Originally Posted by hazratemahmood
Recently some information was given by Midas
regarding the origins of Armenians in this post: "http://www.historum.com/ancient-hist...ml#post1335769
" and we discussed some linguistic evidence. In order not to derail that thread, I want you to share any reflections you have on that topic here. Linguistic and archaeological evidence are preferred. Also I do not believe there are Armenians in this forum so it is highly unlikely that things get ugly
Midas is imo the best poster we have currently on ancient history. I must say that his posts are as informative as they're interesting and easy to read.
However, I find it necessary to write summary about languages because of all those currently active discussions. Also it is necessary to write a word or two about roots of peoples and tribes and perhaps in correct general approach to answer on your original question.
Lingustic remnants are maybe the only certain evidence we have about early migrations of tribes, and the lines of those immigrations. By proper research of linguistic roots, scientists managed to correctly extract many languages which have been "dead" for thousands of years already. But, it is not easy to identify first places in which Indoeuropeans(IE in further text) lived in times before migrations. At that stage of development those tribes lived their half - nomadic life, and it means that even at that time they moved a lot. Furthermore, since some groups of tribes were migrating before others, we must assume that some tribes remained in their original territory. Therefore, the most probable is that there was serious of migrations which first began in Central Asia
, in the zone north from Black Sea and Caucasus. Persians considered that there is their Ariana Vedjo( the land of Arians, what we call today Indo - Iranians).
Lingustic similarities shows us that IE core first split into two main branches and among those two there might be also other smaller and not that important branches, generally looking. In every sense, peoples of the first branch, showed tendency to move to the West, while members of other branch showed tendency to move East and Southeast(from Central Asia). Those two branches are called by experts centum
(by the way those branches pronounced number 100). But, since those two branches were spreading like waves, thus taking more and more space, and it is natural that even between those two branches, differences were, thanks to natural conditions more and more visible. It also means that in some regions, territories of those two branches overlapped. That it really happened we can see from remains of languages of western branch at the East(kusheian and agneian languages in Central Asia, and galatian in Anadolia). In any case, those are long lasting IE migrations which started when first metals appeared and ended at the end of medieval era. All those migrations were actually series of individual waves, so peoples from Asia arrived on new lands, or would move further from lands on which their ancestors came from Asia.
For "eastern" branch or group, we can say that was constituted by peoples which spoked "iranian" accents(old - iranian, median, scythic and middle - iranian), with all their sub - species and dialects, and languages of India.
Western group is constituted from neo - hettite, phrygian, greek, Illyrian, italian, celtic germanic and some other lingual species.
Two main groups of IE people certainly knew some mixed words, because their languages had same or similar words for metals(aes in latin, ayas on old indian, etc..), and that shows us that first migrations of people could not
happen before discovery of metals.
(now I'm skipping parts about movements of people)
Western Anatolia was under pressure of migrations from West and East even after arrival of Phrygians and Greeks which occupied certain parts of it. Those "migrations attempts" were felt at each part of Anatolia, but were especially strong at East where Armenians were coming and West where Cimerians were arriving.
Cimerians(which Assyrians called Gimirri, and Bible mentions them as Gomeri) were probably like Taurs, Indoeuropeans of arian race. Their ancient homeland was in Southern Russia(mentioned even in Odyssey XI, 4 and further), and their name lives even today in the name of peninsula ta the black sea - Crimea. But, with their cousins Scyths behind their backs, they threw on Asia Minor, and pillaged it few times in time from VIII to VI century B.C.
These Kimerian invasions, along with breakdown of Chaldus around lake Van, which fell under blows from Assyrians(640 B.C), were probably the cause which enabled Armenians to start their migrations. In documents of king Darius, these are mentioned as Ariminians. One legend mentioned by Herodotus says that Arminians are similar to Thracians and shows them as colonizators of Phrygians. They already in VII century took territory of Chaldus, which was later renamed into Armenia, but they haven't exterminated domestic population, but subjgated it and ruled like a ruling class in those lands. That it was like that, we see from armenian old texts, which came to us(unfortunately earliest of these texts are from IX century AD), so we don't know what kind of language exactly armenians used right after their migrations. But, even in those texts, we see two basic shapes of their language; 1. pre - arian(chaldic) 3. iranian(the latest probably incorporated later into armenian).
So to summarize, Armenians were Arrians, which lived in Central Asia. They were IE of course, and in VII century came on the land of Chaldians which was later renamed into Armenia. Such were their origins.