OK this thread is becoming a "Rome is better than Armenia and vis versa"

Originaly I made a comment to a post which said that Armenia is insignificant. I put up a couple of links, and put the names of contemporary scholars who have done much work in the area of Ancient Armenian history. I never said Rome is not significant.

Also people are confusing the Indo-European Homland being in the area of Armenia, with the notion that Romans derivied their language from Armenian. Armenian just like all IE languages is derived from Proto-IE although it is just a single offshoot from the Mother Tounge (which to me is fascinating)
To put it shortly the IE tribes who did not migrate out of the area of Armenia, became the Armenians.

Again I will admit that until recently there was not much work being done on Ancient Armenian history. Armenia as an independent nation did not exist since 1375. Most of it was under Turkish rule, and the eastern part was Under Soviet rule. It wasnt until 1991 when the eastern part gained independence from the Soviet Union that the circumstances favored scholarly work on Armenia. I believe in about 5-8 years there would be much more information available on Ancient Armenian history.


I will be honest I am not well aquainted with the Out of Africa theory, but I have also heard of a nother theory which states that Humans developed separatly in diffrent places.