Indo-European Origins

Search About http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=Indo-European+Migration - 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 - 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).

• Greeks have never called themselves Greeks but Hellens. Gilaki->Graika is a little far fetched, don't you think
  
• Spain is a just geographical name derived from Hesperia (Greek meaning country of the West. Hesperia-Hispania-España-Spain). Spain/Iberia is one of the latest regions of all Europe to be Indoeuropeized. There's never been any nation called Spanish or anything simmilar before the the unification of Castile and Aragon in the late 15th century. Spanish derive from Latin, together with many other tongues, Latin is just one of the Italic branch of Western IE (but Italic is a loan word, dont look for any Persian tribe of a simmilar name, please)
  
• The only self-given name that Germans have given themselves is that of Deutch/Dutch (Teuton)... but it is a Medieval concept. German is a Latin adjective.
  
• I've seen better theories for the Irano-Croat connection than Khorasan-Croat (see http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3863&PN=1 - Who are the Croats? )
  
• Saxons are Germans.
  
• Farsi is obviously Persian, I concede that one.

The Germans don't even call themselves German, is it a Latin word I belive adopted into English. Germans call themselves Deutsch. Unless I am missing something here.

And we discussed Khorasan in the Iranian forum - and there is debate about whether the Saxones even called themselves Saxons (apparently the word means sword).

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.

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).

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.

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. 

i guess Finally Mixcoatl  solved the mystery of Indo-European Orgins !

and with Komnenos's Beer Proof, i think this case is closed and no one will stand any chance to proove him wrong.

This one makes more sense to me than the others:

My good thread was ruined! 

We eastern Indo-Europeans have a longer history than you westerners, so it is impossible that we have come from Europe!

I received these references through email regarding the Anatolian/Caucasian/North Iranian Theory.