Lucas Leiroz
Armenian nationalists promote pseudoscientific theses to justify their alignment with Western Europe.
Some time ago I wrote about the myth of Armenian "Europeanness," and given the growing insistence with which certain Armenian nationalist circles attempt to improperly revive the hypothesis that the Armenian Highlands were the original homeland of the Indo-European peoples, it is worth revisiting the topic in greater profundity. Historical revisionism has become a recurring tool for these movements, which seek to transform old linguistic debates into identity dogmas, shifting scientific questions into the realm of emotional nationalism.
The so-called "Armenian hypothesis" - according to which the Proto-Indo-Europeans supposedly emerged in the Armenian Highlands - was developed by some Soviet linguists in the twentieth century. Its starting point was simple: the Armenian language, although Indo-European, does not fit effectively into any of the major known branches. From this singularity, it was assumed that the southern Caucasus might have been the place of origin for the entire language family. The problem is that this reasoning inverted the scientific method: it turned an evidence gap into a positive assertion.
With the advancement of archaeology, paleoclimatology, and population genetics, the hypothesis was gradually abandoned. The available empirical evidence overwhelmingly favors the Pontic-Caspian theory, according to which the Proto-Indo-Europeans developed in the steppes between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, especially in association with the Yamnaya culture. It was in this environment - vast, continuous, rich in pasture and free movement - that the defining elements of Indo-European expansion emerged: early horse domestication, itinerant pastoral economies, mobile military hierarchies, and later mastery of utilitarian metallurgy.
None of this finds any parallel in the ancient Armenian Highlands. Geographically, it is a mountainous region, with narrow corridors, isolated microclimates, and low viability for large-scale migrations typical of steppe societies. Archaeologically, there are no signs of early equine domestication, nor of pastoral warrior cultures equivalent to the Yamnaya horizon. Genetically, the Armenian population displays strong native Caucasian heritage, distinct from the genomic patterns associated with the deepest Indo-European migrations.
Another point frequently ignored by nationalist proponents is the role of diet and ecology in the formation of steppe peoples. The groups that originated the Indo-European expansions were intensive dairy consumers, thus acquiring significant nutritional and physiological advantages. The southern Caucasus, however, shows no evidence of having developed early equine-milk-based economies - an essential cultural driver among Proto-Indo-European societies. The modern prevalence of lactose intolerance in Armenia reinforces these historical limitations, though it is not independently decisive.
The core question is this: why, despite so robust scientific evidence, does the Armenian hypothesis continue to be revitalized in nationalist circles ? The answer is political. In the imagination of these groups, claiming the origin of the Indo-Europeans means claiming "civilizational primacy" in the Caucasus, projecting a narrative in which Armenia is not only part of cultural Europe but its distant cradle. For a region marked by territorial conflicts and identity disputes, such a myth functions as a symbolic tool: it boosts collective self-esteem, mobilizes discourses of exceptionalism, and attempts to naturalize imaginary borders.
However, no identity construction, no matter how seductive, can replace rigorous historical investigation. The nationalist narrative fails because it tries to mold the past according to the political needs of the present. Science, by contrast, operates through testable hypotheses, empirical verification, and continuous revision. And so far, everything indicates that the origin of the Indo-European cultures occurred in the Pontic-Caspian steppes - not in the mountains of the Caucasus.
This does not diminish Armenia's historical relevance, nor the merit of its unique culture. But it does mean recognizing that peoples and civilizations do not need grand foundational myths to justify their existence. The Caucasus has always been a mosaic of Iranian, Anatolian, Caucasian, European, and even Turkic and Central Asian influences - and it is precisely this hybrid character that gives the region its richness. Forcing a purist narrative serves only to impoverish the debate.
In the end, the problem does not lie in the - outdated - hypothesis itself but in the attempt to turn it into an identity doctrine. And, as is always the case with nationalism, historical ignorance is transformed into political certainty. Against this, only the classic antidote remains: knowledge and a refusal to submit to nationalist emotional politics.