Trialeti–Vanadzor Culture and Its Genetic Legacy in the South Caucasus

Trialeti–Vanadzor Culture and Its Genetic Legacy in the South Caucasus

The possible steppe connection and Indo-European affiliation of the Trialeti-Vanadzor culture have been discussed for a long time. However, its partial presence in regions that later became known as Iberia and Caucasian Albania made this interpretation difficult to accept.

Today, ancient DNA allows us to better understand past population shifts and helps resolve these apparent contradictions.

---

Y-DNA Patterns in Eastern Georgia

The first Y-DNA chart (based on Skourtanioti et al. 2024) excludes one sample from western Georgia.

During the Late Bronze Age–Early Iron Age (1500–800 BCE)—known in eastern Georgia as the Lchashen-Tsitelgori culture—the Y-DNA distribution closely resembles that of Armenia:

• A predominance of R1b and I2, lineages that expanded during the Middle Bronze Age with the Trialeti–Vanadzor horizon
• Two J2 samples from the Bazaleti site (north of Mtskheta), near the foothills of the Greater Caucasus

One of these J2 individuals shows low steppe ancestry, indicating the northern boundary of Trialeti–Vanadzor influence, consistent with the region’s lowland–highland geographic division.

A single G2a1 sample suggests that central Georgian Kura–Araxes-derived populations may have had a different Y-DNA structure compared to Kakhetian groups, which were predominantly J1.

---

Iron Age Transformations

In the Iron Age II (800–600 BCE), data are limited, with only one G2a1 sample available.

The Early Antiquity period (600–300 BCE)—coinciding with the rise of the Achaemenid Empire—shows a major shift:

• Appearance of R1a in both Armenia and Georgia
• Increased importance of G2a1 and J2 lineages (likely subclades of CTS900)

Unlike Armenia, which experienced a southward genetic shift, eastern Georgia likely underwent a different directional change, though current qpAdm models lack sufficient resolution to define it precisely.

---

The Bragdzor Family: Evidence of Migration

A key insight comes from a familial burial at Bragdzor.

Three individuals were closely related:

• The father and his brother shared Y-DNA (J2) and mtDNA (K1a4c)
• The father displayed autosomal DNA very different from local Lchashen populations

He had:

• High CHG (Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer ancestry)
• Virtually no steppe ancestry
• A profile similar to modern West Georgians

This indicates that he was a migrant, arriving in the region around 800 BCE.

This date coincides with the proposed linguistic separation of Kartvelian languages, including the divergence of Georgian and Zan, which typically occurs alongside geographic expansion.

Further evidence of migration:

• His son’s mother (likely his wife, buried in the same grave) was an Etiuni/Lchashen woman, suggesting incoming males without accompanying women

Despite this, the Bragdzor lineage did not leave a lasting genetic impact in northern Lori, as later samples show continuity with earlier populations.

---

Formation of Iberia and Kartvelian Expansion

In contrast, related groups did leave a strong impact in eastern Georgia, contributing to the formation of Proto-Iberia, later known as Iberia in the Hellenistic period.

Additional supporting samples:

• A G2a1 individual from Keti (~650 BCE)
• A Hellenistic-era individual from Samsun, likely linked to Zan populations

These individuals share:

• High CHG ancestry
• A clear distinction from Caucasian Albanian-related samples, which show more Zagros Neolithic ancestry and lower CHG

---

Conclusion

The steppe-derived populations that entered the South Caucasus around 2500 BCE (Trialeti–Vanadzor horizon) had a long-lasting genetic impact, visible until the Iron Age.

However, during the Iron Age:

• Mountain populations expanded into lowlands, contributing to the formation of Iberia and Caucasian Albania
• In historic Armenia, state formation under Urartu and the Orontid dynasty led to different genetic shifts
• The Achaemenid Empire likely also influenced population structure across the region

Due to the limited dataset, these interpretations remain provisional, and further ancient DNA evidence will be necessary for definitive conclusions.

See also

• The possible homeland of Kartvelian languages

Remarks on Skourtanioti 2024 paper on the Genetic History of South Caucasus

Elamites

Amjadi et al. (2025) published ancient DNA from the Chalcolithic period in the South Zagros, dated to around 4600 BC. The sample comes from the Gol Afshan Tepe site and is associated with the Bakun period, which immediately precedes the so-called Lapui period (4100–3500 BC), often linked to the Proto-Elamites.

Assuming there was no major population shift between the Bakun and Lapui periods, we can reasonably suggest that the Proto-Elamite language developed among populations with a strong Zagros/Iran Neolithic genetic component. This is supported by autosomal data, as well as the presence of Y-DNA haplogroup R2, which was common among ancient Zagros farmers and today is found mostly in South Asia and parts of West Asia (for example, among some Armenians from Sasun).

The Elamite civilization flourished in the southwest of the Iranian plateau. The Elamite language was widely used as an administrative language in the Achaemenid Empire. The Persians referred to the region as Hujiya > Khuzi, from which the modern name Khuzestan derives. Interestingly, Elamite may have survived into the medieval period—Arab sources mention an incomprehensible “Khuzi” language distinct from Persian in that region.

There is even a linguistic echo in Armenian: the word khuzhan (խուժան), meaning “hooligan” or “wild person,” is derived from that regional name.

---

Possible implications

If future research confirms a strong link between Elamites and Zagros Neolithic populations, several important conclusions may follow:

• Sumerian is likely unrelated to Elamite, suggesting it originated from a different population, often referred to as “Central farmers,” rather than Zagros farmers.
• Northern Iran had a different genetic trajectory.
  A Chalcolithic sample from the Urmia basin (Hajji Firuz) is shifted toward western populations and clusters closer to Central farmers. This suggests eastern migrations diluted Zagros ancestry in northern Iran, where other groups—such as the Kassites—later appeared. Kassites are not clearly linked to Elamites, though connections with Hurrians have been proposed.
• Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis gains some support.
  The idea that Elamite is related to Dravidian languages is still debated, but a Zagros Neolithic origin could strengthen this theory. That said, Dravidian populations also carry strong South Asian-specific ancestry (including Andaman-related hunter-gatherers).
• Language vs. population mismatch in empires.
  The widespread administrative use of Elamite in the Achaemenid Empire shows that a language’s presence in inscriptions does not necessarily reflect the dominant spoken language of a region.
  This is relevant for understanding Urartian (Biainili) as well: inscriptions alone don’t prove linguistic dominance. For example, Elamite inscriptions have been found in Armavir (Armenia), yet that doesn’t imply Elamite-speaking populations lived there in large numbers.

See also

• Ancient Kartvelians and the Formation of Iberia

New ancient DNA from Georgia and Azerbaijan helps to refine our understanding of ancient populations distribution and boundaries.

New ancient DNA from Georgia and Azerbaijan (Koptekin 2 022) helps to refine our understanding of ancient populations distribution and boundaries.

The map below shows the distribution of LBA and IA period cultures around Caucasus. We have enough ancient DNA from Lchashen-Metsamor culture in Republic of Armenia to compare them with other sites.

In Georgian literature this culture is known as Lchashen-Tsitelgori and as You can see on the map it is stretched quite north reaching Greater Caucasus range. But it was obvious from the start that not all sites labeled as Lchashen-Tsitelgori will yield the same genetic profile as in Republic of Armenia.
Some Georgian archaeologists defined another name for this period calling it Samtavro culture. It seems this was a correct path because it's now evident that Lchashen-Tsitelgori generic name hides two distinct populations. An LBA sample from Doghlauri site (known as Lchashen-Tsitelgori site) in Central Eastern Georgia near Kur river do not have steppe ancestry and is more western shifted compared to the Kur-Araxian period sample from the same site. The Kura-Araxes sample from Doghlauri is J2-M92.

While most samples from Republic of Armenia  Lchashen-Metsamor related sites do have steppe ancestry. Without much doubt they were speaking an IE language affiliated to Armenian while the other population in Georgia which has no steppe ancestry is in most likelihood related to  Samtavro horizon.

 
What language was speaking those Samtavro people is hard to say. Either a Kartvelian in this case it would be proto-Georgian or proto-Iberian. Either a language that descend directly from Kur-Araxian culture. But this latter is unlikely.

We have also samples from Kakhetia in Eastern Georgia close to Alazani - Kur river junction from sites Didnauri and Nazarlebi. They are very similar to those samples we have from Lchashen-Metsamor culture and they have R1b and possibly I2. Based on that we can deduce that the Khojaly Gadabay culture which was present in historic Utik' and Artsakh provinces might be related to Lchashen culture also. Moreover, the structure of I2 permits to say that Lchashen culture expanded from modern Republic of Armenia to east playing a role in the formation of Khojaly Gadabay culture. This is consistent what Laneri 2020 was thinking about that culture. What language was speaking this Khojaly-Gadabay culture is hard to say.

Finally, we come to Caucasian Albania puzzle. A sample from Iron Age Shamakhi in Azerbaijan is ideal to have a clue about Albanians (Aluank'). This sample do have steppe ancestry like most representatives of Dagestani family. But it is shifted to Caucasian foragers (east). More important its Y DNA is J1-Z1842 which is the predominant haplogroup in Dagestani speakers. This is extra evidence that Nakh-Daghestani people descend from Kur-Araxian culture. Keeping in mind that we speak here only about the northeastern parts of Kur-Araxian Culture and not the whole horizon.

Where exactly formed the Lezgic group prominent in Albania is hard to say. If we follow Nichols classification, then Lezgic group might have initially formed in the north in Dagestan and later moved back to southern slopes of Greater Caucasus. If we follow Schulze's linguistic classification which consider Lezgic an early split, then it could have formed in situ directly from Kur-Araxian culture in southern slopes which were not affected by steppic Kurganic cultures. More data will clarify this, but I am inclined to believe that they came from mountainous Dagestan in north otherwise Lezgic group people including the Udi wouldn't have such a high level of Steppe ancestry.

And finally, I want to say few words about the possibility that Lchashen (Etiuni) had a Lezgic speakers. Well from dozens and dozens Y DNA we have from Lchashen only 1 is J1-Z1842! This outcome does not leave any place for any speculation about the identity of Etiuni. They were IE without doubt. Lezgic speakers should be searched in cultures like Kaiakent-Chorochoi and Yaloilutepe in northern parts of Azerbaijan.