By Alexander Nash a Senior Honors Thesis Submitted to the Faculty Of

Home , Anatolian languages, Aratta, Armani (kingdom), Armenians, Armenian language, Glottalic theory

THE PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN URHEIMAT:

THE ARMENIAN HYPOTHESIS

Alexander Nash

A Senior Honors Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The University of Utah In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Honors Degree in Bachelor of Arts

Linguistics

Approved:

Benjamin Slade, PhD Supervisor Chair, Department of Linguistics

__ Aniko Csirmaz, PhD Sylvia D. Torti, PhD Honors Faculty Advisor Dean, Honors College

This thesis analyzes the viability of the Armenian Hypothesis, which places the Proto-

Indo-European homeland in the Armenian Highland (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1990,

Kavoukjian 1987). Arguments supporting the hypothesis are evaluated in the light of linguistic, archeological, and genetic evidence. After a thorough evaluation, I find that the Armenian Hypothesis lacks any evidence that positively differentiates it from the

Pontic Steppe Hypothesis and fails to provide for several linguistic and archeological facts. It is concluded that for a revised version of the Armenian Hypothesis to be compelling, additional archeological evidence supporting it would need to be found in the

Armenian Highland (a sadly under-researched region) and additional details would need to be provided concerning Indo-European fragmentation, migration, and subsequent dialectal development. TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ii

1.0 INTRODUCTION - QUEST FOR THE URHEIMAT 1

2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2

2.1 THE GLOTTALIC THEORY 2

2.2 EARLY HISTORY OF THE ARMENIAN HIGHLAND 9

3.0 THE ARMENIAN HYPOTHESIS 13

3.1 THE MODEL 13

3.2 ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING THE ARMENIAN HYPOTHESIS 15

3.3 PROBLEMS 17

4.0 THE PONTIC STEPPE HYPOTHESIS 24

5.0 CONCLUSION 25

FURTHER READING 27

REFERENCES 27

iii 1.0 Introduction -- Quest for the Urheimat

The location of the Proto-Indo-European urheimat, or homeland, can be

considered one of the original puzzles of modern linguistics. Excited by its possible

implications for the origins of western civilization, linguists have been engaged in

this problem ever since Sir William Jones noted, in 1786, the similarities between

Sanskrit, Latin, Greek, and other languages now considered to be descendants of the

Proto-Indo-European tongue (Mallory 1989]. Many of the tools and theories

advanced by linguists were developed in pursuit of this Promised Land; through

ever more sophisticated reconstructive techniques, the form of this prehistoric language was slowly revealed, but competing theories as to its original homeland

and the method of its dispersal continued to war with each other even through to the 21st Century (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1990, Pereltsvaig 2015).

Of these theories, the current favorite among scholars seems to be the

Kurgan/Pontic Steppe Hypothesis, identifying speakers of PIE (Proto-Indo-

European) with the Yamna culture, present in the Pontic-Caspian area from 5000-

3000 BC (Mallory 1989, Pereltsvaig 2015). Archeological evidence from the region has identified aspects of the Yamna culture that align well with what scholars have inferred about PIE culture, such as the domestication of horses (Mallory 1989).

Recent genetic analyses also provide evidence of massive migrations from the

Pontic Steppe that match the predictions of the Pontic Steppe Hypothesis concerning the spread of PIE to Europe (Haak etal. 2015).

The debate is still hot, however (Bouckaert et a l 2012; Gray, Atkinson, &

Greenhill 2011) - and the Pontic Steppe Hypothesis, of course, is not above critique1. In order to obtain a more precise picture, therefore, it may be appropriate to reanalyze the linguistic and historical data in terms of alternative hypotheses that

may have fallen by the wayside.

It is in this light that I wish to analyze the viability of the Armenian

Hypothesis, which posits that Proto-Indo-European was spoken in Armenia Major before the various Indo-European peoples migrated to their modern locations

(Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1990, Kavoukjian 1987]. This hypothesis has been greatly overlooked by scholars. The Armenian Hypothesis relies on the Glottalic Theory of

PIE obstruents, which will be described in detail in Section 2, along with background information on the prehistory of the Armenian highland that is essential for understanding the model. In Section 3 the main arguments of the Armenian

Hypothesis will be presented and deconstructed. In Section 4 I will briefly describe the Pontic Steppe Hypothesis and compare it with the Armenian Hypothesis. My conclusions will then be found in Section 5.

2.0 Background Information

2.1 The Glottalic Theory

One of the most intense debates surrounding the reconstruction of PIE concerns the nature of the language's phonological system, and in particular, its series of stops [Salmons 1993]. The traditional2 reconstruction of PIE stops posits

1 See Further Reading for a critique of the Pontic Steppe Hypothesis. 2 1 say "traditional" for convenience's sake and not because the reconstruction is uncontroversial. As Salmons (1 9 9 3 ] puts it: "... One fails to find a strongly held consensus about the nature of Proto-Indo-European obstruents during the course of the last hundred years. That is, one cannot appeal to some uncontroversial reconstruction of the obstruent system and claim that Glottalic Theory deviates radically from such an accepted system.” an inventory of stops similar to that found in (1), with three series of stops: voiced,

voiced aspirated, and voiceless (Haider 1985].

(1) b bhp d dht gghk

This reconstruction was created via the Comparative Method, a method by

which correspondences between daughter languages are analyzed in order to

determine the original nature of the mother language, using what we know about

how languages change over time. Table [2) shows some examples of the kind of

data that would be considered using this method (Salmons 1993). Originally, a

strong emphasis was placed on the role of Sanskrit in reconstruction, and

accordingly, a four-part stop series, similar to that of Sanskrit (voiceless, voiceless aspirated, voiced, and voiced aspirated), was posited using comparative data.

However, the voiceless aspirated series was called into question and soon disposed of in most traditional reconstructions (Salmons 1993).

P- t- k-

Sanskrit pitar- trayas hrd0

Latin pater tres cor, cordis

Greek pater treis kardia

However, what is shown is typical of the various pre-Glottalic-Theory reconstructions, taken as a whole. 4

Old Irish athir tri cride

Gothic fa&ar 0reis hairto

Armenian hayr erek' sirt

'father' 'three' 'heart'

b- d- g*

Sanskrit bala-m dasa janu

Latin de-bilis decems genu

Greek belteron??? deka gonu

Old Irish deich glun

Gothic taihun kniu

Armenian tasn cunr

'strength, size,' etc. 'tenth' 'knee'

Scholars such as Jakobson, Pedersen, and Martinet raised concerns about this traditional view as early as 1957 or earlier, stating that it was problematic mainly for typological reasons - that is, that it ran contrary to what was (and still is) commonly accepted as the typical cross-linguistic pattern for stop systems (Salmons

1993).

In analyzing the traditional reconstruction, immediately conspicuous is the presence of a voiced aspirate series in a system that lacks voiceless aspirates. Not only are voiced aspirates rare in themselves cross-linguistically, but they are normally only found in languages that also have a series of voiceless aspirates. Also

suspicious is the noted rarity (or possible absence) of *b in this system, which cross-

linguistically is a relatively common and unmarked consonant -- it is typologically

unusual for / b / t o be absent in a phonological system that contains other bilabial

stops (Salmons 1993).

These concerns, and others, led some scholars to propose a series of

alternative theories, now collectively referred to as the Glottalic Theory. These

sought to solve the problems of the Laryngeal Theory by taking typological

constraints into consideration, thereby proposing a different nature for the three-

stop series of PIE: (weakly) glottalized, voiced with aspirated allophones, and voiceless with aspirated allophones (Salmons 1993). (See the table in (3)).

A quick note on some features of the consonants being considered here.

Glottalization involves the closure of the glottis during the production of a sound.

There are two main types of glottal consonants -- ejective, with a glottalic egressive airstream, and implosive, with a glottalic ingressive and pulmonic egressive airstream. The term aspiration refers to a burst of air accompanying the release of a stop (Salmons 1993).

In characterizing the PIE stop system in this manner, therefore, the voiced aspirated series was eliminated and the *b gap was reanalyzed as a *p' (ejective p) gap, which is far more typologically sound3. According to this theory, the first series is only weakly glottalized in order to explain why so many of PIE's daughter

3 For articulatory reasons, /p ’/ is quite rare, even in languages that contain ejective consonants. The opposite is true of implosives — /& / is the easiest of implosives to pronounce, leading most proponents of the Glottalic Theory to propose an ejective rather than implosive series (Salmons 1993). 6 languages lost that feature, and the allophonic distribution of aspiration, unimportant in describing the phonemic inventory of PIE itself, explains the later developments made by those same daughter languages (Salmons 1993).

(3) Traditional Reconstruction vs. Glottalic Theory -- Stops

Traditional Glottalic Theory

Series I voiced - b ,d ,g glottalized - b',d',g'

Series II voiced aspirated - bh, dh, g h voiced w/ aspirated allophones - ¥ h\ d ^ , gW Series III voiceless -p,t,k voiceless w/ aspirated allophones - pW, t(h), kW

The Glottalic Theory has the advantage of offering a simpler explanation for the root structure constraints that seem to have existed in PIE. As characterized by the traditional view, these restrictions (in roots of type CV(V)C) disallowed the co occurrence of either two plain voiced stops or a voiceless stop and a voiced aspirate within a single root, as can be seen in examples (4) and (5) (Salmons 1993).

(4) Attested Sequences *ped- *dek- *pek- *deigh- *dheb- *dheigh-

(5) Unattested Sequences **bed- **pegh. **dhek- Under the traditional view of PIE stops, these root structure constraints

appear highly unusual, if not completely unique altogether. If viewed through the

lens of the Glottalic theory, however, the problem becomes merely that of a limit on

the number of glottalic stops in a root and a voicing agreement rule, both of which

are well attested cross-linguistically (Salmons 1993)

The Glottalic Theory also provides an economic account of certain dialectal

developments, such as the Germanic Consonant Shift. The shift from the traditional

characterization of PIE stops to Proto-Germanic has always been empirically difficult to motivate — some have claimed that such a change is unparalleled in all other known instances of language change (Salmons 1993]. Under the Glottalic view, however, the changes required to go from PIE to Proto-Germanic are conservative and cross-linguistically common (Salmons 1993). As far as most other

Indo-European languages are concerned, the primary problem would be in motivating a change from ejective to plain voiced consonants. This problem fades, however, when one considers that ejective and implosive consonants often coexist in the same series. It is possible that these languages developed, the implosive consonants (which are also voiced) became more dominant within the series, and then proceeded to lose their glottalic feature (Salmons 1993)

Many of the arguments against the Glottalic Theory seem to hinge mainly on a general disdain for the incorporation of typology into the comparative method.

Typological considerations, it could be argued, are undesirable in reconstruction because of their theoretical nature — a statement, for example, that “languages do not have voiced aspirates” is easily falsifiable, as, although voiced aspirates are rare cross-linguistically, several famous languages such as Sanskrit, Hindi, and Nepali do

contain voiced aspirate series (Salmons 1993]. Typological rules, in this sense, are generalizations for which exceptions can often be found. They depend mostly, therefore, on theory-internal evidence and not on external evidence (the body of human language itself].

And so the question stands: even if the typological generalizations concerning voiced aspirates, /b /, etc. are true, isn't it possible that PIE is the exception to the rule? And if so, is it appropriate to even try to incorporate typology into a reconstruction of PIE at all?

The point is a valid one, but the counterargument is far more compelling.

Without any typological consideration whatsoever, the best the comparative method can do is reduce PIE to a range of equally likely possibilities. Without the aid of any linguistic theory, these possibilities cannot be differentiated by the comparative method alone. This seems to deny then, to a certain degree, the reality of PIE as a language that existed as anything more than an entry in an etymological dictionary and was spoken by real human beings, with articulatory apparatuses the same as our own whose mechanics can be roughly modeled by phonetic and phonological theory. I do not think that any linguist would truly argue for the abandonment of linguistic theory altogether in comparative work — the things we know about language change, for example, are indispensable in differentiating between PIE models that account for later dialectal changes and those who do not.

Phonological typology is indispensable in the same way. 2.2 Early History of the Armenian Highland

Because the quest for the PIE urheimat probes necessarily into the

prehistory of our planet, it is impossible to conduct that search without

supplementary historical evidence, not linguistic of itself. The field of linguistics has, for its part, played a significant role in the deciphering of the cuneiform inscriptions that have contributed almost all we know of the prehistory and early history of the region known as the Armenian Highland -- referred to in antiquity as

Armenia Major and encompassing modern-day eastern Turkey, northwestern Iran,

Armenia, southern Georgia, and western Azerbaijan (Hewsen 1997).

The history of this region is complex and, in many ways, shrouded in mystery. Being situated between Anatolia, Mesopotamia, and Eastern Europe, the

Armenian Highland was the stage of contact between several ethnic and linguistic groups, including Semites, Indo-Europeans, and Northeast Caucasians (Adalian

2010). Further, most of what we know about the tribes and nations inhabiting the area during the Bronze Age and early antiquity comes either from Armenian myth or brief mentions by Mesopotamian kings, whose conquests often brought them into the region (Kavoukjian 1987).

Although it is of dubious historicity, it would perhaps make the most sense to begin with the myth of Hayk Nahapet the Chieftain, most famously recorded by

Movses Khorenatsi (410-490 A.D.) in History o f Armenia. According to Khorenatsi,

Hayk lived in Babylon until the giant Bel declared himself king over all, at which time he travelled with his family to the Ararat mountains. On August 11, 2492 BC, at the Dyutsaznamart ('Battle of Giants’) Hayk slew Bel with a barbed arrow, winning

freedom for his people and thereby founding a new nation (Sargsyan 1997).

In around 2000 B.C., the Sumerian epic Enmerkar and the Lord ofArrata makes mention of a kingdom or region called Subir/Subar or Subartu. Around the same time, the kings of Akkad named this region as one of the "four quarters,” situating it to the north of their empire (Finkelstein 1955). Subartu came to be a generic name for Assyria, leading historians to believe the term to be an early name for Assyria proper on the Tigris river, although the region originally referred to may have reached out north or east beyond the borders of the later Assyrian Empire

(Kavoukjian 1987).

If the case, this would place Subartu in the southern/central regions of the

Armenian Highland. It would appear, then, that the region referred to as Subartu by the Sumerians and Akkadians was not always a single united kingdom, but a loose confederation of Nairian (and perhaps Hurrian) city-states, whose association with each other varied throughout time, sometimes trading with each other, warring, or eventually forming smaller kingdoms such as Mitanni and Shupria. By the time the

Assyrians had become a force to be reckoned with, the term had lost any ethnic or political meaning and seemed to have been used in a purely geographic sense

(Kavoukjian 1987).

The Nairian tribes were first mentioned by King Tukulti-Ninulta I (1243-

1207 BC) of Assyria, when he recorded that he had exacted tribute from forty

Nairian kings. Tiglath-Pileser I (1114-1076 BC) of Assyria gave a list of several defeated Nairian lands, which ranged from the southwest of Lake Urmia to the north of Lake Van (Bryce 2012). Their ethnic identity is unclear from these sources, and

many theories abound as to their language and culture. The names of several of

these tribes end in what appears to be a Nairian suffix -bir, 'tribe,' suggesting that

the word Subir may have come from the name of a particularly powerful Nairian

tribe, originally referring to their sphere of influence (Kavoukjian 1987).

While the exact time the Nairians/Subarians came into the area is unclear,

several scholars are sure that the Hurrians were relative latecomers to the region

(Gelb 1963, Kavoukjian 1987) -- and more importantly, that they were not the

original referents of the term Subir (Gelb 1963). This was a people whose language,

called Hurrian by scholars, was neither Semitic nor Indo-European. Some have

claimed this language was related to the Northeast Caucasian languages, although it

and its sister/daughter Urartian may simply be language isolates (Diakonoff &

Starostin 1986). Hurrian was the primary language spoken in the kingdoms of

Mitanni and Shupria (Gelb 1963).

Mitanni was founded circa 1500 BC, possibly by an Indo-Aryan or pre

differentiated Indo-Iranian ruling class (as indicated by what appear to be Indo-

Aryan aristocratic and divine names), with a predominantly Hurrian population

(Nov&k 2007, Thieme 1960). At the height of its power, Mitanni bordered on the southwest of Lake Van and controlled large portions of the regions surrounding the

Khabur, Euphrates, and Tigris rivers, including the cities Mari, Carchemish, Nineveh,

Arbil, Assur, and Nuzi. Mitanni fell to Hittite and Assyrian conquests around 1300

BC (Novak 2007). Shupria was first mentioned by Assyrian kings soon after the fall of Mitanni.

Textual evidence seems to indicate that King Shattuara of Mitanni became ruler of a

reduced kingdom soon after his defeat, centered southwest of Lake Van and

bordering on the Ararat plain (Edwards et a l 1991). Its name, deriving from

Subir/Subartu, indicates that this kingdom was either politically or geographically

linked with the kingdom mentioned by the Akkadians and Sumerians. Around 1000

BC, Assyrian kings began referring to the region as Armine/Arme (Kavoukjian

1987). Shupria may have survived in some form as late as 674 BC, as King

Esarhaddon mentions it in his letter to the god Assur (Edwards et al. 1991).

As Shupria declined and the Hurrian and Nairian tribes of the region and northward felt the pressure of the encroaching Assyrians, they founded a nation that centered on Lake Van and spread as far as Lake Sevan in the north and Lake

Urmia in the south (Zimansky 1998). This was known as the Kingdom of Bianili in

Urartian ("Lake Van,” therefore, the Kingdom of Van), Urartu in Assyrian, or Ararat in Hebrew (Diakonoff 1985).

The nation may have existed, with reduced borders in the north of Lake Van and the region of the Ararat Mountains, for as long as the Nairians had been in the region, from 1300 BC or earlier (Kavoukjian 1987). However, the first known king of Urartu was King Arame, who ruled from 860 BC to 844 BC (Zimansky 1998). This king is given credit for uniting the Nairian tribes against Assyrian invaders and is believed to be the King Aram of Khorenatsi's History o f Armenia, fourth-great grandson of Hayk the Chieftain, and also perhaps the prototype of the legendary

King Ara the Beautiful (Lang 1970). Urartian, a relative or descendant of Hurrian, was spoken in the kingdom,

although some scholars have argued that Proto-Armenian was also spoken by many,

including the royal family, citing Hurrian influences in Old Armenian (Greppin 2008,

Katvalyan & Ghafadaryan 1986). As the Hurrian kingdoms fell, their lands and people were incorporated into the confederation, but the kings of Urartu only managed to hold off invaders for less than three hundred years before they were invaded by the Scythians and the Medes during the late 7th Century BC. The capital of Van was destroyed by 585 BC, and by the late 6th Century BC the Orontid dynasty had established their own kingdom out of what remained (Zimansky 1998).

According to mainstream models of PIE migration, Proto-Armenians arrived in Anatolia around 2000 BC and began entering the Armenian Highland around

1200 BC. As Urartu was destroyed, they claimed power in the region for the first time, establishing themselves as vassal kings (the Orontids) under the authority of the Medes (Zimansky 1998). Whether this was the case, or whether Proto-

Armenians were part of the native Urartian population, it is clear that after the fall of Urartu if not earlier, Urartian and Hurrian became completely extinct and ethnic

Hurrians assimilated with Proto-Armenians (Chahin 2001).

3.0 The Armenian Theory

3.1 The Model

The Armenian Theory, as argued by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1990), places the PIE homeland in or near the Armenian Highland. According to this model, the eventual speakers of Hittite and the other Anatolian languages split off no later than

4000 BC, invading Anatolia from the east by 2000 BC and subjugating it by 1400 BC. The PIE community continued to fracture at this point, beginning to split into

several groups -- the Greek-Armenian-Indo-Iranians, the Celto-Italo-Tocharians, and

the Balto-Slavo-Germanics -- around 4000 BC.

From about 3000-2500 BC, these groups (and their respective languages)

split further as population booms, the results of developments in agriculture in the

region, sparked waves of migration in search of unfarmed land. The Greeks

travelled to the west, followed by the Indo-Aryans to the east, along with the Celto-

Italo-Tocharians and Balto-Slavo-Germanics, these latter then turning north once

east of the Caspian Sea -- all while the Armenians remained in-situ. Before 2000 BC, the Celto-Italics had split from the Tocharians (who began travelling east) and

circled west with the Balto-Slavo-Germanics, settling in a loosely confederated

community north of the Black Sea. From 2000-1000 BC they then began migrating in waves to their present locations, eradicating or assimilating the native peoples and languages of Europe (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1990).

Kavoukjian (1987) posits a later date for the post-Anatolian split of PIE, identifying the Nairian/Subartu tribes with Proto-Indo-Europeans. He equates the ruling class of Mitanni, not with Indo-Aryans, but with Nairian Proto-Indo-

Europeans4. How the various Indo-Europeans would have split off after this is unclear5 - Kavoukjian does suggest that Proto-Germanic and Proto-Greek speakers may have, at this time, settled "in the neighborhood of the Armenian Highland in

4 The distinct Indo-Iranian/Aryan nature of the Mitanni fragments causes problems for this analysis — see discussion in Section 3.3 below, 5 M. Kavoukjian focuses primarily on the ethnic genesis of the Armenians. His book is out of print, and I have been unable to locate the final chapter, where he promised to lay out the Indo-European migrations according to his model in further detail. Asia Minor (toward west from the Euphrates,)" where they would have inherited the word buranun, the Subrian name, preserved in Sumerian, of the Euphrates, giving birth to Gothic brunna, Old High German brunno, Anglo-Saxon burna, etc.

('fountain, stream’) - but by the foundation of Urartu, presumably, the proto-

Armenians would have been a distinct group. Kavoukjian claims that the legend of

Hayk actually occurred at this time and involved, rather than a battle with

Babylonian giants, the unification of Proto-Armenian peoples against the approach of the Semitic Assyrians and Arameans from the south, and the foundation of the

Urartian Kingdom. The inhabitants of Urartu would have been, then, native Proto-

Armenians mixed with the late-coming Hurrians, whose language might have inspired some of the changes that eventually formed in Armenian.

According to this account, the Proto-Armenian Orontid Dynasty that took power after the fall of Urartu would not have been parasitic foreigners, but rather native opportunistic aristocrats who asked the Medes for help in supplanting the older, Haykian dynasty (Kavoukjian 1987).

3.2 Arguments Supporting the Armenian Hypothesis

The Glottalic Theory is pivotal to both of these versions of the Armenian

Hypothesis. If viewed in light of the traditional reconstructions of PIE, the evolution of Armenian seems to involve drastic changes from its mother language. This would imply, in turn, migration of the Proto-Armenians from some other location into the

Armenian Highland, where the languages it would later supplant would have easily influenced these drastic phonological changes (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1990). The Glottalic Theory, in contrast, paints a picture of PIE that involves a

relatively small change in the phonological systems of both Armenian and the

Anatolian languages, suggesting that the speakers of these languages only made

small migrations (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1990)6. Languages such as Hurrian and/or

Urartian would have still had an opportunity to influence Armenian in significant ways, including the borrowing of Hurrian vocabulary by Proto-Armenian speakers, but not as systematically as suggested by the traditional view, as this scenario would

not involve invading foreigners supplanting a native population (a Hurrian

substratum), but rather continued casual interaction between two native peoples (a

Hurrian adstratum).

The reconstructed vocabulary of Proto-Indo-European, regardless of the way its stops are characterized, also paints a picture of PIE culture and day-to-day living that narrows the range of possible PIE homelands. Indo-European words for

"barley," "wheat,” "flax;” “apples,” "cherries,” and their trees; "mulberries” and their bushes; "grapes” and their vines; and the agricultural tools used to cultivate and harvest them, suggest a community well-versed in agricultural techniques that were unknown to many parts of the world at the time of the Proto-Indo-Europeans. This rules out northern and Western Europe, as this form of agriculture was unknown in those regions until 3000-2000 BC or later (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1990). Gimbutas

(1956) denies this, noting that Indo-Aryan does not provide good evidence for agricultural words in PIE, and suggests, rather, a pastoral culture (see more discussion below).

6 Although Germanic poses a problem, see discussion in Section 3.3. Proto-Indo-European had many different words for high mountains, mountain lakes, and rivers coming from mountain sources, suggesting a mountainous homeland that coincides quite nicely with the landscape of the

Armenian Highland - home to the Ararat Mountains, Lake Van, and Lake Sevan, and backdropped by the Caucasus (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1990).

Proto-Indo-European also had words for transportation involving wheeled vehicles and horses, including "wheel,” "axle,” "yoke,” "horse,” and "foal.” One of the earliest known pictures of horse-drawn chariots are found on stone petroglyphs discovered in the region between Lake Van and Lake Urmia. This makes the

Armenian Highland one of the only regions that had domesticated horses and begun using them to pull chariots by 4000 BC, making it a prime candidate for the PIE homeland (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1990).

Cultural similarities between Proto-Indo-Europeans and Mesopotamians suggest extended contact in a region near Mesopotamia. Both Indo-European and

Semitic languages equate man with the earth, ultimately deriving their words for

"human” from roots in their respective protolanguages meaning both "human” and

"earth, soil." The PIE word for "grape,” *wei-no, has a striking similarity to Proto-

Semitic *wajnu, Egyptian *wns, and Kartvelian *wino (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1990).

3.3 Problems

The Armenian Hypothesis, unfortunately, is riddled with holes. The Glottalic

Theory, while perhaps facilitating the placement of the PIE homeland in the

Armenian Highland, does not necessarily argue for it. This weakens the hypothesis considerably, along with the fact that Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, and Kavoukjian wrote their proposals at a time when Europe was still being considered as a possible

homeland. Also concerning is Kavoukjian's ignorance of and general disdain for the

comparative method and PIE reconstruction.

The point about the Glottalic Theory is important. Even if the Glottalic

Theory is correct, it does not make the Armenian Highland the only possible PIE homeland. It is still possible, for example, for the Proto-Armenians to have made the relatively short migration from the Pontic Steppe to the Armenian Highland without going through the large consonant shifts necessitated by the traditional reconstruction. The fact of the matter is, no matter which reconstruction and homeland we choose, there will always be scenarios of language change (or stagnation) that seem a bit odd. If, for example, we select the Glottalic reconstruction and situate the PIE homeland in Armenia Major, we are still left with the case of Proto-Germanic, whose speakers would have migrated a very far distance with relatively small consonantal shifts in their language.

The fact is, not very much makes the Armenian Highland stand out as a better candidate for the PIE homeland than the Pontic Steppe. Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, and

Kavoukjian, the primary proponents of the Armenian Theory, made their proposals during a time when Northern Europe was still being considered as a possible PIE homeland, and so the majority of their arguments focus on differentiating the

Armenian Highland from Europe in ways that better suit the former as the PIE urheimat. These same arguments fail, however, to differentiate the Armenian

Highland from the Pontic Steppe region. The peoples of the Pontic Steppe had domesticated horses from an early period as well, and were, at the very least, familiar with pastoral techniques (Gimbutas 1956) -- and as has been mentioned,

Indo-Aryan in particular does not provide good evidence for an agricultural PIE

society.

The noted cultural similarities between Indo-Europeans and Mediterraneans

are trivial at best, and are easily explained by other means. It does not seem particularly unusual among the world's languages to equate humans with the earth, and the Proto-Semitic word for grape could have easily spread from the Armenian

Highland (the possible homeland of the domesticated grape, 6000-4000 BC

(McGovern 2003)) to the Pontic Steppe, along with the fruit itself.

Kavoukjian's writings seem particularly interested in proving that the

Armenian language is native to Armenia Major. As pointed out by Hock (1996), whenever a scholar attempts to argue that a particular language -- no matter which -

- has always been native to its own region, there are several considerations that must be kept in mind. In order to defend his position, Kavoukjian is obligated to demonstrate either that 1) Proto-Armenian (which is itself easily traced to Armenia

Major) and Proto-Indo-European are the same language or that 2) PIE was spoken in the Armenian Highland, and while other Indo-Europeans migrated out of the region, Proto-Armenians remained in-situ. Kavoukjian attempts the latter, but comes across several difficulties that he fails to acknowledge.

Bryant (1999) raises these same issues in the context of the various "Out of

India” hypotheses. India is a region that has, for its part, a history of linguistic contact and exchange that is similar to the Armenian Highland in terms of complexity. As Bryant points out, a scholar trying to prove that Aryas are native to Northern India has to show that Sanskrit/Hindi terms for native flora, fauna, and place names (categories that are particularly resistant to change) have PIE origins.

This may not be an impossible task, but it does clearly place the burden of proof on those claiming nativity. Similarly, the burden of proof is on Kavoukjian; if he wants to prove that PIE was spoken on the Armenian Highland and that Proto-Armenians remained in-situ, he has to show that at least some of the ancient names for various locations in Armenia Major — Arma, Armani, Aratta, Arsani, Van, Sevan, Aradadz, etc.

- are Proto-Indo-European in origin.

He attempts to do this, and his findings are in a way very enlightening — he discovers connections between most notable place-names in Armenia Major and links them to the worship of the pre-historic god Ar/Ara, showing that the roots of these names are not Semitic as many scholars had once supposed. He presents the possibility of identifying the Subir with the Nairians, and shows that they may have identified themselves as Ars or 'Sons of Ar' (Kavoukjian 1987).

However, attempting to identify the Nairians with Proto-Indo-

Europeans/Proto-Armenians, he then proceeds to put the cart before the horse - crafting etymologies for Armenian words from these place-names, and supposing this as proof, somehow, that the words were originally Indo-European. For example, citing Adjarian's etymology for Armenian aghbiur ('source, fountain') from

*bhrevr, Kavoukjian shows great contempt for this PIE reconstruction7 and suggests instead that the word may have come from the name of the Khabur river - giving an

7 "As we see it clearly," he says, "they had to invent first an Indo-European protoform (supposedly *brevr), they had to go through a tortuous and labyrinthine way of 'dissimilation, transposition, and addition' in order to arrive, from the artificial form *brevr, at the Armenian word aghbevr-aghbiur” (Kavoukjian 1987). 21 etymology of khabur>akhbur> aghbevr> aghbiur (Kavoukjian 1987}. What he does not realize is that this etymology only proves that Proto-Armenians either lived near the Khabur River themselves or dwelt among another people who had done so at an earlier point (such as the Hurrians of the Arme region] — a scenario that is already assumed in the Steppe Hypothesis.

This is an important distinction to make. The Khabur River, like several other ancient rivers (Bryant 1999}, very possibly derived its name from some word meaning "flow," “fountain," or "river." Kavoukjian (1987} may have shown that the

Armenian aghbiur (‘fountain’} came from Khabur or the word from which it derived its name, but where did Khabur come from? If Kavoukjian believes it originated from Proto-Indo-European, he fails to provide any arguments supporting his claim.

And if it originated from, for example, Proto-Semitic, how would this provide evidence that Proto-Indo-Europeans were native to the region? It doesn't.

Not wishing to concede that the rulers of Mitanni may have been other than

Armenian, Kavoukjian (1987} also claims that they were instead simply Indo-

European. In doing so he demonstrates ignorance of what it would mean for a name to be Indo-Iranian:

"It is known in scholarship that the ruling class in the state of Mitanni carried Indo- European names and among the deities worshiped in Mitanni were Mitra, Varuna, Indra, Nasatea, and other Indo-European (called Indo-Iranian} gods. Some authors present the question in such an aspect as to imply that the personal names and the deities called Indo-Iranian were not Indo-European and they generally formulate this question in a way as if that which is Indo-Iranian is different from Indo-European. The fact is that these names and the various deities called Indo-Iranian were all known in Subarian countries centuries before the migration attributed to Indo-Iranians ... How could one possibly accept the idea that these Indo-European names and the deities mentioned above could have come from Iran and spread over the extent of Northern Mesopotamia, Northern 22

Syria, the Armenian Highland, Cilicia and Asia Minor, in other words, the entire Indo-European homeland? ... According to [the assumption that the PIE homeland was in Europe] it must have so happened that Mitannians, as 'Hurrians coming from the east,' have met (or cohabitated for some time), in some place around the Caspian Sea or Lake Urmia, with those Indo-Europeans who, coming from Central Asia or the Caucasus, were on their move to the south, and thus have borrowed from them certain "Indo-Iranian” elements, at a time when the latter were not yet even Indo-Iranians" (Kavoukjian 1987).

Even with setting aside Kavoukjian's confusion over Indo-Iranian names needing to have "come from Iran,” his claim that the Indo-Iranians had not yet separated themselves from Indo-Europeans at the time of the founding of Mitanni puts the splitting of Proto-Indo-European far too late to make sense. It doesn't even make sense within his own model (when would Proto-Armenian have differentiated itself?), and seems to contradict the rest of his book, where he refers to Subarians and Nairians as Armenian.

He also attempts to assign an Armenian (read: Indo-European) identity to the word Armani, the name of an important Subartian city and one of the possible ancestors of the ethnonym Armenian (Kavoukjian 1987). Comparing the -ni in

Armani with various Subartian and Nairian words8, he concludes it is not Semitic and is a plural toponymic suffix. He eventually reconstructs the meaning "The Sons of Ar" from the components Ar-ma-ni and gives some of their possible Armenian descendants, but does not even try to prove their Proto-Indo-European origin.

If the particulars concerning the migration of Indo-Europeans out of the

Armenian Highland seem vague, that is because they were never really fleshed out.

8 Kavoukjian is alright with comparative reconstruction as long as he's the one doing it, I suppose. Neither Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1990] nor Kavoukjian (1987) wrote on these

migrations in great detail. Could a more compelling version of the Armenian

Hypothesis be crafted by adding these details? Perhaps, although to be convincing,

such a hypothesis would preferably base itself on independent evidence, such as

data from archeological excavations from the Armenian Highland -- which is relatively scarce.

Kavoukjian (1987) himself admits that he does not have very much evidence to support his hypotheses. Even if it could only be proved that Proto-Armenian was spoken in Urartu, the hypothesis would have more ground to stand on; as

Kavoukjian points out, however, very few Urartian writings have been found, and of all these, none of them seem to be civic records — which is odd for a kingdom as large as it was.

Unfortunately, the archeology of the Northern Armenian Highland is vastly under-researched. It seems that since the rediscovery of Urartian ruins in the 19th-

20th Centuries, the ancient kingdom has become tangled in the nationalist conflicts between Turkey and Armenia. The majority of the kingdom lied in the lands now under Turkish sovereignty, which are therefore unavailable for archeological research, as the government of that country seems uninterested in advancing

Armenological research (Wartke 1993). In turn, Armenian scholars such as

Kavoukjian, in an attempt to protect their people from what they see as a Turkish erasure of their history, argue for the importance of contributions made by their ancestors in Subartu, Mitanni, and Urartu. This is well and good, so long as it is accompanied by good scholarship. Tossing Modern Armenians’ Proto-Armenian- speaking ancestors into the mix, however, under the current paucity of evidence, is unwarranted.

4.0 The Pontic Steppe Hypothesis

The more commonly accepted hypothesis of PIE origins places their homeland in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe region, ranging from the northern shores of the Black Sea to the Caspian Sea (Gimbutas 1956, Mallory 1989, Pereltsvaig 2015).

According to this model, Proto-Anatolian speakers departed early, taking the long journey to western Anatolia, before the Yamna culture, whose archeological remains date to this period, took root in the region. The Tocharians were the next to leave, departing for the east. The PIE peoples who remained were in contact with speakers of Uralic languages for a while before Graeco-Armenian Indo-Aryan speakers left for the south and southeast and Proto-Europeans migrated to Europe

(Pereltsvaig 2015). This dates the arrival of Proto-Armenians in Anatolia around

2000 BC and in the Arma region as early as 1200 BC, with ample time to live among the Hurrians and eventually overthrow the Urartian royalty (Mallory 1989). At least some Indo-Aryans would have arrived in the Armenian Highland around 1500 BC, coinciding with the foundation of Mitanni.

Recent genetic evidence suggests that a massive influx of Yamna migrants into Europe occurred starting around 2500 BC. This wave of migration replaced

"~ 3 /4 of the ancestry of Central Europeans” (Haak etal. 2015). This not only provides indirect evidence for the Pontic Steppe Hypothesis, but also argues against an alternative version of the Armenian Hypothesis that would have Proto-Indo-

Europeans migrating out of Anatolia/Armenia Major to southeastern Europe via the Baltics around 5000 BC. If the Yamna migration of 2500 BC replaced 3/4 of the ancestry of Central Europeans, it is very unlikely that these Anatolian migrants' language would have survived unscathed (Pereltsvaig 2015).

Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1990) discuss the possibility of the speakers of

Proto-European languages settling for a time in the region north of the Black Sea, but unfortunately, some other key aspects of their chronology simply do not match up with the evidence. First, they have the Proto-Europeans arriving in the area far too late — a little before 2000 BC. Their model also cannot explain the Uralic influences in Indo-Aryan - as the Indo-Aryans would have travelled directly east from the Armenian Highland — nor does it account for the aspects of Tocharian culture that seem to coincide with the Yamna culture (Pereltsvaig 2015).

5.0 Conclusion

The Armenian Hypothesis of Proto-Indo-European origins, in its present form, is deeply flawed, suffering from a lack of any sort of evidence that would make the Armenian Highland a better candidate for the PIE homeland than the Pontic

Steppe. In order to keep the urheimat in Armenia Major and account for all the linguistic data, a more fleshed-out account of Indo-European migration out of

Armenia would have to be provided. Arguments supporting the claim that PIE speakers would have come into contact with Uralic speakers at some other time or place than argued by the Pontic Steppe Hypothesis would have to be presented - it is unclear what this would even look like, as there is relatively little archeological evidence to go off of. Regardless of the state of the Glottalic Theory, the idea that

Proto-Indo-European was spoken in the Armenian Highland and, by extension, that the Armenian language is native to that same region, is at best unfounded, at worst impossible. Anyone wishing to advocate for this hypothesis would be best advised to push for more extensive archeological research in eastern Turkey and Armenia, which may provide additional evidence for their claims to rest on.

It is understandable that Gamkrelidze and Ivanov would have proposed a model that made good use of the Glottalic Theory, which they were strong proponents of. It is even more understandable that Armenian scholars, proud of their language and wishing to claim the feats of the great ancient kingdoms of

Urartu, Mitanni, and Shupria as part of their own heritage, would latch onto this hypothesis.

What these scholars may not have realized, however, is that admitting a PIE homeland exterior to the Armenian Highland does not amount to denying the history of Armenians. As written by Chahin (2001), "Urartian history is part of

Armenian history, in the same sense that the history of the ancient Britons is part of

English history, and that of the Gauls is part of French history. Armenians can legitimately claim, through Urartu, an historical continuity of some 4000 years; their history is among those of the most ancient peoples in the world.” Modern

Armenians, who are certainly the descendants of not only Indo-Europeans, but also

Nairians (whoever they may be) and Hurrians/ Urartians, can claim all these as part of their cultural heritage. They may love their language, while continuing to be proud of their entire ancestry -- giant-slaying chieftains, kingdom-building Hurrians, supplanting Orontid kings, and all -- regardless of whether they all spoke with an

Indo-European tongue. 27