Remarks on Eriahi

Remarks on Eriahi

Some names attested in Etiuni can also be found in later Armenian sources. Well-known examples include Welikuni/Welikuhi and Silukuni, known in Armenian as Gelakuni and Cluk (Ծղուկ), reflecting the regular w > g sound shift.

However, instead of Eriahi we find the name Shirak, which is most likely a later term from the Arsacid era. Since the time of Kapantsian, theories have been proposed that Eriahi could be of Indo-Iranian origin, based on the similarity of the name to Aria. However, ancient DNA from the Shirak region does not particularly support this theory. We now have dozens of ancient DNA samples from various sites in Shirak, and none of them can be securely linked to Indo-Iranian populations. Eriahi appears to have been a regular Etiuni tribe, similar to the other tribes of Etiuni.

So, was its name lost? Possibly yes, but most likely not. The root of Eriahi is Eria, which could also have been pronounced as [eræ] according to Urartian orthographic conventions, or even as [aræ]. This pronunciation would be quite close to the name of the patriarch Ara.

Many toponyms are associated with the patriarch Ara: Aragats, Mount Ara, Ara’s Field, and others. However, this theory has one significant difficulty — geography. Most of the toponyms related to Ara are located in the Araratian Plain, and only Aragats overlaps with Shirak. This issue could be explained if we assume that the tribe once occupied a larger settlement area or that its population moved over time.

An update to the previous posting.

Update on J2-Z6065>P81

Thanks to the vigilance of our members, Tigran Sg and others, I re-examined all available data on J2-Z6065>P81. Here is an update to the previous post.

In the Lazaridis et al. (2024) preprint, a new Maykop sample was published. The paper itself did not provide many details about its subclade, and I initially assumed that the coverage was insufficient. However, after the paper was formally published in Nature this year and the files became available, its subclade could be identified. According to FTDNA, it belongs to J2-Z6065>P81. Another reason I overlooked it earlier is that the Chinese website YTree places P81 in a very different position within J2, which further contributed to the confusion.

In any case, the presence of J2-P81 in a Maykop context makes sense. The lineage is also found today in the northwestern Caucasus and in Ukraine. It is particularly noteworthy that its parallel branch has been identified in Bronze Age Anatolia, at Ovaören. This strongly suggests that both branches were originally associated with Chaff-Faced Ware communities in historic Armenia. One branch appears to have moved northward, becoming part of the Maykop genetic profile, while the other moved into Anatolia, potentially becoming associated with Hittite–Luwian populations.

According to YFull, the two branches share a common ancestor approximately 8,400 years ago, which roughly coincides with the formation of the Shulaveri–Shomu Neolithic cultural horizon.

Returning to the J2-P81 sample from the Alan period, we can now be confident that it had a local origin, at least dating back to the Bronze Age or even the Eneolithic.

Comments on migrations over Caucasus

 Comments on Migrations across the Caucasus

Ancient DNA has made it possible to uncover migrations across the Caucasus in the distant past. Some of these movements were expected, while others were surprising. Despite these advances, we still know relatively little about more recent migrations.

The limited amount of data currently available nevertheless allows us to suggest two younger migration events.

The first is connected with the rise of the Koban culture in the North Caucasus, which appears to have been influenced by populations from the southwestern regions of the Caucasus around 1400–1200 BCE, more specifically by the Colchian archaeological culture in western Georgia. Scholars had long suspected such a connection, and there were even proposals to unite the Koban and Colchian cultures into a broader cultural complex.

However, migration from the south does not mean that the Koban culture was exclusively southern in origin. It also included a local population component. Thus, it was most likely multiethnic, although the southern component appears to have been Kartvelian. Later, around 600 BCE, the Scythians conquered the Koban cultural area, and Iranian-speaking Alans began to emerge there. The Scythians also crossed the Caucasus, but so far we do not have any ancient DNA samples from the South Caucasus that can be securely linked to them.

The second possible migration across the Caucasus appears to have originated further south, most likely from historic Armenia. Based on data from eastern Georgia, it began during Late Antiquity (1st–4th centuries AD) and was associated with an increase in Anatolian-related ancestry. We now also have ancient DNA from the so-called Alan period in the North Caucasus, and quite surprisingly, some individuals carry Y-DNA lineages that most likely originated in historic Armenia.

[Read the update: for example, J2-Z6065>P81. We cannot fully rule out its earlier presence in the region, but current data do not provide evidence for that.] Two cases of L584 have also been identified. In Damgaard et al. (2018), one medieval sample from the Saltovo–Mayaki culture in the North Caucasus showed a strong Near Eastern genetic shift.

At this stage, we do not yet know what caused this migration or what the ethnic composition of these migrants was. However, the limited data from the Early Medieval period in the North Caucasus suggest that the migration did not stop in eastern Georgia and likely continued further north.

Links in the comments.

An important update about the J2-P81

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/196TcXY17b/

An excerpt from De Martino's paper.

An Excerpt from De Martino’s Paper

It appears that more scholars are adopting the idea that the name of the Mitanni kingdom (whose archaic form was Maitani) was derived from the name of a person or clan that founded the kingdom. De Martino does not mention it, but there is evidence from the Upper Euphrates that may support this interpretation. A certain Mita from Pahhuwa (near Hayasa), who lived in the 15th century BCE, is known to have rebelled against the Hittites.

This indicates that the name Mita indeed existed during that period. However, we should not rush to the conclusion that the founders of Mitanni came from the Upper Euphrates. The Mita from Pahhuwa may well have had an Indo-Iranian origin and could have moved there from the south. Fournet has proposed an Aryan etymology for this name.

At the same time, other scholars express skepticism that the first legendary ruler, Mita/Maita — who is not directly attested in the sources — had an Indo-Iranian name. The same applies to the second ruler, Kirta, who is mentioned only once. Starting with his son, however, all the kings bear Aryan names.

Additionally, the Greek-period term Matiene may represent a legacy of the Mitanni. Apparently, in antiquity there were still groups who identified themselves with the Mitanni polity that collapsed around 1200 BCE. What languages these groups spoke is difficult to determine.

A map based mainly on Urartian and other inscriptions.

A map based mainly on Urartian and other inscriptions, from Grekyan (2023), The Urartian Onomasticon: A Prosopographic Study.

Ten Years Since the First Yamnaya Ancient DNA

Ten Years Since the First Yamnaya Ancient DNA

Ten years ago, in 2015, the first ancient DNA samples from the Yamnaya archaeological culture were published in the study by Haak et al. The discovery of R1b-Z2103 in Yamnaya caused a major sensation, as many commentators at the time expected to find R1a, whose correlation with the spread of Indo-European languages seemed self-evident.

Last year, Lazaridis et al. (2024) largely clarified the origins of Yamnaya autosomes. However, the precise origin of its main Y-DNA lineage, Z2103, remains unresolved. Yediay (2024) addressed this issue (see picture 2), noting that virtually all known cases of Z2103 found in the Eurasian steppe belong to the Z2106+ branch, while all currently known cases of basal Z2103* are found in the ancient South Caucasus.

How can this apparent contradiction be explained?

At the current stage of research, we know that Z2103 experienced a dramatic founder effect during the spread of the Yamnaya culture and was practically absent from the Pontic–Caspian steppe before the emergence of that culture around 3300 BCE. As a result, 41 out of 51 Y-DNA samples extracted from Yamnaya individuals are Z2103-positive (more than 80%). Therefore, the original homeland of Z2103 must have been close to the region where the Yamnaya culture first emerged.

Yamnaya autosomes are largely derived from the preceding CLV (Caucasus–Lower Volga) cline. The genetically closest known sample comes from near the Azov region (Krivianskiy). However, in addition to CLV ancestry, Yamnaya populations also carried extra Ukraine Neolithic Hunter-Gatherer (UNHG) ancestry and some Caucasian farmer–related ancestry. These two components significantly narrow down the possible homeland.

Previously, an infiltration of UNHG ancestry into the Krasnodar region of Russia has been observed, while the additional Caucasian farmer–related ancestry was also present in the same region. Based on this evidence, it is reasonable to assume that Z2103 began its expansion somewhere between the Azov and Caucasus regions.

Such a homeland helps explain several observations:

• The reason why all three basal Z2103* branches (Y4362, L584, PF331) are found in West Asia. Their proximity to the Caucasus likely facilitated southward migrations.

• Z2106 may also have formed near the Caucasus. Its main subbranch, R-Y503415, has been identified both south of the Caucasus and north of it.

• An initial spread from west to east would also explain why the Afanasievo culture appears almost simultaneously with Yamnaya in the Altai region. Most Afanasievo males belong to Z2108, a rare subclade today found in China. Some Z2108 lineages also remained in the Pontic–Caspian steppe, where the subclade KMS67 later expanded.

• Finally, after filling the Pontic–Caspian steppe with their settlements, Yamnaya groups moved into the Balkans, where the subbranch Z2110 is found. However, in the Balkans the most successful founder effect appears to have occurred in J2b2a-L283, another minor Yamnaya lineage originating from South Caucasian farmers.

Although this principle is not universal, a potential homeland should also be associated with a diversity of related archaeological cultures. Near the Krasnodar region we find two other cultures related to Yamnaya: Novotitorovka and the North Caucasus culture. The Novotitorovka culture is particularly noteworthy because it yielded numerous wagons similar to those discovered in Lchashen in Armenia. This further raises the possibility that the region between the Azov area and the North Caucasus is precisely where we should expect to find Y-DNA lineages ancestral to those later found in West Asia, including the still elusive I2a2b.

Moesia and the Question of Its Namee

Moesia and the Question of Its Name

Moesia was a province of the Roman Empire. It was located in what is now Bulgaria, Serbia, and partly Romania, extending in the west as far as the borders of modern Albania.

Its name has often been compared with that of the Mysians, a people who lived in the northwestern region of Anatolia. The presence of a similar name in the Balkans has sometimes been used as an argument for the migration of the Mushki from that region.

However, Boteva questions the origin of the name Moesia and argues that it was likely a fabrication of the Roman Imperial period. No known source mentions this term in connection with that region before the 1st century AD. According to this view, the name itself was derived from Mysia and written as Moesia in order to conform to older Latin orthographic conventions.

The reason the Romans began using this term for the region was probably ideological and political. Western Moesia was largely inhabited by the Dardani, a tribal name that played an important role in Roman epic traditions concerning Trojan origins. In these traditions, the Roman founding ancestors were linked to the Dardani. However, when the Romans conquered the Balkans, they came into conflict with the actual Dardani people. In Roman sources, these Dardani were portrayed as barbarians attacking Roman territories, creating a contradictory narrative: in one case the Dardani were noble ancestors, while in another they appeared as hostile enemies.

To avoid referring to their new enemies by the prestigious name Dardani, Roman authorities may have chosen to designate their lands with a new name. Thus, the term Musia or Moesia was adopted, borrowing a name from Anatolia. In this way, the name Dardani became obscured and gradually faded from use in reference to the region.

If this interpretation is correct, then the argument that the name Moesia reflects a migration of the Mysians or Mushki from the Balkans is no longer tenable.