The administrative division of Achaemenid Persia is still a matter of debates.

 The administrative division of Achaemenid Persia is still a matter of debates.

Most scholars agree that satrapic system was a hierarchic one. There were main and minor satrapies, where the latter was ruled by the former. In Bisitun inscription 23 lands are mentioned, which usually are assumed to be main satrapies during the Darius reign. Herodotus list of 20 satrapies is an incomplete recount of both main and minor satrapies where there is a clear bias toward western regions of empire. While the eastern regions are very little reperesented.

Khorikyan discuss those questions and based on his papers i made a map of main satrapy Armenia mentioned in Bisitun and other subsatrapies mentioned in Herodotus.

Saspeirs, Saspir or Sapirs. According Herodotus was located between Colchis and Media. For this reasin if was placed in modern Armenia. However if modern Azerbaijan was part of Medes main satrapy ( map 3) then a location in Eastern Georgia is also possible. Locating Saspeirs in modern Armenia has no any arguments. Neither in Urartian period or later Armenian period there is no single toponym that can be linked to Saspeir in modern Armenia. While such a toponym exists in Georgia. It is the Iberia. Some scholars had proposed a theory that sa- is a Georgian prefix for land like in Sakartvelo and the true root in Saspeirs/Sapirs is the *speir or *pir which can be the proto form of Greek Iberia and Latin Hiberia.

From genetic point of view we know that Iberian related ancestry had already formed in eastern Georgia in early antiquity. So some early Georgian polity must have existed there in Achaemenid period. Saspeirs can be the precursor of Iberia.

Matiene. Another obscure tribe mentioned with Saspeirs. Matiene existed in many places. In Anatolia and northwestern Iran. Khorikyan cites at last one Greek source where Matiene is mentioned in Caucasian context and based on this he place it in the headwaters of Kur river.

From genetic point of the presence of R1a and Q2 in ancient Samtskhe region is remarkable. It could be related to Persian rule there but can be a different influence from Iranian plateau. The Matiene being a,plausible candidate.

Not much is known about Alarodi. Only two sentences. So its localization will remain speculative.

In sum Khorikyan propose the the 18th satrapy was in north of Armenia rather in East Armenia.

Finally the Pactyuce mentioned alongside Armenians is in most likelihood a corrupted form of Patuka. A Luwian or Hittite term peda meaning "land" from which Katpatuka is derived. Which means lower land. A village Patuk is attested near Kharberd Elyazig city.

The third map shows main satrapies according Jacobs. While the second map shows the temporal expansion of the empire by Mladiov.

There are some chances that Kaskean from North Anatolia will not be anymore considered as unrecorded language.

 There are some chances that Kaskean from North Anatolia will not be anymore considered as unrecorded language.

Sasseville published a paper this year where he examines some Hittite cuneiform texts with unknown language and he suggests that those unknown words can be Kaskean lexemes.

The paper is behind the paywall but a small talk with Chatgpt AI gave me an impression that Sasseville is inclined to the theory that Kaskean has some connection with Hattic language.

The current scant archaegenetic data from north Anatolia also supports this theory. Rasuloglu Hoyuk which is linked to Hattic culture yielded G2-M406 and T1a2a. The same haplotypes where found in more northern location where Kaska people were attested.

This year was remarkable for Kaska archaeology also. A site was discovered that was explicitly linked to Kaska people. And a settlement near Samsun was proposed to be the famous Nerik city.

All links below.

https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document

About Rasuloglu aDNA

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DWaYca1Rf/

About ppssible connection with Nerik

Traces of Indigenous Kaška People Discovered in Sacred Hittite City of Nerik | OMÜ | Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi

A new site

First archaeological evidence of the Kaskas, the Hittites' fierce enemies, discovered - Anatolian Archaeology

A remarkable linguistic review from Yediay et al. 2024 written by Kroonen, Thorso and Wigman.

 A remarkable linguistic review from Yediay et al. 2024 written by Kroonen, Thorso and Wigman.

It is in the supplements. Hrach Martirosyan 's paper is also referenced.

The link in the comments.

--------

Armenian is currently spoken in the Republic of Armenia and by a worldwide diaspora, but it has historically formed a patchwork of dialects across large parts of Anatolia and the South Caucasus95. Its first substantial attestation is the Classical Armenian literature appearing from the 5th century CE. Traditionally, it is considered an independent branch of the Indo-European family tree96, but is frequently placed in a higher-order subgroup with Greek72,74. As previously mentioned, our new IBD analyses show that BA individuals from both Greece and Armenia are best modeled as having shared ancestry derived from a population closely related to previously unpublished MBA samples from Moldova, associated with the Late Yamnaya culture (Genetics and Strontium Supplementary Fig. S6.21; S6.42). This contrasts with, e.g., individuals associated with Italic languages, who derive their Steppe ancestry by a vector of Corded Ware and Bell Beaker individuals. These results are consistent with the assumption of a primordial Graeco-Armenian subgroup that started diverging during the middle of the 3rd millennium at the latest. And thus, the rather sudden replacement of the previously widespread Transcaucasian Kura-Araxes culture by the Trialeti culture by the end of the 3rd millennium BCE97, with certain similarities to early Mycenaean culture26, probably represents the first tangible sign in the region of an Indo-European element that can be ancestral to the Armenian branch (Anthony 2024; Lazaridis et al. 2022a).

From the Iron Age, samples with Urartian and pre-Urartian contexts show a similar proportion of ancestry associated with the western Steppe, which is consistent with the existing view that the Urartian population was multiethnic99 and multilingual100,101, and it yields support for the hypothesis that it may have contained an Armenian-speaking component102,103. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, Steppe ancestry emerges in the South Caucasus already in the MBA, with no significant later input, and it is only a marginal ancestry component in Central Anatolia. This means that the traditional hypothesis of a migration of Armenian speakers across Anatolia after 1,200 BCE11,104 is increasingly doubtful.

Many scholars have assumed a particularly close relationship between (Thraco-)Phrygian and Armenian as well94, even closer than that of Greek and Phrygian105,106. However, more recent progress in the study of Phrygian has revealed a poverty of exclusively shared features with Armenian, which makes such a hypothesis difficult to support94. Likewise, our IBD results yield no support for assuming a common migration of Armenians and Phrygians through Anatolia, but rather suggest that the shared innovations of Greek, Phrygian, and Armenian are attributable to a higher-order subgroup (or linguistic area) connected with the Late Yamnaya culture of the 3rd millennium BCE.

Complex interaction over Caucasian range.

 Complex interaction over Caucasian range.

We have now sufficient DNA from both south and north of Caucasus to draw at last the contours of migratory events that shaped the pre Bronze Age history of Caucasian range. So lets make a summary of them.

If we skip the Paleolithic Mesolithic periods we have those events.

Around 5500-5000 BC Farmers from.Kura Araxes basin, almost certainly related to Shulaveri culture cross the Caucasus and venture to north. Even though its still contested by some but I have little doubt that zoological data will support the idea that pastoralism appears in East Europe due to this event. It spread rapidly to north toward Volga, then slightly later toward Ukraine. Those are the earliest kurganic cultures in East Europe that can be linked to IE people.

However the two most frequent haplotypes associated with pastoralism in East Europe are the R1b-V1636 and I2-L699 of local origin (EHG and UHG). Occasionally we see some cases of J2 and J1. The most remarkable is the J2b2b from Eneolithic Moldova which is from the same branch as the Shulaveri Y DNA from Menresh tepe in Azerbaijan. The J2b2a1-L283 that later expanded with Yamnaya also might be from Shulaveri.

Why despite important autosome changes in East Europe we dont see a similar change in Y DNA is a subject beyond the scope of this post.

Around 4300BC there is a migration from north to south. Not much was known about this migration before ancient DNA but given the apparition of R1b-V1636 in the south and also kurganic burials alongside local jar butials, there is little doubt that those were some northern pastoralistic groups that ventured to south. Their migration to south is apparently not massive and is not associared with mass violence. Quite contrary they became part of so called Chaff faced ware groups present all over the Highlands and South Caucasus.

The steppe ancestry in Areni in Chalcolithic period is the best proof of this migration.

Around 3900-3800BC a new group moves to north, once more apparently via Daghestan and plays a role in the formation of Maykop culture. The reason why I believe in a migration via Daghestan is that none of haplotypes found in Maykop culture was present in ancient Georgia. Those are the L2, T1a3, J2-P81. Also a mass migration of CFW people via Georgia would cause a strong dilution of CHG ancestry for which we dont see any evidence, especially in West Georgia.

Maykop was a complex story, people from Central Asia also played a role in Maykop culture introducing the haplogroup Q1. Maykop is not directly ancestral to Yamnaya even though it probably had some cultural influence. Maykop Novosvobodnaya had G2a2a, in theory if could be a result of a distinct migration via central Caucasus. However the data is still insufficient for definitive conclusions.

Around 3600BC another group migrates from south to north. Those are the Kura-Araxes culture people associated with J1-Z1842 haplotype. This new event harms the interests of Maykop people. In most likelihood it moved to north via central regions of Caucasus. Via modern Mtskheta-Mtianeti or Kakhetia region. The massive presence of J1-Z1842 in north Caucasus leaves little doubt that it is associated with Nakh-Daghestani speakers there. Meanwhile in the steppe region near Azov sea a Proto Yamnaya group prepares to expand around 3500BC. It is associated with R1b-Z2103. This group will not move immediatly to south. Only after 2500BC. Even though Yamnaya people will create an offshoot in North Caucasus known as North Caucasian culture or Kubano Tersk.

The map shows two way interactions between north and south over eastern pass. The genetic history of western pass in Caucasus is different. It was more isolated and had less impact.