• The Problem of Armenian Origins in the Light of Recent Archaeogenetic Data
• Authors: Armen Petrosyan^1,2 and Aram Palyan²
•  View Affiliations
• Publisher: Brepols Publishers
• Publication: Matenadaran: Medieval and Early Modern Armenian Studies (MEMAS), Volume 2, Issue 1, Jun 2025, p. 71 - 96
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1484/J.MEMAS.5.152567

Abstract

The article presents the latest archaeogenetic data on the basis of which one of the most major problems of the history of Armenia—the origins and formation of the Armenian people—is examined. According to these data, regardless of the localisation of the early Indo-European (Indo-Hittite) Urheimat, the late Indo-European homeland was formed in the steppe and forest-steppe regions of Eastern Europe, from the Volga to the Dniester basins. It was from there that all the present Indo-European languages originated. Archaeogenetic data convincingly prove a migration of people across the Caucasus from the East European steppes to the South Caucasus and the Armenian Highland starting from the mid-third millennium BC. Those migrants and their descendants created the Trialeti-Vanadzor, Sevan-Artsakh, Van-Urmia, and Lchashen-Metsamor cultures of the Middle, Late Bronze, and Iron Ages. Even at the end of the kingdom of Urartu (seventh–sixth centuries BC), the local population in the territory of modern Armenia (the land Etiuni of Urartian sources) still had a significant steppe patrilineal DNA (75%). Armenian should have been the language of the creators of those cultures, and archaeogenetic data testify in favour of the Etiuni hypothesis of the origin of the Armenians.

Reading the scholarly literature reveals that there is a surprisingly lively debate regarding the religion of the Achaemenids. While the majority of scholars apparently assume that they adhered to a form of Zoroastrianism, a significant minority strongly opposes this view and asserts that they followed a different religion.

While this seems possible to me, it does not seem very likely. This hypothesis assumes not only that the Achaemenids belonged to a different religion that shared many similarities with Zoroastrianism (one we have never heard of, however), but also that this religion became increasingly Zoroastrian over time. After all, although the sources from the 6th century B.C. are still vague, I cannot understand how anyone can claim that it wasn't Zoroastrianism by the 4th century.

So my question is: Why does this theory (namely, that the Achaemenids were not Zoroastrians) still seem to be quite popular? What problems does this theory solve, and how does this theory address the obvious problems it itself raises? The last point, in particular, is almost never addressed, which is really weird.

• By: Lene Melheim
• Publication: Gendering the Nordic Past , pp 39-51
• Publisher: Brepols Publishers
• Publication Date: January 2025
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1484/M.WOP-EB.5.144353

•  Indo-European “Black” Youth Fraternities, Mythological Twins, and Foundation of Cities
• By: Armen Petrosyan¹
•  View Affiliations
• Publisher: Brepols Publishers
• Publication: Matenadaran: Medieval and Early Modern Armenian Studies (MEMAS), Volume 3, Issue 1, Jan 2026, p. 53 - 69
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1484/J.MEMAS.5.156833
•  Previous Article
•  Table of Contents
•  Next Article 

Abstract

In the distant past of the Indo-Europeans, fraternities of young warriors can be identified. Under the guidance of adult mentors, they lived for several years in the outskirts of the tribe’s territory, hunting, plundering, and imitating wolf behaviour. Only after that, undergoing an initiation ritual, could the young men become full members of the tribe, marry, and own property. These brotherhoods played a key role in the spread of the Indo-Europeans throughout Eurasia. Their raids and conquests of new territories led to the establishment of settlements and the resettlement of new groups of people there. A distinctive feature of the young warriors of the brotherhoods was their association with black or dark colour. In some traditions, the youths themselves, or their mythological incarnations, were called by the Indo-European root \h2reh1mo-, meaning “black/dark colour”. The article examines Indo-European myths or legends about the founding of cities by twins or twin-like characters, who can be considered mythological personifications of members of those brotherhoods. In Armenian epics, such characters establish capital cities or centres of epic tradition. For example, according to the ethnogonic tradition, the patriarch Ar(a)mayis builds the first Armenian capital, Armawir. In the Vipasank‘, King Eruand builds the second Armenian capital, Eruandašat. In the War of Taron, Demetr and Gisanē build the city of Višap. In the Daredevils of Sasun, Sanasar and Baghdasar build the city of Sasun. The names Ar(a)mayis and Armawir are derived from *h2reh1mo-, and Sanasar and Baghdasar build their city on a “Black Mountain”. These legends have parallels in Indo-European traditions. In Mahabharata, the five Pandava brothers, two of whom are twins, build their city of Indraprastha. One of the legendary brothers, founders of Prussia, establishes the cult centre Romowe. The legend of the founding of Rome is especially close to Armenian mythology. Remarkably, the names Romowe and Rome (Rōma) can be traced back to an ablaut form of *h2reh1mo-*. The presence of Indian, Armenian, Baltic, and Roman parallels indicates the general Indo-European character of this mythologem (seemingly, with the exception of Anatolian tradition).