| Part ofa series on |
| Indo-European topics |
|---|
 |
Extant Extinct Reconstructed Hypothetical
Grammar Other |
Archaeology Chalcolithic (Copper Age) Pontic Steppe Caucasus East Asia Eastern Europe Northern Europe Bronze Age Northern/Eastern Steppe Europe
South Asia Iron Age Europe Caucasus Central Asia India |
Peoples and societies Bronze Age Iron AgeIndo-Aryans Iranians Nuristanis East Asia Europe Middle Ages Europe Indo-Aryan Iranian |
Religion and mythology |
 Category |
TheArmenian hypothesis, also known as theNear Eastern model,[1] is a theory of theProto-Indo-European homeland, initially proposed by linguistsTamaz V. Gamkrelidze andVyacheslav Ivanov in the early 1980s, which suggests that theProto-Indo-European language was spoken during the 5th–4th millennia BC in "easternAnatolia, the southernCaucasus, and northernMesopotamia".[2]
Recent ancient DNA research has led to renewed suggestions of a Caucasian homeland for a 'pre-proto-Indo-European'.[3][4][5][6][7][8] Particularly, an admixture between theKhvalynsk and CaucasianCopper Age burials gave rise to the ancestry that later became known as a typical marker (WSH – Western Steppe Herders) of theYamnaya pastoralists.[9] It also lends support to theIndo-Hittite hypothesis, according to which bothproto-Anatolian and proto-Indo-European split off from a common mother language "no later than the 4th millennium BCE."[10]These suggestions have been disputed in other recent research, which still locates the origin of the ancestor of proto-Indo-European in the Eastern European/Eurasian steppe[11][12][13] or from a hybridization of both steppe and Northwest-Caucasian languages.[13][note 1] The origin of theAnatolian languages according to the Near Eastern model has also been challenged because "[a]mong comparative linguists, a Balkan route for the introduction of Anatolian IE is generally considered more likely than a passage through the Caucasus, due, for example, to greater Anatolian IE presence and language diversity in the west."[5]
Gamkrelidze and Ivanov presented their hypothesis in Russian in 1980–1981 in two articles inVestnik drevnej istorii. During the following years they expanded and developed their work into their voluminous book, published in Russian in 1984; the English translation of the book appeared in 1995.[23] In English a short sketch of the hypothesis first appeared inThe Early History of Indo-European Languages, published inScientific American in 1990.[24][25]Tamas Gamkrelidze published an update to the hypothesis in 2010.[26]
According to Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, theIndo-European languages derive from a language originally spoken in the wide area ofArmenian Highlands, thesouthern Caucasus, andnorthern Mesopotamia. TheAnatolian languages, includingHittite, split off before 4000 BCE, and migrated intoAnatolia at around 2000 BCE. Around 4000 BCE, the proto-Indo-European community split intoGreek-Armenian-Indo-Iranians, Celto-Italo-Tocharians, and Balto-Slavo-Germanics. At around 3000–2500 BCE, Greek moved to the west, while the Indo-Aryans, the Celto-Italo-Tocharians and the Balto-Slavo-Germanics moved east, and then northwards along the eastern slope of theCaspian Sea. TheTocharians split from the Italo-Celtics before 2000 BCE and moved further east, while the Italo-Celtics and the Balto-Slavo-Germanics turned west again towards the northern slopes of theBlack Sea. From there, they expanded further into Europe between around 2000 and 1000 BCE.[25][23]
The phonological peculiarities of the consonants proposed in theglottalic theory would be best preserved in Armenian and theGermanic languages.Proto-Greek would be practically equivalent toMycenaean Greek from the 17th century BC and would closely associateGreek migration toGreece with theIndo-Aryan migration to theIndian subcontinent at about the same time (theIndo-European expansion at the transition to theLate Bronze Age, including the possibility of Indo-EuropeanKassites).
Recent DNA-research (2015–2018) has led to renewed suggestions of a Caucasian homeland for a 'proto-proto-Indo-European'.[3][4][5][6][7] It also has been proposed by some to lend support to theIndo-Hittite hypothesis, according to which both proto-Anatolian and proto-Indo-European split-off from a common mother language "no later than the 4th millennium BCE."[10]
Haak et al. (2015) states that "the Armenian plateau hypothesis gains in plausibility" since theYamnaya partly descended from a Near Eastern population, which resembles present-dayArmenians. Yet, they also state that "the question of what languages were spoken by the 'Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers' and the southern, Armenian-like, ancestral population remains open."[27]
David Reich, in his 2018 publicationWho We Are and How We Got Here, noting the presence of some Indo-European languages (such as Hittite) in parts of ancient Anatolia, states that "the most likely location of the population that first spoke an Indo-European language was south of the Caucasus Mountains, perhaps in present-day Iran or Armenia, because ancient DNA from people who lived there matches what we would expect for a source population both for the Yamnaya and for ancient Anatolians." Yet, Reich also notes that "...the evidence here is circumstantial as no ancient DNA from the Hittites themselves has yet been published."[4] Nevertheless, Reich also states that some, if not most, of the Indo-European languages were spread by the Yamnaya people.[28]
According to Kroonen et al. (2018), Damgaard et al. (2018)aDNA studies in Anatolia "show no indication of a large-scale intrusion of a steppe population", but do "fit the recently developed consensus among linguists and historians that the speakers of the Anatolian languages established themselves in Anatolia by gradual infiltration and cultural assimilation."[29] They further note that this lends support to theIndo-Hittite hypothesis, according to which both proto-Anatolian and proto-Indo-European split-off from a common mother language "no later than the 4th millennium BCE."[10]
Wang et al. (2018) note that the Caucasus served as a corridor for gene flow between the steppe and cultures south of the Caucasus during the Eneolithic and the Bronze Age, stating that this "opens up the possibility of a homeland of PIE south of the Caucasus."[30] However, Wang et al. also acknowledge that according to genetic evidence, an origin of the Proto-Indo-European language in the North Pontic/Caucasus region is possible, noting:
latest ancient DNA results from South Asia suggest anLMBA spread via the steppe belt. Irrespective of the early branching pattern, the spread of some or all of the PIE branches would have been possible via the North Pontic/Caucasus region and from there, along with pastoralist expansions, to the heart of Europe. This scenario finds support from the well attested and widely documented ‘steppe ancestry’ in European populations and the postulate of increasingly patrilinear societies in the wake of these expansions.[31]
Kristian Kristiansen, in an interview withDer Spiegel in May 2018, stated that the Yamnaya culture may have had a predecessor at the Caucasus, where "proto-proto-Indo-European" was spoken.[7]
Lazaridis et al. (2022) outline genetic evidence for Reich and Wang's "south of the Caucasus" model. The authors suggest a primary Indo-Anatolian homeland inWestern Asia and/or the Caucasus, with the Eurasian steppe serving as a secondary Indo-European homeland after the Anatolian branch split off.[32]
J. Grepin wrote in a review (1986) in theTimes Literary Supplement the model of linguistic relationships is "the most complex, far reaching and fully supported of this century".[33]
Robert Drews says (as published in 1988) that "most of the chronological and historical arguments seem fragile at best, and of those that I am able to judge, some are evidently wrong". However, he argues that it is far more powerful as a linguistic model, providing insights into the relationship between the Indo-European and theSemitic andKartvelian languages.[25]
David Anthony in a 2019 analysis also criticizes the "southern" or Armenian hypothesis (replying to Reich, Kristiansen, and Wang). He finds that the Yamnaya derived mainly fromEastern European hunter-gatherers (EHG) andCaucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG), and suggests a genetic and linguistic origin of proto-Indo-Europeans (the Yamnaya) in the Eastern European steppe north of the Caucasus, from a mixture of these two groups. Anthony argues that the roots ofproto-Indo-European formed mainly from a base of languages spoken by Eastern European hunter-gatherers, with some influences from the languages of Caucasus hunter-gatherers. According to Anthony, hunting-fishing camps from the lowerVolga, dated 6200–4500 BCE, could be the remains of people who contributed the CHG-component, migrating from the south-east Caucasus, who mixed with EHG-people from the north Volga steppes. The resulting culture contributed to theSredny Stog culture, a predecessor of theYamnaya culture.[34] Anthony cites evidence from ancient DNA, that the Bronze Age Maykop people of the Caucasus (previously proposed as a possible southern source of language and genetics at the root of Indo-European), had little genetic impact on the Yamnaya (whose paternal lineages differ from those found in Maykop remains, but are instead related to those of pre-Yamnaya Eastern European steppe hunter-gatherers). In addition, the Maykop (and other contemporary Caucasus samples), along with CHG, had significant Anatolian Farmer ancestry "which had spread into the Caucasus from the west after about 5000 BC", but is little detected in the Yamnaya. Partly for these reasons, Anthony concludes that Bronze Age Caucasus groups such as the Maykop "played only a minor role, if any, in the formation of Yamnaya ancestry." According to Anthony, this, the absence of evidence of significant admixture (including of paternal genetic influence, often associated with language shift) from the south on the Yamnaya suggests that the roots of Proto-Indo-European (archaic or proto-proto-Indo-European) were mainly in the steppe rather than the south. Anthony considers it likely that the Maykop spoke a Northern Caucasian language not ancestral to Indo-European.[35]
