Elamites

Elamites

The paper by Amjadi et al. (2025) published ancient DNA from the Chalcolithic period of the South Zagros, dated to around 4600 BCE. The sample comes from the Gol Afshan Tepe site, associated with the Bakun cultural period, which immediately precedes the so-called Lapui period (4100–3500 BCE), usually linked to Proto-Elamite developments. Assuming that there was no dramatic population change between the Bakun and Lapui periods, we may conjecture that the Proto-Elamite language originated among a population with a large amount of Zagros/Iran Neolithic ancestry.

Consistent with its autosomal profile, the sample carried Y-DNA haplogroup R2. This lineage was common among ancient Zagros farmers and today is found mainly in South Asia and in some parts of West Asia—for example, among Armenians in Sasun (see the second map).

The Elamite civilization flourished in the southwestern Iranian plateau. The Elamite language was widely used in the Achaemenid Empire as an administrative language. Persians referred to the Elamite region as Hujiya > Khuzi, from which the name of the modern Khuzestan province is derived. Elamite may have still been spoken in the medieval period, as Arab sources report the presence of an incomprehensible Khuzi language in that region, distinct from Persian. The Armenian word khuzhan, meaning hooligan or wild person, is derived from the name of that region.

If further research confirms a connection between the Elamite language and Zagros/Iran Neolithic populations, several implications may follow:

• Sumerian: Since Sumerian appears unrelated to Elamite, it may instead be associated with another population known as the Central Iranian farmers rather than with Zagros farmers.

• Northern Iran: Northern Iran seems to have had a different genetic history. A contemporary Chalcolithic DNA sample from the Urmia Basin (Hajji Firuz Chl) is strongly shifted westward and plots close to Central Iranian farmers. Their migration eastward may have diluted Zagros Neolithic ancestry in northern Iran, where other ethnic groups are known to have lived during the Bronze Age. The most prominent among them were the Kassites. The Kassite language has no known connection with Elamite, although a possible link between Kassite and Hurrian has been proposed.

• Elamite–Dravidian hypothesis: A theory connecting Elamite with Dravidian languages of South Asia has been proposed, though it is not widely accepted. If Elamite is indeed linked to Zagros/Iran Neolithic populations, this could provide additional support for the hypothesis. However, Dravidian-speaking populations also carry a substantial component of South Asian-specific ancestry related to Andamanese hunter-gatherers.

• Administrative languages and ethnicity: The widespread use of Elamite in the administration of the multiethnic Achaemenid Empire may offer insight into the status of the Urartian language in the kingdom of Biainili. We now know that Biainili was not solely an Urartian state; other ethnic groups, most prominently Armenians, were also part of the kingdom. Elamite inscriptions from the Achaemenid period have been discovered in Armavir, Armenia. This again illustrates that the presence of written texts in a particular language in a given region does not necessarily imply a widespread presence of its speakers there.

The western Iranians.

 The western Iranians.

Three major ancient western Iranian groups were the Persians, Medes and Parthians. Until now we didn't have ancient DNA samples that could be securely linked to this groups. Iron Age samples from south of Urmia could be related partly to Medes but given their genetic profile and dating such linking was remaining speculative.

Amjadi et al. 2025 published first historic western Iranian ancient DNA samples that were either Parthians, either eastern Medes. The location (Marsin Chai, Vestermin) of those samples was in the border of Medes and Parthian satrapies so there is some incertitude how they were identified in their lifetime. (See the map).

Liarsangbon samples could be related to Medes given their more western location. It's remarkable that some of them had also slightly more western genetic profile. J1-620(xP58)>FGC6069 was found in Liarsangbon. Without much doubt of local origin. Another undefined J2a was also uncovered from that site in Parthian empire period.

Genome wide Achaemenid period samples from Marsin Chai were grosso modo looking similar to Bronze Age samples from the same region (TepeHissar, Shahtepe) nevertheless they are not identical.

Looking closer on the PCA it's clear that they are slightly more "northern" shifted. And in some cases slightly "western" shifted. The slight western shift could be of local origin but could be also from Sintashta/Andronovo cultures in Central Asia that had substantial Anatolian Farmer related ancestry.

Despite this no R1a was found from those ancient Iranian remains, only J2b2a2. This can mean that R1a was low but also can be due to sampling issue. Given that many samples were relatives and had the same Y DNA.

Overall those ancient Parthians/Medes have quite high Zagros/Iran Neolithic ancestry with low EHG/ANE. Also they have some South Asian related Onge/Andaman island Hunter Gatherer ancestry.

They are different from Urmia basin Iron Age samples which are more western and who plot close to antique era samples from Armenia. This difference can be due to geography but can be also related to different ethnic background. Ancient Medes samples from core Media are needed to understand this difference.

Returning to the R1a issue it must be noted that the R1a appear both in Armenia and Georgia at Achaemenid period. Even more interesting samples from Meskhetia region in Georgia yielded surprising results. Out of seven Y DNA from Sassanian period Meskhetia here were 2 cases of R1a and 2 cases of Q2 which almost certainly was introduced there by western Iranians. Another J1-P58>Z1853 from Meskhetia was also of non local origin. All this show that western Iranians must have more diverse Y DNA pool and more sampling is needed to understand their diversity.

A PCA with Ancient and Modern Samples from Iran, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Iraqi Kurdistan

A PCA with Ancient and Modern Samples from Iran, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Iraqi Kurdistan

The Caucasian Albanian sample from Late Antiquity shows a clear shift toward Iranian populations. It does not fall along the Udi–Armenia LIA–Lezgin cline.

Ancient Iranian groups such as the Medes and Parthians would likely plot slightly to the left and somewhat below Tepe Hissar. They would probably fall near the position of Shah Tepe BA, or slightly to the left and bottom of it.

It is not yet entirely clear, but modern Iranians appear to have a slight western or northern shift compared with ancient populations.

Among modern groups, Kurds are the most western. Persians from Khorasan and Tats show the highest steppe ancestry (a shift toward the left), while the Mazandarani display the highest Zagros Neolithic ancestry.

The Shamakhi Armenian singleton appears to shift more toward the Armenia_LIA / Tat / Lezgin cluster than toward any other Iranian population.

The Dinkha Tepe BA–IA 2 sample, associated with the Grey Ware horizon in the late Middle Bronze Age, could represent an early wave of Indo-Iranian populations.

P.S. I updated the PCA and added the Shah Tepe BA sample.

The Eastern-Side Armenians

The Eastern-Side Armenians

Hovhannisyan et al. (2024) published numerous DNA samples from the Artsakh, Syunik, and Gardman regions. In addition, a member of our group, Diana Sarkisova Vikutan, provided several coordinates from Shamakhi Armenians, as well as DNA samples with mixed ancestry from the Shamakhi and Artsakh regions. We are grateful to her for sharing these data.

All these datasets were combined into a single PCA and ancestry proportion chart together with other modern and ancient samples spanning the area from Syunik to Shamakhi. The analysis was performed using unscaled coordinates. Based on this, several observations can be made:

• Artsakh and Syunik Armenians: Artsakh Armenians are genetically very similar to Syunik Armenians. Both belong to the genetic cline of historic Armenia, which shows a strong affinity with the so-called “Central farmer” ancestry. Gardman Armenians are also close to this cluster, though with a slight shift toward Caucasus hunter-gatherer (CHG) ancestry.

• Distance from Armenia LIA samples: All Armenian subgroups plot away from the Armenia LIA samples from Syunik. This is due to a so-called “southern” shift that may have occurred in these eastern regions sometime after the fall of Urartu.

• Shamakhi Armenians: Shamakhi Armenians show higher steppe ancestry than any other known Armenian subgroup. The two samples from the Shamakhi region differ somewhat from each other. One of them (Sham01) displays more Zagros Neolithic ancestry. The source of this shift is currently unclear. It is worth noting that a Late Antiquity sample (3rd century AD) from the Shamakhi region already showed extra Zagros/Iran Neolithic ancestry, almost certainly due to Iranian influence in that region. Another possibility is that the Zagros shift in Sham01 reflects ancestry from a more recent non-Armenian population. Yet another possibility is that the shift derives from a still poorly sampled subgroup of Tat Armenians.

• Mixed Shamakhi–Artsakh samples: Three DNA samples show mixed Shamakhi and Artsakh ancestry. As expected, they plot between the Shamakhi and Artsakh clusters. However, their dispersion suggests that the real diversity among Shamakhi Armenians could be greater than what the currently available two samples indicate.

• Udi population: The Udi people plot far from their linguistic relatives, the Lezgins. Moreover, they are also shifted away from the Late Antiquity Shamakhi sample that may represent Caucasian Albanian ancestry. The formation of the Udi genetic profile is still unclear, but their proximity to Armenians—who themselves are shifted toward the southwest—suggests that Udis may have acquired Armenian ancestry either in antiquity or, more likely, during the medieval period. It is also noteworthy that some Azerbaijanis from the Shaki region plot close to Udis, indicating that the influence of Armenian-like ancestry was not limited to the Udi population.

Additionally, the Skourtanioti et al. (2024) paper noted an “Anatolian” shift in Iberia and linked it to the spread of Christianity. It is possible that similar processes occurred in Caucasian Albania during Late Antiquity and the Early Medieval period. Hopefully, with the publication of a temporal transect from the Kakhetia region, we will gain a better understanding of how the genetics of Caucasian Albania evolved during historical times.

In summary, the genetic history of the territory of the modern Azerbaijani Republic appears to have become quite complex after the Bronze and Iron Ages. Multiple influences shaped the genetic diversity of the region. The single Caucasian Albanian sample remains somewhat puzzling: it is still unclear whether it represents typical Albanian ancestry or an outlier. As usual, more modern and ancient samples from these regions are needed to better understand their genetic history.

If You are an Armenian and have ancestry from Gardman, Shaki and Shirvan including Shamakhi regions You can join the relevant FTDNA project. You can find the link below. The title of the project will change in the future.

https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/gardmank-gandzak/about

Y-DNA from Rasuloğlu Höyük and the Hattian Context

Y-DNA from Rasuloğlu Höyük and the Hattian Context

Yediay et al. (2024) published Bronze Age samples from the North Anatolian site of Rasuloğlu Höyük in Çorum province. These samples were explicitly labeled as representatives of the Hattian cultural context, making it particularly interesting to examine their Y-DNA lineages.

One of the individuals carried haplogroup G2-M406, as expected. Many commentators have previously suggested that G2-M406 could serve as a marker associated with Hattic populations, and these results provide additional support for that idea.

Another interesting finding from Rasuloğlu was haplogroup T1a2a. It should be noted that T1a2 lineages have repeatedly been identified in ancient Anatolia, including both T1a2a and T1a2b branches. Apparently, this was a minor Neolithic lineage that spread somewhat later into Europe and appears only rarely in Neolithic European contexts, largely restricted to the Balkans.

Later, during the Early Chalcolithic period, the expansion of groups related to the Hattian cultural sphere in northern Anatolia (and later associated with Hittite and Palaic populations) seems to have increased the frequency of T1a2-L131 alongside G2-M406.

Another T1a2 lineage has been identified in an ancient sample from the Hellenistic period in Samsun, a region that likely had Hattic and possibly Kaskian populations during the Bronze Age. Additional occurrences of T1a2 have also been reported in western Anatolia.

It is noteworthy that, similar to G2-M406, T1a2 is rare or virtually absent in Bronze Age Minoan Crete. This suggests that the population involved in the rise of the Minoan civilization differed from the groups that expanded into northern Anatolia during the Early Chalcolithic.

The distribution of T1a2 among modern Armenians also supports these observations. The lineage is found predominantly among western Armenians and is rare in eastern Armenia. Interestingly, a modern Armenian individual occupies a basal position within T1a2*, which provides additional evidence that the early homeland of T1a2 may have been located in the vicinity of historic Armenia.

Aratta

Aratta

Aratta was a semi-legendary land known from Sumerian epics. It probably existed during the first half of the third millennium BCE.

Its location has long been debated. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov proposed an Indo-European etymology for Aratta based on river terminology. Indeed, a river named Aratta is attested in the Urmia Basin during the Iron Age—about two thousand years after the legendary Aratta.

Despite this semantic parallel, other theories placing Aratta in more eastern regions, such as Afghanistan or eastern Iran, remain popular and are supported by various arguments.

It is noteworthy that Aratta was not only the name of a land in Sumerian sources but also an ordinary word. One meaning is “heavy,” “glorious,” or “important,” while another meaning is “tin.”

The interpretation of Aratta as “tin” may be understood in two ways. Either Aratta was a land rich in tin mines, or it was a place from which the Sumerians obtained tin through trade, or from which they learned about the use of tin.

Tin was an important metal in the Bronze Age. There were two main techniques for producing bronze from copper: alloying copper with arsenic or with tin. Both types of bronze are found in Armenia during the Kura–Araxes period. Moreover, Armenia also possessed tin deposits. However, Central Asia also has tin mines, and tin bronze was widely used in Europe as well.

For a long time, considerable uncertainty existed about the origin of tin used in the Near East. A recent study using isotopic analysis has challenged the theory that most of the tin used in the Levant, Greece, and Anatolia originated in Central Asia. Instead, the authors propose a European source.

However, Aratta itself cannot have been located in Europe. If we follow this line of reasoning, two possibilities emerge. Either Aratta was a trading hub somewhere in the Near East that obtained tin from Europe and redistributed it to the Sumerians, or Aratta was located in Armenia or the nearby northern Zagros region, where the Kura–Araxes culture existed during that period. These two hypotheses are not mutually exclusive. Isotopic studies of tin from historic Armenia may help clarify this question in the future.

Finally, the Armenian word for tin, anag (անագ), is related to the Sumero-Akkadian-Hurrian word for tin or lead (anna, annaki, anagi). This linguistic connection may reflect long-standing trade contacts between Mesopotamia and the Armenian Highlands.

Genetic History of the Levant — Part A

Recently there has been a surge of interest in Levantine genetics. Here is a summary of the genetic history of the Levant in two parts.

Natufian Culture (13,000–9,000 BCE)

The Natufian culture was a hunter-gatherer society with the remarkable feature of being sedentary or semi-sedentary. The main Y-DNA haplogroups associated with Natufians include archaic forms of E1b and CT lineages.

Levant Neolithic (9,000–4,500 BCE)

The Neolithic in the Levant is divided into two phases: Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) and Pottery Neolithic.

Agriculture spread to the southern Levant from more northern regions. The core area where farming was first developed was in the Urfa region (Portasar / Göbekli Tepe) near the modern Syrian–Turkish border. Genetic data show an important northward shift in autosomes in the southern Levant during this period, particularly visible in PPNB samples from Israel and Jordan.

A strong genetic indicator of this migration is the haplogroup E1b-Z1919, which has two major branches:

• E-L618, which moved to Europe via Anatolia and today is common in the Balkans.

• E-V22, which moved south into Egypt and introduced farming there. Today it is common in northern Egypt.

Another important lineage from this period is E-M123, which today is mainly found in West Asia but also appears in Central Asia. Sporadic occurrences of H2 and T1a are also documented.

Copper Age / Chalcolithic (4,500–3,300 BCE)

There are relatively few samples from this period. The limited available data, associated with the Ghassulian culture, show another autosomal shift toward northern Iraq.

This shift is consistent with archaeological evidence indicating the emergence of new burial traditions. At present, it is difficult to determine exactly which cultural phenomenon caused this change in the southern Levant during the Chalcolithic period.

A similar shift toward northern Mesopotamia had already begun earlier in the northern Levant (Tell Kurdu). A plausible cultural candidate connected with this process is the Halaf culture.

The presence of T1a1a-L208 during this period also supports the idea that new groups were involved that were not directly descended from earlier Neolithic populations.

Early Bronze Age (3,300–2,200 BCE)

The transition from the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age in the Levant was a period of dramatic cultural change. Many old settlements were abandoned, while new mobile pastoralist groups spread throughout the region. These groups are usually identified with early Semitic tribes.

The autosomal change during this period is relatively subtle, showing a slightly more eastern genetic shift. However, the change in Y-DNA is much more pronounced. The frequency of E1b lineages declines significantly, while J1-Z1853 becomes the most common haplogroup from this period onward. J2b1 also increases in frequency during this time.

The exact location of the Proto-Semitic homeland remains debated. It is often placed in the Arabian Peninsula, and the slight increase in Natufian ancestry does support a southern origin. However, the appearance of additional ancestry related to historic Armenia suggests a region closer to Mesopotamia (see the map), where J1 may have already been present in earlier periods. Ultimately, J1 appears to originate further north in the Taurus–Zagros–Caucasus mountain region.

At present, ancient DNA evidence is still insufficient to precisely determine the Proto-Semitic homeland or the exact migration path of J1.

Wherever the Proto-Semitic homeland was located, Semitic populations expanded widely:

• northward to the Taurus Mountains,

• eastward to the Zagros Mountains,

• and southward across the Red Sea, reaching Ethiopia around 1000 BCE.

The earliest branch of the Semitic language family is East Semitic, represented by Eblaite and Akkadian, both now extinct. These populations settled in northern Levant and Mesopotamia, where their culture merged with that of the Sumerians and likely contributed to the end of the Uruk cultural system around 3100 BCE.

The Akkadians later established one of the earliest empires in history, uniting Mesopotamian city-states around 2330 BCE. This empire collapsed around 2150 BCE.

After the 2200 BCE climatic event and the fall of the Akkadian Empire, a new period began in the Levant, which will be discussed in Part B.