Search results

That later point doesn't fit time line. If you look at timeline, Armenian exist before Iranian presence. It would mean that the roles you assign are reverse. There is Iranian contact but at a much later date. I beleive everyone is trying their best to place Armenian much later in the timeline...

See Eric Hamp's 2012 map... Eastward expansion and no slingshot around Balkens. If Greeks arrive in Greece at 3rd millennium bc then Armenian would have a much older presence in timeline.

The dates don't reconcile nor does the language or culture. There is no credence given to Phyrigian connection except Herodotus's reference and he is unreliable. The most likely event is what I described. I am over simplifying. The reference to Hittites is more so done to reference cultural...

The story of Hayk in the Armenian ethnogenesis reveals that there was a battle in the historical record of Armenians with "Bel". Also, the story of "Ara the handsome", reveals a story of "taking culture, genes, and beauty" by southern population. You have Hittites using cuneiform (cultural...

No, your dates are wrong. Revisisionist gennerally place Phyrigian in Armenian ethnogenesis at around 700 bc. The 1200 bc date actually coincides with mid evil Armenian historians.

Alan, it is actually arguing the opposite. The article stresses the 1200 bc date as an end point to Armenian ethnogenesis; thus, giving credence to Armenian historian origins of Armenians, which is non-Phrygian. Even before this paper it is well known that the phrygian hypothesis was wrong. Just...