A Broader View of Eurasian Genetic History

A Broader View of Eurasian Genetic History

This group is dedicated to Armenians, but since many topics discussed here are indirectly related to Indo-European (IE) and therefore to Armenian origins, it is useful to take a broader view of Eurasian genetic history. Another reason to discuss East Asian genetics is that two of Armenia’s neighboring countries speak Turkic languages, whose origins lie in that region.

After the initial spread of modern humans across Eurasia around 45,000 years ago, populations gradually divided into two broad groups:

• East Eurasians, living east of the Himalayan region

• West Eurasians

Initially, these populations were genetically quite similar, as confirmed by ancient DNA studies. However, after the Last Glacial Maximum (around 20,000 years ago), a new and more genetically drifted population formed in East Asia, associated with what is historically described as the Mongoloid phenotype. This development occurred primarily through local evolution and genetic drift, rather than large-scale migration.

Today these populations are often described as belonging to the Mongoloid anthropological group, while West Eurasians are traditionally described as Caucasoid (Europoid).

Origins of East Asian Ancestry

East Asian ancestry likely formed in the region of northern China and the Amur basin. The main Y-DNA haplogroups associated with these populations include:

• N

• O

• C2

(See the attached maps.)

Another important lineage is haplogroup Q, which existed in Paleolithic Siberia and had West Eurasian origins. This lineage was associated with the population known as Ancient North Eurasians (ANE), a genetic group that no longer exists in its original form today.

Formation of Native American Populations

Native Americans (Amerindians) formed through a mixture of ANE populations and early East Asian populations in the Far East. Despite this mixture, their dominant Y-DNA lineage remained the western-derived haplogroup Q1. These populations entered the Americas approximately 15,000 years ago.

Expansions from East Asia

At various points, several technological and cultural innovations gave East Asian populations significant demographic advantages.

One notable example is pottery production. Some of the earliest known pottery comes from the Amur region and northern China, dated to roughly 12,000–18,000 years ago.

Later expansions were associated with particular Y-DNA lineages:

• Around 7,000–8,000 years ago, haplogroup N spread from Mongolia into Siberia, initiating a major migration that eventually reached northern Europe and Finland. Today, haplogroup N is most common among Uralic-speaking populations, whose homeland likely lay east of the Ural Mountains. Some Turkic-speaking groups also carry this lineage, though generally at lower frequencies.

• The expansion of haplogroup O is closely associated with the development of agriculture in China, including both rice farming in southern China and millet farming in northern China. These farming populations expanded southward, largely replacing earlier populations related to Australo-Melanesian groups such as the Onge, Papuans, and Australian Aboriginal peoples.

• Finally, haplogroup C2, originally restricted to the Amur region, expanded dramatically during the historical period, especially in connection with Mongolic and Tungusic-speaking populations, including the Evenks.

Linguistic Families Expanding from East Eurasia

Several major linguistic families originated in East Eurasia and spread both languages and genetic ancestry across large parts of the world. The autosomal impact of these expansions can be seen in the fourth map. Although such maps may slightly exaggerate the extent of these influences, they provide a general impression of the scale of these demographic movements.

The main language families involved include:

• Uralic

• Turkic

• Mongolic

• Tungusic (Evenk)

• Sino-Tibetan (whose most famous representative is Chinese)

• Austroasiatic, which expanded as far as India

• Austronesian, which spread from Madagascar across Indonesia to Easter Island in the Pacific

I will dedicate separate threads to some of these linguistic families that are particularly relevant to Armenian history.

Steppe Eneolithic and the Origins of Yamnaya Ancestry

Steppe Eneolithic and the Origins of Yamnaya Ancestry

In 2019, Wang et al. published three ancient DNA samples from the northern Caucasus foothill steppe region. These samples were labeled Steppe Eneolithic. In genetic studies, the term “Steppe” is usually used to describe DNA profiles related or similar to the Yamnaya genetic profile.

These Steppe Eneolithic samples were remarkable because they already displayed a genetic profile similar to Yamnaya, while being older than the Yamnaya culture itself. At the time, however, they did not receive the attention they deserved, largely because they were not associated with a well-known archaeological culture.

In 2024, Lazaridis et al. proposed a new term for this population: the Caucasus–Lower Volga (CLV) cline, and added additional samples with similar genetic profiles. Genetic modeling showed that Yamnaya populations derived most of their genome-wide ancestry from these CLV groups.

Despite this important progress, two crucial Y-DNA markers were still not securely linked to the CLV population: R1b-M269 and R1a-M417, the two major lineages that later expanded widely across Eurasia and are often associated with the spread of Indo-European languages.

New Evidence

The study by Ghalichi et al. (2024) helped fill this gap. Two new cases of R1b-M269 were discovered north of the Caucasus, predating the Yamnaya culture. These individuals had ancestry similar to other Steppe Eneolithic groups and were dated to approximately 3800 BCE.

It is worth noting that an older R1b-M269 sample (I33307) from Kalmykia, dated to around 3700 BCE, had already been reported. However, its genetic profile is identical to Core Yamnaya, which raises the possibility that the radiocarbon date may be somewhat inaccurate. In Lazaridis et al., this sample was classified as part of the Russia_CaspianInland_EBA_Yamnaya group, which is why it is not included in the list of Steppe Eneolithic Y-DNA samples (4700–3000 BCE).
(See the map for the geographic area.)

Steppe Eneolithic Y-DNA Distribution (4700–3000 BCE)

• R1b-V1636 — 9 samples

• R1b-M269 — 2 samples

• R1a — 1 sample

• I2-L699 — 1 sample

• J2a — 1 sample

• J2b2a — 1 sample

Another possible early R1b-M269 case (around 4500 BCE) was discovered in a Varna culture burial in Bulgaria. Its autosomal profile clearly shows Steppe Eneolithic–related ancestry, indicating that it was not related to local Neolithic farmers but rather represents a migrant from the Caucasus–Lower Volga region.

The Varna culture itself was unusual, characterized by a highly hierarchical social structure. Its graves contained large quantities of gold artifacts, among the earliest known examples of gold metallurgy.

The Role of J2b2a-L283

Another important finding in the Steppe Eneolithic context is J2b2a-L283. Its autosomal profile shows a stronger Caucasus-related component, which is understandable. Nevertheless, it clearly belonged to the emerging Eneolithic kurgan populations, from which both the Yamnaya culture and the Corded Ware culture would develop several centuries later.

The Question of R1a-M417

So far, R1a-M417 has not yet been identified in the Steppe Eneolithic / CLV context. However, one of the oldest R1a-M198 samples (closely related to M417) was found in the Middle Volga region, suggesting that M417 may eventually be discovered within the CLV or Steppe Eneolithic populations as well. Currently, one of the oldest known R1a-M417 individuals comes from a Yamnaya layer in the Balkans.

Implications for Yamnaya Origins

Based on these findings, I remain skeptical of the hypothesis that Yamnaya originated directly from the Sredny Stog culture in Ukraine, as sometimes suggested in discussions.

The highest diversity of R1b-Z2103 lineages that are positive for Z2103 but negative for Z2106 is found in the Near East, suggesting that the region where Z2103 began its expansion was likely close to the Caucasus. Additional ancient DNA samples will hopefully clarify this question in the future.

Note

The Eneolithic Y-DNA list above does not include samples from Steppe Maykop, which have a different origin related to Central Asian ancestry.

In addition, one R1b-V1636 sample is dated to around 2800 BCE, slightly later than the 3000 BCE cutoff used here. However, its autosomal profile indicates that it belonged to the preceding Steppe Eneolithic population, rather than to Core Yamnaya.

See also

• Qpadm models about the Core Yamnaya origins.
• The Yamnaya culture and it's legacy.

New Kura–Araxes Y-DNA Samples from Ghalichi et al. (2024)

New Kura–Araxes Y-DNA Samples from Ghalichi et al. (2024)

Ghalichi et al. (2024) published seven new Kura–Araxes (KA) ancient samples from Georgia, specifically from the Dzedzevbi site near Dmanisi, along with two additional samples from Velikent in Dagestan.

Because of low genomic coverage, it was not possible to determine the deep subclades of these samples. However, the available data suggest that two male individuals from Dzedzevbi belong to haplogroup J2b2, while another appears to belong to J1, most likely from the Z1842 branch. The Velikent sample is also J1.

Current Y-DNA Dataset from Kura–Araxes Layers

At present, we have 16 Y-DNA samples from confirmed Kura–Araxes contexts. Of these:

• 11 belong to J1-Z1842

Most of these J1 cases occur in regions geographically close to the eastern part of the Greater Caucasus range, including:

• Dagestan

• Kakheti

• Berkaber (Tavush)

• one case near Dmanisi

The strong predominance of J1 is almost certainly the result of a founder effect, since J1 appears to have been rare during earlier Neolithic periods.

Other Haplogroups in Kura–Araxes Contexts

When moving away from the eastern Caucasus regions, other haplogroups appear:

• R1b-V1636 — Sevan Basin

• G2b — Kaps, Shirak

• J2-M92 — Doghlauri, central Georgia

• J2b2 — Dzedzevbi (two cases)

According to analyses by Genarchivist researchers, one of the Dzedzevbi individuals belongs to J2b-FT3464, a minor branch found today in West Asia and Europe, while the other belongs to J2b2b-Z2453, an older lineage already present in Neolithic contexts such as the Shulaveri culture and Hajji Firuz Tepe.

Possible Interpretations

What can be inferred from this distribution?

As I have previously suggested, the J1 concentration in the northeastern regions of the Kura–Araxes horizon may be associated with North-East Caucasian (NEC)–speaking populations.

However, the entire Kura–Araxes horizon cannot have been NEC-speaking, because such a scenario would likely have left clear linguistic traces, which are not observed.

The rapid shift in Y-DNA composition when moving away from the eastern Caucasus strongly suggests that another ethnic group (or groups) was also present within the Kura–Araxes cultural sphere.

Possible Candidates

Two main possibilities are usually considered:

• Early Anatolian-speaking populations

• Hurro–Urartian-speaking populations

At present, the available dataset is still too small to establish clear connections between South Caucasus populations and the regions where Anatolian or Hurro–Urartian languages were later spoken (Anatolia, the Levant, and Mesopotamia).

Nevertheless, some patterns are already beginning to emerge.

See also

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

Ukraine Neolithic Hunter-Gatherer Ancestry in Yamnaya

Ukraine Neolithic Hunter-Gatherer Ancestry in Yamnaya

Lazaridis et al. (2024) discovered that Yamnaya populations contain a component of Ukraine Neolithic hunter-gatherer ancestry (UNHG). The term UNHG can be somewhat confusing, since in some archaeological traditions—especially in former Soviet scholarship—a hunter-gatherer community may be labeled “Neolithic” simply because it produced pottery, even if it did not practice farming.

Ghalichi et al. (2024) confirmed the presence of roughly 15% UNHG ancestry in Yamnaya populations. One example of a lineage associated with this component is I2-L699, which is regularly found in steppe populations and appears to derive from UNHG groups.

Importance for Armenian Ethnogenesis

The presence of I2 lineages in Yamnaya-related cultures is particularly relevant for discussions of Armenian ethnogenesis, given the presence of I2a2b in the Trialeti–Vanadzor culture.

Until recently, we had little additional information about this lineage. The closest European sample related to it was found in Eneolithic Croatia, with a common ancestor dated by FTDNA to around 8200 BCE. This age is sufficiently early for the lineage to have existed both among European farmers and UNHG populations.

A New Clue from the Steppe Eneolithic

Ghalichi et al. (2024) reported a new sample that may shed light on how I2a2b could have entered early Yamnaya communities as a rare lineage.

The study includes a female individual from the region near the Azov–Black Sea junction, labeled “Steppe Eneolithic outlier west” (KHB) and dated to around 4000 BCE near the Taman Peninsula. This individual shows a very high proportion of UNHG ancestry (about 43%), suggesting that the population may have migrated into the region from Ukraine.

Possible Scenario

If this outlier represents a regular population present in the region, it raises the possibility that I2a2b-Y16419 was also present there during the Eneolithic period. When Yamnaya and later Catacomb cultures formed, this lineage may have been incorporated into those populations as a minor component.

Later, it may have moved southward, eventually becoming part of populations associated with the Trialeti–Vanadzor culture, where it experienced a more significant expansion.

Future Research

To verify this hypothesis, additional ancient DNA samples will be necessary, particularly from:

• the Azov–Taman region, and

• southern Ukraine more broadly.

Such data may help clarify how UNHG-derived lineages became integrated into steppe populations and later appeared in the South Caucasus.

The haplogroup G

 The haplogroup G is the third most frequent in Armenia after R1b and J2.

G was prominent in early Neolithic farmers, especially in those that moved to Europe. Despite its popularity in West Caucasus Rootsie 2012 analyzed the modern diversity of G and made this conclusion about its homeland.

..by evaluating 1472 haplogroup G chromosomes belonging to 98 populations ranging from Europe to Pakistan. Although no basal G-M201* chromosomes were detected in our data set, the homeland of this haplogroup has been estimated to be somewhere nearby eastern Anatolia, Armenia or western Iran, the only areas characterized by the co-presence of deep basal branches as well as the occurrence of high sub-haplogroup diversity. ...

In the last decade ancient DNA supported this homeland theory with a slight shift to more southern regions toward Fertile Crescent.

Three branches are frequent in Armenia.

• G2a2b-M406 more than 3.5%
• G2a2b-P303 around 3%
• G2a2a-PF3147 around 2.5%
  

Other branches are less frequent.

• G2a1
• G1 prominent in Hamshen Armenians
• G2b - The genetic history 
• Over time there will be reviews about those branches.

Iron Age Y-DNA from North Macedonia

Iron Age Y-DNA from North Macedonia

This dataset shows Iron Age Y-DNA samples from the territory of modern North Macedonia, based on data from Iosef Lazaridis et al. (2022). Two outlier individuals are not included in the chart.

These populations were identified in Greek historical records as the Paeonians.

The haplogroups present in these samples reflect several different historical layers:

• G2, C1, and J2a-Z6055 derive from Neolithic populations.

• R1b reflects ancestry connected with Yamnaya culture expansions.

• E1b-V13 is associated with Thracian-related expansions from the Carpathian region around 1000 BCE.

Based on the current data, the Paeonians were unlikely to have been closely related to the Illyrians, since the characteristic J2b-L283 haplogroup, commonly associated with Illyrian populations, is absent.

Instead, they may have been closer to populations such as the Phrygians and the Ancient Macedonians. A connection with the Thracians is also possible, though somewhat less likely.

An older and now obsolete theory proposed a Paei → Hai sound shift as evidence for a migration of Proto-Armenians from the Balkans. However, this interpretation is no longer supported by current historical and genetic evidence.

Nevertheless, Armenians and Paeonians remain related in a broader sense, both as members of the Indo-European languages, and through shared Neolithic ancestry reflected in the genetic record.

See also

• Mycenaean Greek Y DNA from continental part of Greece and a Minoan Y DNA from Crete

The J2 haplogroup has a complex structure.

The J2 haplogroup has a complex structure. For those who want to understand it better here is a tree made by Rozhansky more than 6 years ago. We have already four detailed topics related to each major subbranch. Top four of most popular J2 branches in Armenia.

• The history of J2-M67
• The history of J2-L25
• The genetic history of J2-Z6065
• The genetic history of J2b

Other interesting branches are the

• +Z6049 found in Caucasian hunters. Popular today in Caucasus. A review about one of its subclade.
• +PF5197 found in India, Iran and Gulf region. Also, in ancient Neolithic Armenia.
• +M319 Popular in ancient Crete in Minoans. But also, in Eneolithic steppe.

The populations from left to right are Nakh, Balkar, Ossetian, Georgian, Armenian.

Updated in 2024 July

J2-Z6065 in the Armenian Highlands

J2-Z6065 in the Armenian Highlands

J2-Z6065 is the third most frequent branch of J2a in Armenia, after M67 and L25. Its initial homeland was almost certainly located in historic Armenia.

At present, the oldest known Z6065 sample comes from the Neolithic site of Masis Blur in Armenia. Notably, this lineage is absent among early Anatolian and European farmers and is rare or missing in ancient Minoan populations, suggesting that Z6065 had a slightly more eastern origin compared to related branches such as M67 and M319, with which it shares a common ancestor.

J2-Z6065 has two major sub-branches:

---

1. Y13341 / FGC15782

Like many lineages that formed in the Armenian Highlands, Z6065 appears to have expanded during the Chalcolithic period, moving westward into Anatolia. It has been identified at sites such as Ilipinar in Anatolia and Dinkha Tepe in the Urmia basin.

However, its most significant expansion occurred during the Middle Bronze Age (around 4300 years ago).

• The subclade Z6065 > YP879 was likely associated with the Van–Urmia cultural sphere and expanded alongside it, as well as with the related Karmir Berd culture.
• This lineage has been identified in the Urartian city of Sardurihinili and in Late Bronze Age Keti (modern Armenia).

Today, YP879 accounts for approximately 2.5% of the Y-DNA among modern Armenians.

---

2. Y7687

This sub-branch likely followed a broadly similar early trajectory but diverged through different historical processes.

• The subclade Z43661 is most likely associated with Bronze Age Anatolia, and there is a strong possibility that it represents a Hittite–Luwian–related lineage.
• Ancient DNA evidence from the Bronze Age site of Ovaören supports this hypothesis.

Today, this branch is well represented in both Turkey and Armenia.

A distinct lineage within this branch, M47, shows a very different geographic distribution, being most prevalent among Gulf Arab and Iranian populations.

• M47 expanded during the Bronze Age, but also shows evidence of later expansions.
• The historical context of these expansions remains unclear due to the lack of ancient DNA.
• One possible hypothesis is that M47 was initially associated with the Kassites, and later became integrated into Iranian and Semitic populations.

---

Conclusion

Overall, J2-Z6065 appears to be a lineage deeply rooted in the Armenian Highlands, with multiple expansion phases:

• Chalcolithic dispersals toward Anatolia and adjacent regions
• Middle Bronze Age expansions tied to local cultural complexes (e.g., Van–Urmia)
• Later regional developments, especially in Anatolia and the Near East

Further ancient DNA discoveries will be essential to clarify the full historical trajectory of its subclades.

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

Two different stories in Anatolia

After the Neolithic period migrations from east changed the genetic landscape of plain Anatolia. Those migrations were not an one time event but two major events dated to different periods. It must be noted that in the current state of archaeologic knowledge there are no Neolithic sites in northern Anatolia. Food producing appear there in the Chalcolithic period which starts after the 5800 BCE. See the dividing line on the map.

Currently we have two Early Chalcolithic samples from Hattusa (Buyukkaya) in the north and Tell Kurdu in the south (the green circles on the map). They are dated to the same period after the 5800 BCE yet they have different shifts to east. The northern sample has a strong shift to east close to the Late Chalcolithic samples from the same place (Camlibel Tarlasi). While the southern site (Tell Kurdu) has a very little shift. In my previous thread dedicated to Aintab history I showed that in southern Anatolia the main migration from the east occurred at Late Chalcolithic, thus more than 1500 years later than in the north. Given that that those two events have a different archaeologic background then it's safe to assume that they are related to different ethnic groups.

Based on the currently available data we can link the Late Chalcolithic migrations in the south to the Minoans and IE Anatolians. While the northern Early Chalcolithic migration can be associated with Hattic people. This theory is supported by the strong presence of G2-M406 in Hattusan sites. While the same M406 was absent or rare in the Crete and Minoan civilization sites.

It's worth to note that in western Caucasus and Georgia the Neolithic settlements appear roughly in the same period. We can assume that the same impulse that introduced the food producing to north Anatolia moved also to western Georgia were a peculiar Neolithic culture emerged, different from the Shulaveri-Aratashen related sites in Kur-Araxian basin. Later those western Georgian farmers moved to north triggering the emergence of mountainous pastoralist culture known as Darkveti-Meshoko (after 4500BCE). We have samples from this latter culture. They are from a subbranch of J2-M67>CTS900. What linguistic group is related to the introduction of food producing to the west Caucasus is a more complex subject, which will be discussed later

Qpadm models about the Core Yamnaya origins.

We have one sample from north Caucasus PG2004 which is similar to so called BP group of Caucasus Lower Volga cline.

Modeling Yamnaya as a three-way mixture of CLV_BP, Aknashen and Ukraine Neolithic hunter gatherers was very easy, as in the paper.

BP group 66.5%

Aknashen 19.5%

UNHG. 14.0%

p value 0.17

It didn't require from me any extra effort to find the correct "settings" (outgroups). Adding western Ukraine Trypllia farmers didn't made the model better. Aknashen was still wanted while Trypllia not. I tried various ways to make Trypllia wanted, but it didn't work. Finally, I removed Aknashen and forced the model to rely solely in Trypllia. I got a p value lower than 0.05. So practically a failure. Nikitin 2024 dedicates a special chapter to this subject. Their conclusion is that Yamnaya probably do have some Trypllia but it's very low.

My conclusions are the same. Aknashen ancestry in Yamnaya is real. It is supported by Y DNA of preceding period, and I am sure that the scrupulous analysis of mtDNA will show the same result. Finally, if I had access to the Nalchik farmer data then the percentage would be twice higher.

Then I tried the same in G25 and here a surprise. The raw unscaled models behaved in the same manner as qpadm albeit with a different proportion. But the scaled G25 showed a clear a preference for Trypllia. I said in this group many times that tools and settings matters. And this an excellent example why the use of scaled models can lead to misleading results. I want to remind that scaled coordinates are artificially altered numbers.

Keeping this in mind let's see what means CLV-steppe ancestry in Bronze Age Anatolia that Lazaridis 2024 supposedly has found but Lazaridis 2022 didn't detected. I don't have Cayonu files to reproduce their models in qpadm but what we know from G25 behavior is that:

+ When Anatolia N and CHG are used in models as source they mask the steppe ancestry and show a lower number. This was done in Lazaridis 2022 which not only didn't find any steppe in BA Anatolia but even in Van Urartu.

+ When a Mesopotamian or Levantine and Iran Neo are used as sources and CHG and Anatolia_N are ommitted then this exaggerates the steppe ancestry in northwest Asia. In Lazaridis 2024 they used Cayonu Neolithic which was a north Mesopotamian population. This exaggerated the steppe ancestry in Bronze Age Anatolia where Hittite lived. If the same Cayonu was used for Minoans, they would find steppe even in Minoans and probably Alalakh Hurrians and Semites also. Which doesn't make sense. Uniparental markers do NOT support such high level of CLV-steppe ancestry in BA Anatolia. Quite contrary they speak about very low or virtual absence of it. Just one R1b-V1636 in the midst of more than dozen local haplotypes.

My conclusions are that based on this genetic data it is not possible to consider IE homeland issue fully solved. We are very close it. And the broad picture. But the exact details are not still there, and linguistics also can be helpful.

What is needed now is to have more than 50 Y DNA from Bronze Age Anatolia. Also, a large number of Y DNA is needed from South Caucasus and historic Armenia LC-EBA period to see what happened to those Late Chalcolithic migrants from north. How much they left an impact and why their autosomes were diluted after the Areni C. It is also important to have samples from LC kurganic burials like Aknalich and Soyuq Bulaq.

See also

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