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

tyuiopman said:
And FYI, I think that some of the PPIEs (or Indo-Hittites or whatever you want to call them) were living in (at least northern) Iran near Urmia and along the Zagros mountains.

It is really possible that the original land was in the north of Urmia, as I said in this thread: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...pean)-origin-of-Numerals-and-Alphabet-letters some original IE words actually exist in Armenian and Greek, for example we see Armenian vec and Hellenic weks for "six" but in Persian we see the same Akkadian word shesh, Germanic sehs, ... also for "seven" we see Armenian ewt and Hellenic epta, but like Akkadian sebe and Germanic sebun, Indo-Iranian, Italic, Tocharian, Albanian, Italic, Celtic and Balto-Slavic words begin with s too. In fact Indo-European language which was spoken in Zagros was certainly under influence of Semitic.
 
It is really possible that the original land was in the north of Urmia, as I said in this thread: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...pean)-origin-of-Numerals-and-Alphabet-letters some original IE words actually exist in Armenian and Greek, for example we see Armenian vec and Hellenic weks for "six" but in Persian we see the same Akkadian word shesh, Germanic sehs, ... also for "seven" we see Armenian ewt and Hellenic epta, but like Akkadian sebe and Germanic sebun, Indo-Iranian, Italic, Tocharian, Albanian, Italic, Celtic and Balto-Slavic words begin with s too. In fact Indo-European language which was spoken in Zagros was certainly under influence of Semitic.

Yes. There is another user in other threads on this and other sites who argues that it was Shulaveri-Shomu Culture who brought Indo-European to the Steppes. Obviously what they called themselves is unknown, but I think that it's possible that they called themselves Arman or something similar (Armani maybe). This could explain why Anatolians (Arman/Armani/Armi), Armenians (Arman/Armen/Armeneak), Iranians (Arman), Germanics (Arminus/Armin/Armand/Herman/Alemanni), etc all use variations of this name and why versions of this name appear from Syria to Iran in early recorded history.

The Zagros/Urmia/South Caucasus location is supported by genetics, and it is also supported by the clear early contact of Indo-European languages with Semitic, Sumerian, Kartvelian, and Hurro-Urartian languages. I also think that there was pre-Hittite IE influence on Hattian (look at the names of their gods). In the case of the Sumerians, I think that they may have originally been neighbors of the Indo-Europeans (to their immediate west), and the Hurro-Urartians (to their immediate east). The Sumerian mythical homeland of Aratta (Ararat?) and the mountains of Masu (Masis?) are suggestive of this connection too. As I also said, I think Sumerian kur is a loan from an early IE language (perhaps a pre-satemized version of Armenian "sar").

According to some, Kartvelian was originally spoken in western or central Turkey. So basically, we have clear Indo-European interactions with the nascent versions of most Near Eastern languages, yet people focus on the Uralic connection. I think what likely happened is that, ,once the IE went north, they encountered Uralics and there was intercultural influence.

Can you tell me what the word for "snake" is in Old Persian and any pre-Islamic Iranian views on snakes?
 
The distance between the Steppe and Armenia is not large at all, and it is quite possible that proto-IE speakers travelled between the two, particularly if they were nomadic pastoralists.

Really interesting idea. At its most southerly, the Pontic-Caspian Steppes goes through Daghestan/Chechnya and almost reaches Azerbaijan. So they could have been herding to their north or to their immediate (slightly north) east.
 
Yes. There is another user in other threads on this and other sites who argues that it was Shulaveri-Shomu Culture who brought Indo-European to the Steppes. Obviously what they called themselves is unknown, but I think that it's possible that they called themselves Arman or something similar (Armani maybe). This could explain why Anatolians (Arman/Armani/Armi), Armenians (Arman/Armen/Armeneak), Iranians (Arman), Germanics (Arminus/Armin/Armand/Herman/Alemanni), etc all use variations of this name and why versions of this name appear from Syria to Iran in early recorded history.

The Zagros/Urmia/South Caucasus location is supported by genetics, and it is also supported by the clear early contact of Indo-European languages with Semitic, Sumerian, Kartvelian, and Hurro-Urartian languages. I also think that there was pre-Hittite IE influence on Hattian (look at the names of their gods). In the case of the Sumerians, I think that they may have originally been neighbors of the Indo-Europeans (to their immediate west), and the Hurro-Urartians (to their immediate east). The Sumerian mythical homeland of Aratta (Ararat?) and the mountains of Masu (Masis?) are suggestive of this connection too. As I also said, I think Sumerian kur is a loan from an early IE language (perhaps a pre-satemized version of Armenian "sar").

According to some, Kartvelian was originally spoken in western or central Turkey. So basically, we have clear Indo-European interactions with the nascent versions of most Near Eastern languages, yet people focus on the Uralic connection. I think what likely happened is that, ,once the IE went north, they encountered Uralics and there was intercultural influence.

Can you tell me what the word for "snake" is in Old Persian and any pre-Islamic Iranian views on snakes?

As I said in the thread about the origin of Germanic people, the name of my son is Armin, this is actually a very Indo-European name that I have always loved.
The general Persian word for snake is mar but the general word from an IE origin is a?i, cognate with Armenian i?, we read many positive and negative things about snakes in Avesta and other Iranian sources.
 
As I said in the thread about the origin of Germanic people, the name of my son is Armin, this is actually a very Indo-European name that I have always loved.
The general Persian word for snake is mar but the general word from an IE origin is a�i, cognate with Armenian i�, we read many positive and negative things about snakes in Avesta and other Iranian sources.

Yes, but the point is, it was an word/name that was BROUGHT to Europe by South Caucasians and Germanics diverged from the Steppe population, rather than coming directly from the South Caucasus into Europe (i.e. they are a Steppe derived population who did not speak a distinct language until after Yamnaya). Clearly it was an important name to the early Indo-Europeans, which is why I think that they might have called themselves Armani or something along those lines. It could mean "warrior (army) men," "sun men," "all men", or "righteous/wise men." Aryan might come from this root too.

Please read this article. You'll certainly find it fascinating.

https://www.academia.edu/33109045/I...of_Indo-European_studies_2016_1-2_pp._129-146
 
Really interesting idea. At its most southerly, the Pontic-Caspian Steppes goes through Daghestan/Chechnya and almost reaches Azerbaijan. So they could have been herding to their north or to their immediate (slightly north) east.

Broadly-speaking, my calculations indicate that at the early (5th millennium BC) stage Steppic + Georgian DNA was moving South into Armenia, but only Georgian DNA was moving North into the Steppe. If there was a common factor, the data suggests it sprung from Georgia or to its North.

It looks to me as if both Armenia and Iran have been repeatedly colonised from the North, so that today's Armenians and Iranians are essentially of Northern stock, rather than of the people who lived there in the Neolithic.
 
Broadly-speaking, my calculations indicate that at the early (5th millennium BC) stage Steppic + Georgian DNA was moving South into Armenia, but only Georgian DNA was moving North into the Steppe. If there was a common factor, the data suggests it sprung from Georgia or to its North.

It looks to me as if both Armenia and Iran have been repeatedly colonised from the North, so that today's Armenians and Iranians are essentially of Northern stock, rather than of the people who lived there in the Neolithic.

How do modern Georgians compare to these prehistoric Georgians genetically?

This still explains the connections between proto-Kartvelian, proto-Hurro-Urartian, and proto-Indo European well.
 
Broadly-speaking, my calculations indicate that at the early (5th millennium BC) stage Steppic + Georgian DNA was moving South into Armenia, but only Georgian DNA was moving North into the Steppe. If there was a common factor, the data suggests it sprung from Georgia or to its North.

It looks to me as if both Armenia and Iran have been repeatedly colonised from the North, so that today's Armenians and Iranians are essentially of Northern stock, rather than of the people who lived there in the Neolithic.
Right now I believe this Yamnaya/Steppe theory of IE expansion yet the Yamnaya people were only R-Z2103 so how can we be so sure that Celts/Germanics too came from them I mean could Celts/Germanics immigrated from Asia minor to Balkans with Greeks/Illyrian/Latins too(Southern route) rather than from Pontic Steppe?
 
The fact is that other than Germanic people, it is very difficult to prove any other Indo-European speaking people lived in the Middle East and Mediterranean area before 1700 BC, of course there could be some IE people but their language seem to be extinct, like a language which could be a direct ancestor of proto-Greek and Anatolian in the northwest of Iran and Armenia. Almost all loanwords in Sumerian and Akkadian languages are from proto-Germanic, but we can find many words from those languages in almost all other IE languages. I don't think that in 2,000 BC Indo-European languages were far from each other, Indo-Iranians lived in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Italo-Celtic people in the north or northeast of Iran, Balto-Slavic in the north of Caucasus, ... Of course these languages have become extinct too and just subbranches exist.
 
Right now I believe this Yamnaya/Steppe theory of IE expansion yet the Yamnaya people were only R-Z2103 so how can we be so sure that Celts/Germanics too came from them I mean could Celts/Germanics immigrated from Asia minor to Balkans with Greeks/Illyrian/Latins too(Southern route) rather than from Pontic Steppe?
Yamnayans are a red herring as far as Bell Beaker people are concerned - Bell Beaker and R1b-L51 clearly look Balkanic.
A possible route for IE that fits the autosomal evidence is Southern Steppe Yamnaya to Baltic Corded Ware to Battle Axe/European Bronze Age and Indo-Aryans. But this is speculative - there is no clear evidence.
 
I believe almost all ancient words which are considered as Wanderwort actually show that IE people lived near each other. For example look at this Sanskrit word:
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/परशु
From Proto-Indo-Aryan *paraś?ṣ, from Proto-Indo-Iranian *paraĉ??. Cognate with Ancient Greek πέλεκυς (p?lekus, ?axe?),[1][2] and hence apparently reconstructible back to Proto-Indo-European[1][2] as *peleḱ?s (?axe?). The word is often considered a Wanderwort,[1] and the similarity of Akkadian 𒁄 (pilaqqu, ?wooden handle; spindle, harp?) (from Sumerian 𒁄 (balag, ?wooden handle; spindle, harp; possibly a split piece of wood or wooden wedge?); compare Arabic فَلَقَ‎ (falaqa, ?to split apart?)) has led some to suggest that the Proto-Indo-European word is a borrowing of the Akkadian word.[1][2]
Compare also German Beil (?axe?); see *bilją (with which Beil's etymon was conflated).
A proto-IE loanword from Akkadian which certainly didn't exit in PIE times means nothing, the fact is that like Akkadian hablu "cable" which is from proto-Germanic *hab- "to lift" + -lu (instrumental/agent suffix), Sumerian balag is from proto-Germanic *bia "to hew" + -lu, compare to Middle Persian bilag "small axe".
 
Or look at this Arabic word: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/برج

Borrowed from Classical Syriac ܒܘܪܓܐ‎ (burgāʾ), from Middle Persian (burg), or from Ancient Greek πύργος (p?rgos).

About the Greek word: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/πύργος#Ancient_Greek

The word is first attested in Homer, Iliad 7.206. Believed to be a borrowed word, probably from Urartian [script needed] (burgana, ?palace, fortress?); compare also Old Armenian բուրգն (burgn, ?pyramid?). Others connect the word to Proto-Indo-European *bʰerǵʰ- (?high?), with cognates including Sanskrit बृहत् (bṛh?t, ?lofty, high, tall?), Old Armenian բարձր (barjr, ?high?) and Old English burg (English borough). Kretschmer suggested a borrowing from Proto-Germanic *burgz (?fortified town, hill-fort?) mediated through some Northern Balkans language (Ancient Macedonian?).

The word has clearly a Germanic origin but we see loanwords in Iliad and Urartian inscriptions, so it dates back to at least 2nd millennium BC, was Germanic existed in the north of Europe in this period?! How an ancient Greek word could be from Urartian? What about Middle Persian burg? ...
 
The fact is that other than Germanic people, it is very difficult to prove any other Indo-European speaking people lived in the Middle East and Mediterranean area before 1700 BC, of course there could be some IE people but their language seem to be extinct, like a language which could be a direct ancestor of proto-Greek and Anatolian in the northwest of Iran and Armenia. Almost all loanwords in Sumerian and Akkadian languages are from proto-Germanic, but we can find many words from those languages in almost all other IE languages. I don't think that in 2,000 BC Indo-European languages were far from each other, Indo-Iranians lived in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Italo-Celtic people in the north or northeast of Iran, Balto-Slavic in the north of Caucasus, ... Of course these languages have become extinct too and just subbranches exist.

Citations please.
 
Citations please.

We are talking about recent genetic evidences which prove the original land of Indo-Europeans was in modern Iran/Armenia, it is clear that previous sources which were mostly based on different theories can't be useful here. For example as you see Kretschmer suggests a borrowing from Proto-Germanic into ancient Greek through some Northern Balkans language but we know proto-Germanic didn't exist in the north of Europe in this period.
 
The fact is that other than Germanic people, it is very difficult to prove any other Indo-European speaking people lived in the Middle East and Mediterranean area before 1700 BC, of course there could be some IE people but their language seem to be extinct, like a language which could be a direct ancestor of proto-Greek and Anatolian in the northwest of Iran and Armenia. Almost all loanwords in Sumerian and Akkadian languages are from proto-Germanic, but we can find many words from those languages in almost all other IE languages. I don't think that in 2,000 BC Indo-European languages were far from each other, Indo-Iranians lived in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Italo-Celtic people in the north or northeast of Iran, Balto-Slavic in the north of Caucasus, ... Of course these languages have become extinct too and just subbranches exist.

No. That includes Germanic as well. That's YOUR theory that nobody else agrees with that the Gutians were Germanics. We don't even know if they were Indo-European to begin with! You really need to stop pretending YOUR theories are fact. Again, I'm not attacking you--you have some interesting ideas, but the way you present things doesn't make anybody want to consider your ideas (hence the criticisms in other threads). If there was evidence (or even remote evidence) of Germanics in the Near East 2700 years ago, more people would talk about this. There isn't besides Gutian kind of sounding like Goths.

The "Proto-Greek" language was Mycenaean. A pre-proto Greek language would be Greaco-Armenian or maybe Greaco-Armeno-Aryan. We know that there were Anatolians in the ME/eastern Mediterranean by 1700 BCE. There were likely Armenians as well (Trialeti-Vanadzor, Nerkin/Verin Naver). We have Arman (likely Anatolian or Proto-Anatolian) in northern Syria/southern Turkey (Damgaard et al.) circa 2300 BCE. There were likely Greek (Mycenaean-like) people in the Mediterranean and Turkey at this time (Achaeans/Ahhiyawans). Your argument is totally baseless.

What you're essentially advocating is the Armenian hypothesis, which has been partially proven by geneticists like Reich. There is no reason to believe that Germanics and Celts were in the Near East, rather that these respective languages share a common root that came from a language originally spoken somewhere in Armenia/western Azerbaijan/northern Iran.

This seems to be the most reasonable model according to the present scientific and linguistic data: Armenian-like people living in South Caucasus (maybe Shulaveri-Shomu, which was mostly located in Armenia and Azerbaijan, also southern Georgia and northern Iran) spoke PPIE. Some moved west and became Anatolians. Others moved north. Some may have stayed in Armenia/Georgia. The ones in the north mixed with Steppe pastoralists and branched out every direction. This gave rise to all other IE languages. This is not MY theory. This is the most current mainstream theory, which is based on genetic, linguistic, and archaeological information.

There were likely Indo-Europeans in Armenia, Georgia, and Central Turkey by 2000 BCE (likely more like 2300--I'm thinking specifically about Alaca Hoyuk and Nerkin/Verin Navers). These people were either partially Steppe derived or had close contact with the Steppe peoples. This is not MY theory. This is based on the archaeological record.

I think that it's likely that there was another, probably earlier group (Euphratic) who lived in SE Turkey/northern Zagros region who were in contact with the Sumerians. They may have been the direct descendent of the Shulaveri-Shomu culture. They may have given rise to the Gutians. They may have given rise to the Anatolians. They may have given rise to Armenians (at least partially--some of the likely IE>Sumerian loanwords are very similar to Armenian words). They may have been in contact with the Hattians. But again, this is just a THEORY. This is not a fact. It's entirely speculation on MY part, based largely on Whittaker's work.
 
Last edited:
Or look at this Arabic word: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/برج



About the Greek word: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/πύργος#Ancient_Greek



The word has clearly a Germanic origin but we see loanwords in Iliad and Urartian inscriptions, so it dates back to at least 2nd millennium BC, was Germanic existed in the north of Europe in this period?! How an ancient Greek word could be from Urartian? What about Middle Persian burg? ...

It's not "clearly of Germanic origin." You're missing the whole point of the linguistic relationships and linguistic families/classifications in general. It was likely a Hurro-Urartian or Armenian word that was borrowed into Greek and Semitic. From Greek, it entered Latin, and subsequently other IE languages. Or it was a PIE word that existed in Armenian/Greek/Anatolian languages and from them it was loaned into Semitic languages. I don't think anybody claims that it's of Germanic origin, it just clearly exists in modern Germanic languages...just like many Greco-Latin, etc. words exist in modern Germanic languages.

Greeks existed at the same time as Urartu. Homer was a contemporary of Urartu. Many Greeks were living in what is now Turkey. It's likely that they were in contact with one another.

Persian burg could either be a native Iranian word, a loanword from Armenian or Greek, or a loanword from Akkadian/Aramaic/Arabic.

The etymology of "burg" as an IE>Urartian loanword is discussed here on page 134:

https://www.academia.edu/2939663/The_Armenian_Elements_in_the_Language_and_Onomastics_of_Urartu
 
We are talking about recent genetic evidences which prove the original land of Indo-Europeans was in modern Iran/Armenia, it is clear that previous sources which were mostly based on different theories can't be useful here. For example as you see Kretschmer suggests a borrowing from Proto-Germanic into ancient Greek through some Northern Balkans language but we know proto-Germanic didn't exist in the north of Europe in this period.

Yes. And those Armenian-like PPIE mostly went north, mixed in with Eastern Europeans, and then subsequently branched further out into Eurasia.

Proto-German could have existed by 500 BCE. And there likely would have been Pre-Proto-Germanic tribes (likely descending from something like Beaker) that likely wold have existed before that. It's very possible that Proto-Germanic peoples interacted with the Greeks. Remember, Alexander lived in the 4th century BCE.

It's certainly not any less reasonable that there were Proto-Germanics in Europe during Classical Greece than it is that there were Proto-Germanics in the Near East before Classical Greece (something we have literally zero evidence for).
 
Right now I believe this Yamnaya/Steppe theory of IE expansion yet the Yamnaya people were only R-Z2103 so how can we be so sure that Celts/Germanics too came from them I mean could Celts/Germanics immigrated from Asia minor to Balkans with Greeks/Illyrian/Latins too(Southern route) rather than from Pontic Steppe?

Or there wasn't major population displacement or genocide of the native European populations, but rather linguistic (and cultural) influence upon native European populations. Something we've seen time and again throughout history. A good example is modern Turkey, which is mostly comprised of native peoples who have adopted the Turkish language.
 
There are theories that Artemis was originally Hurro-Urartian (although the Arte- could also be IE/Armenian). There are also theories that Theseus comes from Teshub (Teisheba in Urartian). So no, it actually isn't that far-fetched that the Greeks were influenced by the Urartians, or at least in contact with them.
 
No. That includes Germanic as well. That's YOUR theory that nobody else agrees with that the Gutians were Germanics. We don't even know if they were Indo-European to begin with! You really need to stop pretending YOUR theories are fact. Again, I'm not attacking you--you have some interesting ideas, but the way you present things doesn't make anybody want to consider your ideas (hence the criticisms in other threads). If there was evidence (or even remote evidence) of Germanics in the Near East 2700 years ago, more people would talk about this. There isn't besides Gutian kind of sounding like Goths.

The "Proto-Greek" language was Mycenaean. A pre-proto Greek language would be Greaco-Armenian or maybe Greaco-Armeno-Aryan. We know that there were Anatolians in the ME/eastern Mediterranean by 1700 BCE. There were likely Armenians as well (Trialeti-Vanadzor, Nerkin/Verin Naver). We have Arman (likely Anatolian or Proto-Anatolian) in northern Syria/southern Turkey (Damgaard et al.) circa 2300 BCE. There were likely Greek (Mycenaean-like) people in the Mediterranean and Turkey at this time (Achaeans/Ahhiyawans). Your argument is totally baseless.

What you're essentially advocating is the Armenian hypothesis, which has been partially proven by geneticists like Reich. There is no reason to believe that Germanics and Celts were in the Near East, rather that these respective languages share a common root that came from a language originally spoken somewhere in Armenia/western Azerbaijan/northern Iran.

This seems to be the most reasonable model according to the present scientific and linguistic data: Armenian-like people living in South Caucasus (maybe Shulaveri-Shomu, which was mostly located in Armenia and Azerbaijan, also southern Georgia and northern Iran) spoke PPIE. Some moved west and became Anatolians. Others moved north. Some may have stayed in Armenia/Georgia. The ones in the north mixed with Steppe pastoralists and branched out every direction. This gave rise to all other IE languages. This is not MY theory. This is the most current mainstream theory, which is based on genetic, linguistic, and archaeological information.

There were likely Indo-Europeans in Armenia, Georgia, and Central Turkey by 2000 BCE (likely more like 2300--I'm thinking specifically about Alaca Hoyuk and Nerkin/Verin Navers). These people were either partially Steppe derived or had close contact with the Steppe peoples. This is not MY theory. This is based on the archaeological record.

I think that it's likely that there was another, probably earlier group (Euphratic) who lived in SE Turkey/northern Zagros region who were in contact with the Sumerians. They may have been the direct descendent of the Shulaveri-Shomu culture. They may have given rise to the Gutians. They may have given rise to the Anatolians. They may have given rise to Armenians (at least partially--some of the likely IE>Sumerian loanwords are very similar to Armenian words). They may have been in contact with the Hattians. But again, this is just a THEORY. This is not a fact. It's entirely speculation on MY part, based largely on Whittaker's work.

I'm really interested to find linguistic evidences which show other than proto-Germanic, another Indo-European people also lived in the Middle East and Mediterranean area before 1700 BC, of course some similar names, such as Guti and Goth, Armi and Armenian, Hatti and Hittite, Parhasi and Parsi/Persian, ... can't prove anything. I have researched about it for several years, there are hundreds Germanic words in Old Akkadian, Sumerian, Elamite, ... but we can't find almost any words from other IE languages in these languages, if you know, please mention some of them.
It really doesn't matter for me that those who have never researched about these things agree with me or not, there are many people in Iran who believe Iranian or Indo-Iranian speaking people lived in Iran in 2,000 BC or even earlier but when I ask them to show their evidences, they just mention the names of Parhasi and Madai in the Sumerian sources!! In fact they have nothing to say.
 

This thread has been viewed 97260 times.

Back
Top