A paper dedicated to microbes that causes infectious diseases.

A Paper Dedicated to Microbes That Cause Infectious Diseases

Scholars examined a large number of ancient human remains in order to detect ancient microbes. They concluded that the shift to farming — and especially to pastoralism — increased the prevalence of infectious diseases. Cohabitation with livestock appears to have been the main cause of this increase.

In Europe, the mass migration from the steppe around 3000 BC coincides with a peak in microbial DNA detected in ancient remains. The authors propose that steppe pastoralists, who relied heavily on livestock, developed greater immunity to certain zoonotic diseases than European farmers, who depended primarily on crop cultivation. This may help explain the population changes observed in Europe.

Below is an excerpt from their conclusion:

---

“We observed some of the highest detection rates at roughly 5,000 bp, a time of substantial demographic changes in Europe due to the migration of Steppe pastoralists and the displacement of earlier populations. Steppe pastoralists, through their long-term continuous exposure to animals, probably developed some immunity to certain zoonoses, and their dispersals may have carried these diseases westwards and eastwards. Consequently, the genetic upheaval in Europe could have been facilitated by epidemic waves of zoonotic diseases causing population declines, with depopulated areas subsequently being repopulated by opportunistic settlers who intermixed with the remaining original population. This scenario would mirror the population decline of Indigenous peoples in the Americas following their exposure to diseases introduced by European colonists. Our findings support the interpretation of increased pathogen pressure as a likely driver of positive selection on immune genes associated with the risk of multiple sclerosis in Steppe populations roughly 5,000 years ago, and immune gene adaptations having occurred predominantly after the onset of the Bronze Age in Europe.”

The paper authored by Armen Petrosyan and me which was initially published in Armenian (2023), is now available in Russian.

The paper authored by Armen Petrosyan and myself, originally published in Armenian (2023), is now available in Russian. It has been published in the journal of the Institute for Linguistic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, located in Saint Petersburg. The article includes several updates based on recent publications. An English version will also be available soon.

ПРОБЛЕМА ПРОИСХОЖДЕНИЯ АРМЯН В СВЕТЕ ПОСЛЕДНИХ АРХЕОГЕНЕТИЧЕСКИХ ДАННЫХ

В статье представлены новейшие археогенетические данные, на основе которых рассматривается одна из важнейших проблем истории Армении — происхождение и формирование армянского народа. Согласно этим данным, независимо от локализации ранней индоевропейской (индо-хеттской) прародины, поздняя индоевропейская прародина сформировалась в степных и лесостепных регионах Восточной Европы — от бассейна Волги до Днестра. Именно оттуда происходят все современные индоевропейские языки.

Археогенетические данные убедительно свидетельствуют о миграции населения через Кавказ из восточноевропейских степей на Южный Кавказ и Армянское нагорье, начиная с середины III тысячелетия до н. э. Эти переселенцы и их потомки создали триалети-ванадзорскую, севан-арцахскую, ван-урмийскую и лчашенско-мецаморскую культуры среднего и позднего бронзового, а также раннего железного веков.

Вплоть до конца существования царства Урарту (VII–VI вв. до н. э.) местное население на территории современной Армении (земля Этиуни в урартских источниках) сохраняло значительную долю степной патрилинейной ДНК (около 75%). Армянский язык, по всей вероятности, был языком создателей этих культур, и археогенетические данные свидетельствуют в пользу этиунийской гипотезы происхождения армян.

Ключевые слова: археогенетика, индоевропейская прародина, ранняя археология Армении, предыстория Армении, протоармянский язык, протоармяне, формирование армянского народа.

www.academia.edu

Currently I have very little time. But hopefully soon will be able to present the genetic history of this two haplotypes.

Currently, I have very little time. However, I hope to soon be able to present the genetic history of these two haplotypes.

About MyHeritage autosomal calculator.

About the MyHeritage Autosomal Calculator

Recently, I had the opportunity to review several MyHeritage ethnic proportion calculator results. I must say that some of them appear quite nonsensical. At this point, I do not know whether this issue is specific to Armenians or if it is more widespread.

What is particularly strange is that in February 2025, MyHeritage announced the release of version 2.5 of their calculator, which, according to their blog post, was supposed to improve the identification of Armenian-related ancestry. However, the examples I have seen so far are somewhat disappointing.

Another issue is that FTDNA apparently no longer accepts MyHeritage raw data files. This can be quite frustrating for individuals who wish to obtain an alternative interpretation of their ancestry results. Previously, the two companies used identical file formats, but apparently something has changed.

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/