a hard G, which is the same as in Old Armenian and apparently Urartian, etc. If Germanic=PIE, the German word should be "burj" or "burzh".

I don't think anybody is suggesting that the root of burgn/burg, etc. is a 100% Armenian, but rather is came from a (likely centum, according to my sources) IE language. Maybe Graeco-Armenian. Maybe something else. Regardless, I don't see how this fits with your Germanic theory.

It seems likely to me that Armenian was spoken in the Urmia area by at least 1500 BCE, as pottery was found there that is identical to likely IE pottery dated to around the same time from Armenia.

As Pip and I have been discussing, it seems possible that Armenians are the product of 2-3 waves of likely Indo-European populations. The first one would be Eneolithic/EBA--the PPIE (I'm calling these people the Armani--they would likely have given rise or been closely related to the Hittites, etc.). These people were likely R1b. The second wave would be the "Steppe Armenians" (possibly from Catacomb) who arrived sometime between 2500-2300 BCE. These would be the Hatiyo/Haya/Hayo. This date corresponds with a) the traditional founding of the Armenian nation according to Moses of Korene (2492 BCE) b) the Nature article about Armenian genetics that came out in 2015 and c) Pip's research. These people were likely R1b. Then a third wave would be a satem language from a culture that arrived in the LBA. According to Pip, they were R1a-Z94 who were likely Indo-Iranian or Indic (perhaps the Mitanni or a related group, maybe the people who introduced the Indo-Iranain superstratum into Kassite). I'd imagine that they would have arrived by 1500 BCE.

According to the Nature study, the Armenian ethnogenesis was largely completed by 1200 BCE, which is part of the reason why the Balkan theory of a 1200 BCE-600 BCE introduction of the Armenian language by the hypothetical Armen tribe to Urartu is impossible.

Any of the languages could have been spoken in Iran.

Here's the Nature article that I was referring to:

https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2015206

 

[Cyrus]

Subari as in Shupria/Subartu? That's hardly western Iran. By Asgardi do you mean Asgari? By Almani do you mean Armani? By Germani do you mean Kurman? It seems that a) you're rendering words in ways that make them look Germanic (i.e. Armani as Almani), secondly I fail to see how many of these other words compare to German to begin with.

Again, just because there might be similar sounds or similar words doesn't make them German.

So really what you're doing is you're not fitting your theory around the evidence but fitting your evidence around your theory. That's no way to make an argument if you want anybody to take you seriously.

Shupria and Subaria were probably two different places, in the Akkadian sources Subaria is in the of Gutian land, so it seems to be modern Kurdistan in Iran and partly Iraq.
By Asgardi, I mean Asagarta in the Old Persian sources, Sagartia and Zagartos in the Greek sources, modern Zagros.
We see the exact name of Alman in Akkadian sources but it could be changed to Arman in Old Persian because of l>r sound change in Iranian languages.
Germani is the name of a people in Iran in the ancient Greek sources, it is not really clear that they were the same Kermani/Kurmanj, because we see Carmania in the the same Greek sources too.
The interesting thing is that you believe the name of Armi in Syria relates to Armenians!

 

[tyuiopman]

*I call them Armani because of the apparent early Indo-European presence of Armi/Arme/Armanum/Arman/Armani, etc. which has been discussed at length already in this thread. According to my theory, they were some sort of Anatolian or quasi-Anatolian Indo-European people. Perhaps the direct ancestors of the Hittites, etc. Perhaps the direct ancestors of the Gutians. Perhaps the direct descendants of the PPIE. Maybe they didn't exist at all but this could explain some things like the Euphratic theory. Then again, their existence is not 100% necessary. The Sumerians could have come into contact with the PPIE or early PIE tribes in the Caucasus or along trade routes. The IE>Hattian influence could have a similar explanation or they could have come into contact with early Steppe-derived tribes who ventured into modern-Turkey (perhaps the very first Greeks or the early Armenians/Hayo). I'm not 100% behind this Armani=PPIE=Euphratic theory...it's just something I've been playing with lately.

*As for the Mitanni and Indo-Iranian/Indic Kassite superstratum, the theory is that the Mitanni were brought in as mercenaries, maybe charioteers. Perhaps the same goes with the Indo-Iranian culture that was imposed on the Kassites. Eventually these Indo-Iranian/Indics took over and established their own dynasty over a Hurrian (and Armenian? and Anatolian? and Assyrian? population). It'd be reasonable to assume that these soldiers would have relations with local women, whether consensual or not. Armenians and other non-Iranian (and probably some Iranians too) Near Easterners with R1a Y-haplogroup could be a result of these liaisons. Only 8% of modern Armenians are R1a, for instance. So either the haplogroup got diluted over the last 3500 years and/or the population that introduced R1a was very small to begin with (i.e. contingents of mercenaries).

 

[tyuiopman]

Shupria and Subaria were probably two different places, in the Akkadian sources Subaria is in the of Gutian land, so it seems to be modern Kurdistan in Iran and partly Iraq.
By Asgardi, I mean Asagarta in the Old Persian sources, Sagartia and Zagartos in the Greek sources, modern Zagros.
We see the exact name of Alman in Akkadian sources but it could be changed to Arman in Old Persian because of l>r sound change in Iranian languages.
Germani is the name of a people in Iran in the ancient Greek sources, it is not really clear that they were the same Kermani/Kurmanj, because we see Carmania in the the same Greek sources too.
The interesting thing is that you believe the name of Armi in Syria relates to Armenians!

I feel uncomfortable saying that Syrian Armi=Armenians but rather that an IE group that were partially ancestral to Armenians, and maybe the direct ancestors of Indo-Hittites/proto-Anatolians gave Armi it's name. The general consensus is that it is an Indo-European name.

The issue with Armi though is that there was likely more than one place in Syria/Turkey (and possibly Iran) with a name like Armi. Armi/Arme/Armanum/Arman/Armani. Some of these may have been the same places as one another.

Alfonso Archi places one of these near modern Samsat, Turkey. Incidentally, this is very near where Aram (in ancient Armenian legends) fought some giant (I can't remember the details of the story, sorry). Also, Arme-Shupria/Armani-Subartu (which is usually associated with the Hurrians) was located to the immediate west of Lake Van. In later, Iron Age Greek sources this region was called Sophene. I feel a lot more comfortable connecting these places with Armenians in some capacity or another. Again, I'm not the first to propose this. The similarities in these names have long been noted.

I'd consider these names as having Hurrian or Semitic etymologies, but these names are clearly etymologized as Indo-European and are being treated as such by contemporary researchers. The Assyrians mentioned a Haria in the same general vicinity as Arme-Shupria. This could either be connected to Hurrians (Hurria?/Hurri?) or Armenians (Har=Ar).

I think it's possible that Armenians and Hye (which is what Armenians call themselves) were two different groups originally, although both were likely Indo-European. Again, this isn't revolutionary...most researchers have argued that they were two separate groups. Usually, they argue that the Hye predate the Armens, who are supposedly related to the Greeks and the Phrygians, and arrived sometime around 1200 BCE, possibly from the Balkans. This is the longstanding, mainstream Western view. I think, rather, that the Armens (or maybe more accurately, Arman/Armani) were an earlier IE group native to the region and the Hye were Steppe derived and arrived around sometime in the second half of the 3rd millennium BCE. At some point, these groups mixed. This theory reconciles the modern genetic data (including Pip's research that he/she so helpfully and generously provided in this thread) with the available linguistic records (i.e the existence of Arman/Aram/Ara/Ar names in the greater Asia Minor region in early recorded history) and theories (early Indo-European contact with non-Indo-European peoples of the greater Near East). It also reconciles the linguistic connection between the modern Armenian language and other Steppe-derived IE languages--namely Greek, and also Balto-Slavic, Paleo-Balkan, and Indo-Iranian.

 

[Cyrus]

It's what I believe based on the research of the respected linguists that I provided you. Burgn is the phonetic transliteration of Armenian բուրգն.
But your argument is that "burg" (i.e. the Germanic word) is the most conservative version of the word. But the Germanic "burg" is pronounced with a hard G, which is the same as in Old Armenian and apparently Urartian, etc. If Germanic=PIE, the German word should be "burj" or "burzh".
I don't think anybody is suggesting that the root of burgn/burg, etc. is a 100% Armenian, but rather is came from a (likely centum, according to my sources) IE language. Maybe Graeco-Armenian. Maybe something else. Regardless, I don't see how this fits with your Germanic theory.
It seems likely to me that Armenian was spoken in the Urmia area by at least 1500 BCE, as pottery was found there that is identical to likely IE pottery dated to around the same time from Armenia.
As Pip and I have been discussing, it seems possible that Armenians are the product of 2-3 waves of likely Indo-European populations. The first one would be Eneolithic/EBA--the PPIE (I'm calling these people the Armani--they would likely have given rise or been closely related to the Hittites, etc.). These people were likely R1b. The second wave would be the "Steppe Armenians" (possibly from Catacomb) who arrived sometime between 2500-2300 BCE. These would be the Hatiyo/Haya/Hayo. This date corresponds with a) the traditional founding of the Armenian nation according to Moses of Korene (2492 BCE) b) the Nature article about Armenian genetics that came out in 2015 and c) Pip's research. These people were likely R1b. Then a third wave would be a satem language from a culture that arrived in the LBA. According to Pip, they were R1a-Z94 who were likely Indo-Iranian or Indic (perhaps the Mitanni or a related group, maybe the people who introduced the Indo-Iranain superstratum into Kassite). I'd imagine that they would have arrived by 1500 BCE.

According to the Nature study, the Armenian ethnogenesis was largely completed by 1200 BCE, which is part of the reason why the Balkan theory or 1200 BCE-600 BCE introduction of the Armenian language by the hypothetical Armen tribe is impossible.
Any of the languages could have been spoken in Iran.
Here's the Nature article that I was referring to:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2015206

Instead of Germanic, I think we should say a Centum language with Armenian "devoicing" and Iranian "spirantization", for this reason many Germanic words seem to be almost the same as either Armenian and Iranian words, compare Armenian kow "cow" and Avestan thri "three".
The fact is that by considering Armenian and Iranian sound changes, a Centum language could be changed to nothing except proto-Germanic in the west of Iran.
It is important to know that these sound changes in Iranian, Armenian and Germanic languages were under influences of Semitic and Hurrian languages, it doesn't change this possibility that before contact with these people, the original language in this region was proto-IE.

 

[tyuiopman]

Instead of Germanic, I think we should say a Centum language with Armenian "devoicing" and Iranian "spirantization", for this reason many Germanic words seem to be almost the same as either Armenian and Iranian words, compare Armenian kow "cow" and Avestan thri "three".
The fact is that by considering Armenian and Iranian sound changes, a Centum language could be changed to nothing except proto-Germanic in the west of Iran.
It is important to know that these sound changes in Iranian, Armenian and Germanic languages were under influences of Semitic and Hurrian languages, it doesn't change this possibility that before contact with these people, the original language in this region was proto-IE.

Well, I don't know if it could only be Proto-Germanic. I'm not really following your line of reasoning here. I have a lot of issues with you stating things emphatically, especially when there is a) such little proof and b) we are talking about things that happened 3000 years ago.

As for kow, again, that transliteration is misleading. It's closer to k'ov (with a kind of quasi-K, quasi G--this sound doesn't exist in English, maybe it does in Iranian). It's not a hard K but a quasi-hard K (if that makes sense). It has been pronounced as k'ov for at least 1500 years or so. Theoretically, at one time, it could have been kow or maybe gow (from PIE gʷṓws)...but the W has been long lost in Armenian. Just something to take into consideration.

 

[nornosh]

I have studied Parthian history they called region of east Afghanistan Indica leika" white india" yet the word leika is related to latin "lac=milk" my question how come? they were so far from Greeks.

 

[Pip]

The key to testing if there is a genetic basis to support Cyrus' Germanics theory is probably to identify the more recent components admixed into Iranians. To me these look a confusing patchwork of diverse sources that I can't really get a handle on. There definitely seems to be some sort of European in there, but also some Far Eastern, Arabian and Indian.
I'm not sure we have yet hit on all the direct ancestors of first millennium BC Iranians.

 

[nornosh]

The key to testing if there is a genetic basis to support Cyrus' Germanics theory is probably to identify the more recent components admixed into Iranians. To me these look a confusing patchwork of diverse sources that I can't really get a handle on. There definitely seems to be some sort of European in there, but also some Far Eastern, Arabian and Indian.
I'm not sure we have yet hit on all the direct ancestors of first millennium BC Iranians.

Less worries! I have better way to do it! see if Germanics lived in Zagros region in 500 BC then Avestan/Old Persian too were present in the same region same time so these languages at the time must be so close to be mutually intelligible. Or they must be as close to eachother as Armenian were to Old Persian.

 

[tyuiopman]

I have studied Parthian history they called region of east Afghanistan Indica leika" white india" yet the word leika is related to latin "lac=milk" my question how come? they were so far from Greeks.

I have studied Parthian history they called region of east Afghanistan Indica leika" white india" yet the word leika is related to latin "lac=milk" my question how come? they were so far from Greeks.

Are we sure that it meant "white"? There are other similar sounding words in Indic languages (as well as other IE languages).

Or it could be from PIE glakt and it lost the G.

Or it could be from trade with Rome.

 

[tyuiopman]

Less worries! I have better way to do it! see if Germanics lived in Zagros region in 500 BC then Avestan/Old Persian too were present in the same region same time so these languages at the time must be so close to be mutually intelligible. Or they must be as close to eachother as Armenian were to Old Persian.

500 BCE is way to late for them to be mutually intelligible. Germanic is not close enough to Iranian languages for this to be true. Iranian and Indic languages split after 2000 BCE, yet I doubt if you speak Farsi you can understand Hindi. For them to have been mutually intelligible that recently, Germanic would be classified as a Iranic language or Iranian languages would be classified as Germanic. Indo-Iranian is generally considered to be closer to Balto-Slavic than Germanic, which implies that Germanic separated prior to when Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic languages split from one another.

Armenian wasn't really similar to Old Persian. By the time Old Persian was spoken in the 6th century BCE, Armenian had likely been separated from Indo-Iranian languages for at least 2000 years. The reason Armenian is similar to Iranian more recently is because of various Iranian superstratums on Armenian (Median, Persian, especially Parthian).

Here's another example: Modern English, German, and Dutch all share a common ancestor within the last 2000 years. They were likely all mutually intelligible within the last 1300 years. I'm a native English speaker. There are definitely some similar words in English as in Dutch and German, but I cannot understand either language or even the gist of what they are saying when they speak.

 

[Cyrus]

Less worries! I have better way to do it! see if Germanics lived in Zagros region in 500 BC then Avestan/Old Persian too were present in the same region same time so these languages at the time must be so close to be mutually intelligible. Or they must be as close to eachother as Armenian were to Old Persian.

Avestan and Old Persian themselves were certainly not mutually intelligible but we see many similar words, for example personal pronouns in Avestan/Old Persian are: min "I, me" (Greek egw), tu "thou" (Greek su), hi/shi "he/she" (Greek autou), wae "we" (Greek hmei), yus "you" (Greek umei) and diy "they" (Greek autwn).

 

[Cyrus]

As I have found, there are at least 600 Persian/Avestan words from proto-Germanic, like Old Persian xauda from proto-Germanic *xōda "hood" from Proto-Indo-European *kadʰ "to cover", wal/awal "whale" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/وال#Persian) from proto-Germanic *hwal "whale" from proto-IE Proto-Indo-European *(s)kʷálos, cognate with Latin squalus, xeng "horse, stallion" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/خنگ) from proto-Germanic xengist- "horse, stallion" from Proto-Indo-European *ḱanḱest, compare German hengst, xʷast "quest" from Proto-Indo-European *kʷeh₂s-, xʷah "whether", kulak "cold, cool", kalla "head", ...

 

[spruithean]

What you seem to fail to understand is that these are PIE words. Forms exist in many IE (and other) languages, not just German.
It's like you have this weird confirmation bias. You have convinced yourself that PIE=Germanic so completely that you don't realize that everybody else recognizes PIE as being a parent of, and not the same as, Germanic.

A very strong bias is noticeable in several threads with the same theory being presented, not to mention omissions from quotes to bend the quote to fit the theory and other things.

Subari as in Shupria/Subartu? That's hardly western Iran. By Asgardi do you mean Asgari? By Almani do you mean Armani? By Germani do you mean Kurman? It seems that a) you're rendering words in ways that make them look Germanic (i.e. Armani as Almani), secondly I fail to see how many of these other words compare to German to begin with.

Again, just because there might be similar sounds or similar words doesn't make them German.
So really what you're doing is you're not fitting your theory around the evidence but fitting your evidence around your theory. That's no way to make an argument if you want anybody to take you seriously.

Precisely what is going on. This happened already in other threads, and the discussions lead nowhere but into a repetitive loop.

 

[Pip]

Could this be relevant? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastarnae#Germanic - an link between Germanic and Iranic peoples in Ukraine & Eastern Carpathians. In particular, described by Greco-Romans as Germanic-speaking, but with the proposition of Trubacev that their name derives from the ancient Persian/Avestani words bast- "bound, tied; slave" and *arna- "offspring",

Perhaps these people descended from freed Germanic slaves of Iranic Scythians, some of whom admixed in with the Iranics, and most of whom later returned to their Germanic brethren in the Eastern Baltic.

Small traces of DNA I've picked up in modern Iranians look a bit like an odd mixture of ancient populations from Sweden, Czech Republic and NW Ukraine, although there is insufficient data to have much confidence about this.

Could the Germanic Bastarnae and Iranic Scythians each have had some influence on each other's languages?

 

[tyuiopman]

Avestan and Old Persian themselves were certainly not mutually intelligible but we see many similar words, for example personal pronouns in Avestan/Old Persian are: min "I, me" (Greek egw), tu "thou" (Greek su), hi/shi "he/she" (Greek autou), wae "we" (Greek hmei), yus "you" (Greek umei) and diy "they" (Greek autwn).

Yes. Because they were both early Iranian languages.

Incidentally, tu exists in Armenian and Latin languages. Mi exists in Latin languages and Germanic languages as "me." E is both he/she/it in Armenian and Spanish. Armenian and Spanish both have the en tense for "they."