Indo-European Origins

Indo-European Origins

Search About Indo-European Migration

I believe from an original homeland (in all probability somewhere around Lake Urmia) different groups of Indo-European peoples (with specified names) migrated to the south (Iranian plateau and India) and west (Europe).

Six major Indo-European peoples of Iran are: (Their modern names have mostly Arabicized)

Farsi -> Parsa/Persian
Esfahani -> Espana/Spanish
Kermani -> Germana/German
Gilaki -> Graika/Greek
Khorasani -> Khrovata/Croat
Sistani (Sakastani) -> Saka-Stana/Saxon

Map of Iran:

We know at least the original land of Persians was certainly somewhere around Lake Urmia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Empire : The first record of the Persians comes from an Assyrian inscription from c. 844 BC that calls them the Parsu (Parsuash, Parsumash) and mentions them in the region of Lake Urmia alongside another group, the Madai (Medes).

Edited by Cyrus Shahmiri

Even though I don't believe in this IE theory, I find it interesting that in the numerous topics this never came up.


Indo-European Origins in Southeast Europe


Igor M. D’iakonov

One of the many rival theories of Indo-European Origins proposes that the homeland of the speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language is to be found in the Balkan peninsula (Southeast Europe). This theory was most comprehensively proposed by the eminent Russian linguist and historian Igor M. D’iakonov in his seminal paper [(1985). “On the Original Home of the Speakers of Indo-European.” Journal of Indo-European Studies. Volume 13, p. 92]

D’iakonov argues quite convincingly against the two main rival theories, that of feminist Lithuanian-born author Marija Gimbutas [(1973). “The Beginning of the Bronze Age in Europe and the Indo-Europeans: 3500-2500 B.C.” Journal of Indo-European Studies, Volume 1, p. 163], who believed that the Indo-Europeans originated in the Russian steppes, and of Georgian linguists Gamkrelidze, T. V. and V. V. Ivanov who proposed an origin in the vicinity of the Armenian plateau [(1985). “The Migrations of Tribes Speaking Indo-European Dialects from their Original Homeland in the Near East to their Historical Habitations in Eurasia.” Journal of Indo-European Studies, Volume 13, p. 49]

D’iakonov makes an extensive survey of the linguistic and archaeological evidence and determines that the Proto-Indo-Europeans had a mixed economy based on farming and animal husbandry. He criticizes Gimbutas' theory which rests on little archaeological evidence and the completely arbitrary assumption that prehistoric populations used the horse as a military weapon. He is also critical of the Gamkrelidze/Ivanov work, both on linguistic reasons and because they postulate improbable migration routes to account for the historically attested IE languages.

D’iakonov demonstrates that the Balkan-Carpathian region has all the features known for Proto-Indo-European culture. Additionally, in a tour de force he demonstrates that the settlements of all known Indo-European languages can be accommodated easily if such a homeland is accepted, without postulating any long-range population movements except in the case of the Indo-Iranians, to whom IE languages came later.

I.M. D’iakonov's Theory of Indo-European Origins [(1985). “On the Original Home of the Speakers of Indo-European.” Journal of Indo-European Studies. Volume 13, p. 92] [Click on the Picture for a larger version.]
D’iakonov [“The Paths of History,” Cambridge University Press, 1999] explained that the Indo-Europeans managed to expand because of their comparative advantage over the more primitive societies that surrounded them:

However, I would like to note at once -against the opinions of Maria Gimbutas and other authorities of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but in accordance with the later findings of C. Renfrew and J.P. Mallory- that the most ancient Indo-Europeans living in the fifth to third millennia BC, i.e. long before the Iron Age, although already acquainted with horse-drawn chariots, never were nomads. Their movement across Eurasia (presumably via the Balkans) was not a miltary invasion, but a slow spread, caused by a fall in the child mortality rate and, consequently, by an increase in population growth. The reason was that the population speaking the Indo-European proto-language changed to a diet of milk and meat, and had a sufficiently developed agriculture (growing barley, wheat, grapes and vegetables). The surrounding population which lived in the Early Primitive Phase, and thus was by far not so numerous (the population numbers after the change from Primitive to Primitive Communal Phase tend to multiply by two orders of magnitude), adopted the agricultural achievements of the Indo-Europeans, and at the same time also adopted their language; thus the further movements involved not only the original Indo-Europeans but also tribes who had adopted the language and the mores, the latter including the Primitive Communal stage customs which the Indo-Europeans had evolved.

Maju, I don't want to conncet these peoples to each others but just their names, anyway we know similar words have similar meaning in the Indo-European languages.

Greeks have never called themselves Greeks but Hellens.

And we call them Yunani, is it important what the differnt names of Greeks are?

Spain is a just geographical name derived from Hesperia (Greek meaning country of the West. Hesperia-Hispania-Espa�a-Spain).

It can be said about Esfahan too.

The only self-given name that Germans have given themselves is that of Deutch/Dutch (Teuton)

We have given the name of Almani to them, does it matter?

I've seen better theories for the Irano-Croat connection than Khorasan-Croat

Good for you! Of course you should know that Khorasanis/Khrovathis/Heratis are also Iranians.

Saxons are Germans.

Good for Saxons! Does it change anything?

Farsi is obviously Persian, I concede that one.

Really?!!

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Maju, I don't want to conncet these peoples to each others but just their names, anyway we know similar words have similar meaning in the Indo-European languages.

Sometimes they do. But you shouldn't take that for granted.

Greeks have never called themselves Greeks but Hellens. And we call them Yunani, is it important what the differnt names of Greeks are? The only self-given name that Germans have given themselves is that of Deutch/Dutch (Teuton) We have given the name of Almani to them, does it matter?

Yes. You seemed to be illustrating a hypothetical ethymology. An obviously false ethymology and one of the first argumentations against I can thing about is that those names you are using have no relation to the name those peoples gave to themselves.

(Btw, in French and Spanish, Germans are also called Allemands/Alemanes, this is because of a German tribe that dwelt in SW Germany of that name:the Alamani).

Spain is a just geographical name derived from Hesperia (Greek meaning country of the West. Hesperia-Hispania-Espa�a-Spain). It can be said about Esfahan too.

I seriously doubt that Esfahan means Country of the West in Greek. If it was the case it would require an explanation, I believe, because it is eastward looking from Greece.

Hesperia actually even though a Hellinic 'name' meaning 'evening, dawn, west' originally given to Italy by Hellinic poets but later Romans gave it to Spain but added the 'title' Ultima = farther, while added to Italy the 'title' Magna.

Esfahan, never heard it but do doubt it, etymology simply doesn't work here.

Diakonov's theory is essentially just one step up from Renfrews', drawing upon the idea that initial Neolithic spread into the Balkans from Anatolia, and that the Balkan Neolithic was Indo-European, and so therefore suffers from the same improbabilities as Renfrew's theory.  Like Renfrew, there is nothing that distinguishes Diakonov's Neolithic IE's from the cultures of the rest of the Balkans, and yet the archaeological evidence shows the Neolithic originating from the south, from Greece, but Diakonov excludes Greece from his idea for an IE homeland.  

Another major problem with Diakonov is that the mixed economy he postulates is inconsistent with the known Neolithic culture of the region of his IE homeland.  The early Neolithic was not a mixed economy, but the later cultures of steppe instigation were.    

The third flaw in his theory is that he completely avoids the steppe region as a migration route, when the archaeological evidence does show that Neolithic agriculturalists or at least their culture reached the westernmost part of the steppe which became a mixed economy, and thus more consistent with the vocabularly of PIE. 

His downplay of the horse-culture of the PIE's is inconsistent with the known archaeology.  The earliest evidence of horse-domestication was in the steppe, and all IE languages have a word for horse which can be traced to an original PIE word.  The east, for him was a region of migration, not a region of a migration.   Archaeology says otherwise.

A fourth flaw is his wholesale diffusionist account of the spread of IE culture and total ignorance of the provenance of certain cultural traits.  There is no doubt to a certain degree of diffusion, where non-IE neighbors adopted IE cultural traits, however there are certain things within a culture which are decidedly conservative, such as religion and familial relationships.  One of the most telling is the proliferation of kurgans in the Balkans which were by origin from the steppe.  While the earlier Neolithic graves were more egalitarian, what some call matrifocal, the culture of the kurgans (again of steppe origin) is patriarchal.   Just like the economic terminology suggests a mixed economy, the language of early IE religion and society was patriarchal. 

Edited by Sharrukin

Are trying to argue here that the Irish actually originate from Belgium?
That might explain a lot, their fondness for strong and strange beers, and the role the Irish play in English popular folklore, not unlike that of the Belgians in Dutch.
Excellent research!

Originally posted by Komnenos Are trying to argue here that the Irish actually originate from Belgium? That might explain a lot, their fondness for strong and strange beers, and the role the Irish play in English popular folklore, not unlike that of the Belgians in Dutch. Excellent research!

I know you're joking but Celts actualy have more to do with Belgium than with Ireland, at least in what regards to their origins.

We know we should take this map with a grain of salt and virtually all IE homeland theories just about exclude the Low Countries from "homeland" considerations.  The closest theory would be that of Giacomo Devoto who places the "homeland" between the Rhine and the Vistula, between the Alpes to about the northern border of Brandenburg in Germany.

Originally posted by Afghanan This one makes more sense to me than the others:

This would be +/- the Asian part of the one I posted. I'm not knowledgeable about the Yue Chi but the rest seems reasonable. It's commonly accepted that the expansion in Asia has later dates than that in Eastern and Central Europe.

In my own scheme of things, this would be because the Caucasus and the deserts of Central Asia would have acted as barrier, while no obstacle other than some rivers opposed the IE march westward.