Armenian.

Armenian is the least well served of the IE stocks. Part of this is
the result of political and geographic realities. Most of the
literature is either in Armenian or Russian, which means it is
largely inaccessable.

When you read the articles in the EIEC or Britannica, you note what
the authors don't say, and how they say they don't say it.

The official story is that there are two groups of Armenian, Western
and Eastern, both descended from Classical Armenian, which emerged ca
AD 500. Classical Armenian is Biblical Armenian, 'Church Armenian',
and uses the Armenian alphabet. EA is spoken in Armenia proper, while
WA is the remnant of Armenian spoken in territories now controlled by
Turkey and Syria. WA is what is mainly heard in immigrant communities
in the United States. Not too much else is said, beyond the edifying
stories about St. Mesrop.

The reality seems to be considerably more complicated. There's an
article in the Spring/Summer 2000 JIES by Harold C. Fleming:
"Glottalization in Eastern Armenian". He covers a number of topics,
the main one not being germane to my own posting here. He discusses
the various problems with Armenian and without saying so in so
many words, comes to the conclusion that a major clearing-of-the-air
is necessary.

Essentially, the Armenians have carefully avoided bringing attention
to their internal linguistic differences in order to maintain ethnic
unity. Armenian is not just one language with a bunch of dialects.
It's a language family, with distinct living languages, some of which
patently cannot be descended from Classical Armenian. Fleming's view
is the Armenians most likely went right over the Caucasus into Urartu
as shepherds, crossing thru the world's 2nd most intense area of
glottalization. When the Urartian state collapsed (the details are
very obscure) the Armenian-speakers seem to have taken over, probably
peacefully, leading to language-replacement. Fleming mentions
Cavalli-Sforza stuff regarding the Armenians:

--start quote--
the Dargwa (of Dagestan), East Caucasic speakers, are closest of all,
followed by Kabardians from (North) West Caucasic. Old neighboring
peoples like Azeris (Turkic 'Iranians') and Syrians (Semites) are next
closest, in that order." [pp 194-5]
--end quote--

There seems to be a little conspiracy among all Armenians to pretend
they all speak the same language. They regard themselves as a single
people. The Classical Armenian language, their bible, and the Armenian
Church are the great vessels of their nationalism. The situation is as
if the French, Spanish and Italians regarded themselves as a single
ethnic group and averred they all speak Latin.

As for coming over the Caucasus, why not. We know Indic-speakers got
there too. If you take the idea they were high-mountain shepherds, the
whole process would have been peaceful, and of mutual economic benefit
to those lower down in the valleys. Armenian has certainly joined the
Caucasian sprachbund, and is also the most radically 'strated stock in
the living IE family. It seems also to have been there for a long
time. Fleming hints we need to look back into the 2nd millenium BCE
for their arrival in the Caucasus, more or less part-and-parcel with
the expansion of the Indo-Iranians (and who knows else).

Thoughts? Comments? Have I made any howlers?