Samples of Anatolian/Aegean origin from the Roman empire city Vimminacium in what is now the eastern part of Serbia

Samples of Anatolian/Aegean origin from the Roman empire city Vimminacium (Olalde 2023) in what is now the eastern part of Serbia. A large military camp was present in the city.

• E-L791 is remarkable because it's very close to Napoleon's Y DNA. Another L791 from Roman era Croatia.

  Distance to: Croatia_Zadar_Roman_oLevant.SG:R3742.SG
  0.03003301 Greek_Cappadocia
  0.03236809 Greek_Central_Anatolia
  0.03434637 Greek_Crete_Heraklion
  0.03806465 Armenian_Gesaria
  0.03847296 Greek_Crete

• I2-Y16419 is ultimately from Trialeti-Vanadzor culture. Based on genetics he was probably from Kesaria/Kayseri.

• The presence of J2-L70 and J1-BY94 is without surprise. This two haplotypes expanded in Iron Age Anatolia most probably.

• And the T1a2 could be local but in most likelihood he was also from Anatolia.

Also a lot of local Balkanian specific haplotypes like E-V13 with some Germanic ones.

Another evidence that Roman Empire had a significant impact on the genetics of South Europe. Read in more detail in the link below.

 

•  In 313 AD, the Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, which accepted Christianity

 

 

Remarks on the Van Urmia ware culture. VUC (2200-1400/1300BC)

Previously I already had a review on VUC. Here I will add some remarks on the frequently asked questions.

+ VUC is a sister culture of Trialeti-Vanadzor culture, it does not descend from it. Both descend from the same parent culture, but despite this they have differences. VUC had painted pottery, while TVC had a different pottery. The grave was directed north-south in VUC while TVC had a east-west orientation. And most importantly TVC were practicing cremation while VUC not.

+ How exactly migrated Proto VUC people is not clear. One option is via Araratian plain but the presence in Aji Chay river basin, toward the Ardabil region suggests that they could have entered from the Mughan region toward the sources of Aji Chay then moved downstream toward the Urmia basin, and then to Van.

+ Karmir-berd culture descend from VUC. We don't have samples from this culture. The Dzori geghi outlier can be related to it. The J2-YP879 from Keti LBA can be another descendant of Karmir berd culture.

+ Unlike the TVC the VUC do not have an evident progeniture. Over time new people settled in Urmia basin from north Mesopotamia and Central Iran cropping the territory of VUC people. You can witness this change with the genetics. Hasanlu MBA (a hypothetical VUC sample) is close to Assyrian - Armenians while the Hasanlu IA is close the Kurds. In most likelihood the regions that best preserved the VUC ancestry are in the eastern Van and northern and western Urmia. South and east of lake Urmia had too much genetic shift. This means that most plausible descendants of VUC culture should be searched in those regions.

+ During Iron Age in forementioned regions we have Biai people from which the Biainili term is derived. We have Armarili (another name Aramali ) supposedly near modern Salmas. According to Sargon the ruling dinasty of Urartu was from Armarili. We have Ayadi near modern Urmia city and Uayis with disputed location. It is quite possible that this Uayis is another name for Biai, which was pronounced as Væy - Vay. According to Petrosyan later terms like Vayoc' dzor are related to this Vay people name. A term that he links with Hittites though.

+ Based on this logic the Manna country doesn't seem to be a good candidate for being a direct descendant from VUC. It has too much Dinkha tepe 2 type ancestry related to Grey ware. Nevertheless, the Hasanlu IA had too much of R1b to be completely unrelated to VUC. One possibility is that some R1b moved further south and east and became part of Grey ware. And reexpanded later with them. This would explain high level of R1b in some Iranian populations like Lurs. Another reason is that some of Hasanlu samples are different genome wide. They are closer to older VUC profile and plot close to Armenians and Assyrians. You can see an example in the fifth chart. Overall, it seems that the Manna country had a multi-ethnic composition and more ancient DNA is needed from south of Urmia to understand better it's structure

Linguistic is a mature science and we should not expect any groundbreaking findings from a new paper.

Linguistic is a mature science and we should not expect any groundbreaking findings from a new paper. What can do a modern linguist is to have a new interpretation of already known facts, or at best he can find a few new lexical parallels. Nielsen's paper is important because it shows that the linguistic data do not contradict to the available genetic data about the origins of Armenians. And more important it can reinforce it, giving new details.

The most important argument for Proto Armenians dwelling in the northern parts of historic Armenia is the phonetic system of Armenian which is very close to Georgian and Zan phonetic systems.

Creanza et al. 2015 analyzed more than 2000 languages and based that came to the conclusion that the phonetic systems of two neighboring languages correlates better with geographic distance than with their affiliated linguistic families. Another interesting conclusion was that an isolated language drifts. But unlike the genetics were the drift decrease the diversity, the drift in the language increases the number of phonemes.

This by the way can explain the high number of phonemes in the North Caucasian languages. Returning to the Armenian and Kartvelian we can say that similar phonetic systems mean relatively long period of coexistence.

On the other hand, this do not mean that the Kur-Araxian culture which became the substrate for the Armenian language was necessarily and predominantly Kartvelian. First the number of mutual loanwords is too small for that. Most loanwords in Armenian are from the Zan branch which can be connected to the Colchian archaeological culture. Moreover, we do not know well about the phonetic system of Urartian. Given that we know about their phonology only via the cuneiform it is possible that their phonetic system was also close to the Armenian.

Another important question is the migration of IE Anatolians. If further genetic data do not show evidence that they migrated via Balkans, then the only available option left will be their origins or migration via the historic Armenia. In this scenario Kura-Araxes becomes indispensable for their spread. So, there is a need to look at the possible IE Anatolian substrate in Armenian. Nielsen mentions this.

And finally based on the available genetic and archaeological data there is little doubt that the Nakh-Daghestani linguistic family descend from a subset of Kura-Araxes. We can't now deduce the exact boundary of this subset, but we can expect that Proto-Armenian would have a contact with them also. So, another analyze of Armenian and Nakh-Daghestani connections is needed.

Returning to the Kartvelian family. Based on the current genetic and archaeological data the most likely cultures related to the Kartvelian family were the Proto-Colchian (2700-1700/1500BCE) and the Colchian culture (1700/1500-700BCE) in the western Georgia. Some Kartvelian presence in Koban culture is also possible but it's not relevant for ancient Armenian connections. What is more important is that Colchian culture axes were found in northwestern regions of historic Armenia which can explain the stronger presence of Zan loanwords in the Armenian. More ancient DNA and archaeological research from that region, will help to better understand this question.

The origins of Grey ware culture in Iran

We have a decent number of ancient DNA from Urmia basin. Based on that we can say that the Urmia basin was a dynamic place. One of interesting findings is the increase of Iran/Zagros Neolithic ancestry in LBA period. (after the 1600bc). This increase started probably at the end of MBA.

The best archaeologic event that matches this genetic shift is the spread of Grey ware. Initially Grey ware was considered as an Iron Age pottery, but new studies of Iranian archaeologists propose a Bronze Age spread of this pottery which is found in many sites in North Iran (see the map, Fahimi 2019)

Apparently, the current genetic data supports their theory. The origins of this pottery were debated. Northeastern Iranian origin was proposed, but a North Central Iranian origin is also possible. The closest populations to Dinkha tepe 2 are Lors and Mazandarani. If this has any predictive value, then a Central Iranian origin seems more plausible.

In any case the current genetic data supports a more eastern origin of this pottery than the lake Urmia.

As for the ethnicities related to this pottery, the best candidate are the Kassites. Kassite's language remains unclassified. But it seems that they had an Aryan adstrat which is quite plausible given that Mitanni Aryans appear roughly the same period. They were also horse worshippers which also was in most likelihood an Aryan influence.

It is quite possible that Mitanni Aryans were also making the Grey ware before they moved to Syria. Where different potteries were produced by locals.

See also

Hasanlu_LBA_A singleton is almost certainly an Indo-Iranian person affiliated to Mitanni Aryans

For women's day

 For women's day

A pregnant woman figurine from 5000 year old layer of Agarak. A symbol related to "Great Mother" cults that existed in very ancient times.

The genetic profile of eastern Jews.

Most of You have probably noticed that some subgroups of Jews usually plot close to modern Armenians and to ancient samples from historic Armenia. The reason of this was not clear until now. But thanks to ancient DNA from Bahrain, we can now propose an explanation of this genetic puzzle
Asian Jews are usually known as Mizrahi Jews. But given that the groups of Jews that we will discuss in this post are only a subset of Oriental (Mizrahi) Jews, I will use for them the term Eastern Jews. The groups that usually appear genetically close to Armenians are from Iraq, Iran, Georgia, Kurdish, Mountainous Jews from eastern Caucasus and Uzbekistan.
In the Central farmer calculator, their genetic profile shows common features. They have relatively high level of "Central farmer" and more or less equal number of Levant and Zagros Neolithic ancestry. We don't have ancient DNA from pre-Islamic Mesopotamia but using the samples from ancient Bahrain we can deduce that this type of genetic ancestry was widespread in ancient Mesopotamia. You can see that modern Iraqi people are quite different from Iraqi Jews. Modern Iraqi Arabs have much higher Levantine ancestry and even some African ancestry which Jews and ancient Bahraini lacks. This is due to medieval Arabic migration from south.
This genetic pattern fits well with the historic events that triggered the formation of Eastern Jews. In 536 BCE Persians conquered Babylon. And the Jews from Babylon settled in Persia. From there they dispersed to various corners of Iranian empires. I am not big expert of Jewish history but based on overall understanding of the history I assume that Mountain and Uzbekistan Jewish diasporas formed in Sassanian empire period. While the Georgian Jewish community could have formed little bit earlier in Arsacid period.
It seems that all this Jewish communities derive their ancestry from the same Babylonian Jewish community which had a Mesopotamian genetic profile.
As for the reason of the Mesopotamian genetic profile plotting close to Armenians, it is due to the fact that both have a Central position on the genetic map relative to eastern Iran-Caucasus and western Levant-Anatolia. It's also possible that ancient middle and lower Mesopotamia was settled by migrants from the north which created a genetic connection between Mesopotamia and historic Armenia. With more ancient samples this puzzle will be solved.
PS the charts below show the closest populations to ancient Bahraini samples.

Here is an excerpt from the Petrosyan 2023 paper about the origins of Kura-Araxes culture. We wrote.

 Here is an excerpt from the Petrosyan 2023 paper about the origins of Kura-Araxes culture. We wrote.

""The increase in the genes of Caucasian hunter-gatherers may be explained this way: the creators of the Kura-Araxes culture did not originate exclusively from the previous Neolithic farmers but was a mixture of farmers living in the lowlands and Caucasian hunter-gatherers related population preserved in the mountains. This also explains their tendency to build settlements in high mountainous areas.""

Like in Europe where local WHG lineages resurged in Late Neolithic, it is possible to imagine that a similar process occurred in South Caucasus. The Kura-Araxes is not a result of new migration from north or south but rather a resurgence of local hunter gatherers who learned pastoralism. Those hunter gatherers could have survived in high alpine regions and forests.

What was the genetic profile of those hunters is hard to say but it is quite possible there were not identic to CHG from West Caucasus and had a profile closer to Aknashen sample. J1-Z1828 can be the lineage of this hunters who shifted to pastoralism. Another important thing to keep in mind is that not all KA samples have high Caucasian ancestry. Some of them like Karnut outlier is more farmer shifted.

More ancient DNA is needed for better understanding this question, especially from Sioni culture which can be the earliest form of this resurgence.

See also

• We have 12 new Kur-Araxian samples from RoA
• Northeast Caucasian (Nakh- Daghestani) people origin and dispersal.

Genetic history of larger Aintab region.

There are large number of ancient DNA from the larger Aintab region. Based on that data we can reconstruct the genetic history of that region since the Neolithic to Medieval and modern periods.

We lack samples from the Neolithic period but apparently the Early Chalcolithic sample dated after 5800bc was similar to preceding Neolithic period.

In Middle Chalcolithic (after 5000bc) period there is a small shift to east but it's not yet significant.

We lack samples from Late Chalcolithic period which starts at 4300bc and ends around 3100bc. This period in that region is known as Amuq F period which is equivalent to Chaff faced ware in south Caucasus and historic Armenia. The archaeological studies show an obvious discontinuity in that period. Strong increase of settlement's size and number. Apparition of distinct new pottery.

Indeed, in the succeeding Bronze Age we see a completely different gene pool. Large increase of Central farmers which becomes the most important component in Aintab - Amuq region. This new genetic profile persists until historic periods and is present in modern people living there also.

The people who introduced this change are known as Chaff faced ware culture people. Based on the data we have from Crete those people didn't stop in southern Anatolia but continued to move to west reaching Aegean islands, where we see large number of Y DNA associated with them in Minoan period.

In Early Bronze Age Kilis three is some increase in Levantine ancestry. This increase is related to Semitic people expansion which must have occured no later than 3000BC. Eastern Semitic people like Akkadians and Eblaite descend from this event. The Taurus mountains acted as a barrier for their expansion.

In Alalakh Middle and Late Bronze Age we notice a more cosmopolitan ancestry. Influences from Anatolia (Luwians?) and increase of Iran Neo (Mitanni Aryans? Khabure ware?). More samples are needed to differentiate Hurrian and IE Anatolian influences on that region. Also, to assess the real impact of Mitanni Aryans migration.

We lack samples from Iron Age and Antiquity. Then in Medieval period we have samples from Aintab who without much doubt were Armenians. (See the R. Robert Navoyan ). The migration of Armenians in that period is well known. As for medieval samples from Kilis it's much harder to understand their ethnic affiliation.

In conclusion the most important demographic event in larger Aintab region occurred in Late Chalcolithic period related to Chaff Faced Ware culture.

Who were those people is unknown. In Crete their impact is associated with Minoan language, while in south Anatolia we have Indo-European Anatolians. See the map.

How to reconcile this contradiction? Maybe Chaff faced ware was a multi-ethnic phenomenon? Or maybe IE Anatolians came later in Early Bronze Age with another migration? With whom migrated the R1b from ancient Aintab? Another possibility is that Minoan language is derived from local Neolithic farmers not from the new migrants. It must be noted that recent studies consider the possibility of the IE Anatolian influences on Minoans.

With more data this puzzle will be solved.

When the tools and settings matters. Part 1 and Part 2

 When the tools and settings matters. Part 1

Here I present two models with exactly same source and target populations.

The first one is unscaled, and the second one is scaled.

As You can see the most significant change affect the EHG level which is 2.5 times higher in the unscaled.

You may wonder which one is the most correct. Well, the unscaled coordinates are the one that are produced by the smartpca in their unaltered form.

While the scaled coordinates are deliberately altered by an algorithm. I don't know exactly how this algorithm works.

But the main idea of scaling is too artificiality increase the distance for distant and drifted populations. For instance, in the East Asian populations but also the local drifted pops like CHG and Turkey_N. Those artificial changes alter the result in different ways. As You can see for Armenians it is creating a masking effect that hides the real EHG.

It must be noted the qpadm numbers are close to the unscaled numbers. But qpadm also has its own tips and secrets. I will speak about it in the third part.

In any case questions like how much EHG, Levant or CHG do have an X population do not have a strict answer. They are rather ranges than just one correct answer.

When the tools and settings matters. Part 2

Here I add a modification to the models present in the first part. I am adding samples from South Caucasian farmers. Similar populations existed all over historic Armenia and north Mesopotamia. Here we use a generic term for them as Central farmers.

The addition of this new population changes once more the results in both unscaled (the first) and the scaled (the second). The EHG increases once more (average 5.5) but the difference between unscaled and scaled is now very low. You can also notice that the fits are improved, and the errors are reduced. Which means that those farmers are a better source for Armenians (and not only Armenians) than those four distal pops.

Why?

The reason of this is that modern Armenians and not only Armenians are not a real mixture of four West Asian distal populations.

Central farmers =//= Turkey_N + Kotias + Ganj Dareh + Natufian

Central farmers are only approximately similar to the addition to those four populations. But the real history of West Asia which is not fully uncovered most probably will show that the deep origins of Central farmers is different. That is something of the future but at this stage we must know that Central farmers are more basal than the four distal pops. The Turkey_N and the Kotias-CHG have a WHG related alleles which acts as a mask for the EHG. This the addition of a basal population like Central farmers lacking from this WHG results in the increase of EHG. While the difference between the scaled and the unscaled decrease because the model does not rely anymore on distal four populations whose coordinates are artificially changed.

Some remarks on a genetic shift that affected modern RoA in Iron Age.

Those are the possible events by their importance.

1. Politic of large population movements organized by the Urartian kings. This policy would decrease the Etiuni genetic profile in ancient RoA and increase new genetic profiles from other regions. It would result also in the apparition of Etiuni profile elsewhere.

Numbers in cuneiform texts are sufficient to explain this shift. But with the current paleogenetic data available this is not yet visible. At last not on a scale comparable to the claims of the kings. Out of 30 samples from 800-600 BC only two are from south. Most probably with more samples from Urartian cities like Teishebaini, Erebuni, Argishtihinili and others we will see them in the future. Another reason that could "hide" the newcomers is the practice of cremation. Even though it was limited to a subset of Urartians.

2. A theory exist that in its final period the Urartian kingdom elite moved to the modern Armenia. For instance mentions of last Rusa and king Sarduri son of Sarduri are found in Karmir Blur (Teishebaini) but not in Tushpa. It's possible that in its final periods the Biainili dinasty lost control of Tushpa and prefered to move to north. A similar event occured in last period of Assyria and other kingdoms. This theory is not widely accepted but there are some reasons to believe that it occured.

3. A new groups moved to Armenian heartland from more southern regions than Van basin. From historic Korduk and Nor Shirakan. Those groups are mentioned in Khorenatsi as Yervandians, Zarehians, Vahuni, Nersehians. They are mentioned as native but in cuneiform texts possible related names are found in the south. Their supposed arrival fits to late and post Urartian periods. It is probably associated to wider regional changes. Tribal names like Parnaki are attested in the most southern regions while later we see toponyms with it in more northern regions. Cawdek' (Ծաւդեք) in the south but also in Artsakh / Syunik. What triggered those migrations, are they really significant and how much impact they left is unknown.

4. A possible Persian and Medes impact. This sounds trivial given historic events but the direction of genetic shift in modern RoA contradict to the expected impact. There is no visible increase in Iran_Neo ancestry (Lazaridis and Hovhannisyan do not detect Iran_Neo increase). It would be also strange that ancient Medes and Persians had much lower steppe than what was already present in ancient Armenia. So it's possible that this event affected indirectly via the event number 3.

5. Transfer of capital to Armavir. This event is dated to 330BC but could have started earlier. Anyway it's very unlikely that it has left much impact.

Besides those points we also need to better understand the Middle Bronze Age Karmir-Berd culture which was an offshoot of Van-Urmia culture. It affected Araratian plain so this could have altered the Araratian plain Etiunians genetics. But the samples we have from Karmir Blur do not speak in favor of strong impact. Anyway more samples from Araratian plain are needed in Lchashen Metsamor period.

I think I mentioned all possible events that are responsible for this change. With more genetic data this puzzle will be solved. There is also need to review once more ancient texts for better understanding this situation. Combined with archaeology I hope all answers will be found

According to the link below this coin was minted by the satrap of Armenia Orontes ( Eruand ) who is mentioned in the Xenophon's Anabasis.

According to the link below this coin was minted by the satrap of Armenia Orontes ( Eruand ) who is mentioned in the Xenophon's Anabasis. He was "exiled" to Mysia where he minted these coins. Later he managed to return back to Armenia after organizing a rebellion against the Achaemenid king. The Pergamon inscription mentions him as son of Artašir. We have a thread about this inscription in this group. Links can be found in the comments.

See also

• About Yervanduni ( old Eruanduni , Greek Orontid ) origins. Part I

Koban culture 1200-400BC

This data was already published in a Russian paper, now it is corrected and translated in English.

Judging by their autosomes the Koban people were migrants from south. In most likelihood from western parts of southern Caucasus. Their Y DNA G2a1 also supports that idea. Other Y DNA found there is the R1b almost certainly a remnant from earlier periods.

Koban culture also had steppe rich people. One of them was from north Balkans. The authors think that it was a Scythian, but I have a feeling that with more sampling we will find other possible candidates. In any case sometimes after 600BC the area was gradually conquered by Scythians and few centuries later by Sarmatians and a new Iranic people formed there. The Alans.

Klin-Yar III:ID355 Lib2al Female 0.286153

Zayukovo-3:ID72 Lib7al Male 0.042127 G2a1a1a1b1

Zayukovo-3:ID79/1 Lib8al Male 0.449777

Zayukovo-3:ID80 Lib9al Male 0.016644 G2a1a1a

Zayukovo-3:ID82/1 Lib11al Male 0.017636 R1b1a1b

Bratskiye 1-ye Kurgany:ID1402 Lib40al Female 0.338059

Chalcolithic period cultures.

Chaff faced ware (4300-3500bc) was stretched from Cilicia to Caspian Sea. This cultural horizon is the common denominator of Minoan Y DNA and Maykop Y DNA. Their common ancestor.

One group moved to north from South Caucasus where a variant of this culture is known as Leila Tepe. In the north they participated to the formation of Maykop culture. While another group moved to Crete and Greek islands..From Aintab-Urfa region. It's also possible that CFW related groups moved to Central Asia.

This is the reason why we have similar haplotypes in both places. T1a3 and L2 both in Maykop and Greece. With more sampling from Maykop we will find more common haplotypes.

We have some aDNA from CFW period. It's Areni from Armenia and Azerbaijan LC. Both can be used for the modeling of Maykop in qpadm. See qpadm models in the comments.

As for Sioni-Adablur culture (5300-4300/4000bc) they were a different group who were adding grit to the pottery. We don't have ancient DNA from that period and sites.

The source 1. Sagona A. In: The Archaeology of the Caucasus: From Earliest Settlements to the Iron Age. Cambridge World Archaeology. Cambridge University Press; 2017:v-v.