Hunters and Early Farmers of the Urfa Region

Hunters and Early Farmers of the Urfa Region

The megalithic constructions of Portasar / Göbekli Tepe are well known. Another site with even more impressive statues has been discovered nearby at Karahantepe. In 2021, another remarkable discovery was made at Sayburç (see the map for the locations of these sites).

At Sayburç, human reliefs dating to around 9000 BCE were carved into stone. These works were apparently created by the early farmers of West Asia and the Fertile Crescent.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the hunter-gatherer societies that developed agriculture and domesticated animals possessed surprisingly complex social organization. Without metal tools, they must have spent a considerable amount of time polishing stone and carving rock, which suggests significant planning, labor organization, and cultural development.

Ancient DNA from nearby sites such as Nevali Çori and Çayönü is now available. These populations do not show any unusual or “exotic” ancestry; rather, genetically they occupy an intermediate position between several neighboring groups:

• Anatolian hunter-gatherers

• Pre-Pottery Neolithic Levantine populations (Natufians)

• Neolithic farmers from the South Caucasus and historic Armenia

On the PCA (see the fourth picture), these populations appear within the blue hexagon located between three red circles, illustrating their intermediate genetic position among these three major groups.

Deep Origins of the Indo-European Family

 

Deep Origins of the Indo-European Family

This question regularly arises in our group, so a few remarks are necessary.

The Indo-European (IE) family is primarily a linguistic concept developed by historical linguists. Through internal classification of the daughter languages, linguists concluded that the Anatolian branch separated first, while all the other branches—including Armenian—descend from a later branch often called Late PIE, Nuclear Indo-European, or similar terms.

This means that the question of the deep origins of the Indo-European family is closely connected to the origins of the Anatolian languages. Since the Anatolian languages are extinct, we cannot study their speakers directly today. The only reliable way to investigate their origins is through ancient DNA from Anatolia.

When referring to Anatolia in this context, we must be precise. Ideally, we should focus on regions where Anatolian-speaking populations actually lived, excluding areas where other populations were dominant:

• not the Aegean coast, where early Greek groups later settled,

• not eastern Anatolia east of the Euphrates, where early Armenic-speaking groups were already present,

• and not parts of the northern Levant, where Hurrian and Semitic populations were widespread.

If we exclude those regions, we are left with only about a dozen ancient DNA samples from genuine Bronze Age Anatolian contexts (3000–1200 BCE). This number is far too small to draw definitive conclusions about the origins of the Anatolian branch. At present, these samples only provide preliminary indications of what might eventually be demonstrated.

Possible Scenarios

Several possible scenarios can currently be considered:

1. Anatolians descended from Armenian Highland farmers.
   This scenario appears quite plausible.

2. Anatolians descended from Steppe Eneolithic populations in the North Caucasus who migrated south through the Caucasus.
   This is also possible, although the issue of how the steppe Eneolithic ancestry became diluted would need to be explained.

3. Anatolians derived from populations related to the CLV, Volga, or Dnieper clines and migrated to Anatolia via the Balkans.
   This scenario seems unlikely, but it still needs to be fully ruled out.

As we can see, the key to understanding the deep origins of the Indo-European family lies not in Armenia, not in modern Armenian genetics, not in the Caucasus, and not in Europe—especially not in northern Europe. The decisive evidence will most likely come from Bronze Age Anatolia.

Linguistic Evidence

Apart from genetics, there is also a “soft” line of evidence that may support hypotheses about Indo-European origins: historical linguistics.

For example, if a linguist were able to convincingly demonstrate the Indo-Uralic hypothesis—which proposes that Indo-European and Uralic languages descend from a common ancestor—then we would have strong reason to assume that their shared origins lay among Eastern European hunter-gatherers (EHG).

However, no such definitive proof currently exists. Moreover, genetic evidence suggests that Uralic languages likely originated in Siberia, probably among populations related to the Yukaghir.

Cultural Arguments

In Lazaridis et al. (2024), the authors discuss agricultural terminology in Indo-European languages, using it as an argument for more southern origins. Arguments about early contacts with Semitic or Sumerian populations are also often mentioned.

However, such arguments cannot be decisive. Indo-European languages were already spoken in parts of the Near East around 6300 years ago, and there is little reason to doubt this today. Therefore, demonstrating contacts with Sumerians does not significantly clarify the deeper origins of the Indo-European family.

The Role of Yamnaya

Another unproductive approach is to reject or attack the role of the Yamnaya culture in the spread of Indo-European languages. Doing so is problematic.

The main reason that Western scholarship has shown renewed interest in Armenian-related hypotheses since 2015 is precisely because of the Yamnaya discoveries in ancient DNA studies. If Yamnaya is removed from this framework, there is little reason to associate Armenian Highland farmers with Indo-European expansion, since those farmers did not migrate directly into Europe or India.

What they did influence strongly was the Caucasus, where today we find at least three different non–Indo-European language families.

Final Remark

For this reason, my advice to some members of our group is simple: be patient and avoid emotional reactions. We cannot change the past—we can only learn about it as new evidence emerges.

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.
• 
  

Shulaveri-Aratashen-Shomutepe (SAS) culture. 7000/6200-5300BC.

 Shulaveri-Aratashen-Shomutepe (SAS) culture. 7000/6200-5300BC.

We have five good quality new samples from Shulaveri (SAS) culture in Georgia (Aruchlo). They had YDNA H2, J2a1a and R. This latter is from the R2 haplogroup according Genarchivist activists.

On the PCA three of five farmers plot close to related Neolithic samples from Armenia and Azerbaijan while modern people close them are the Armenians in G25. It's now obvious that this was the main genetic profile in SAS/Shulaveri culture. Those were the first farmers in South Caucasus and their ancestry was largely derived from central regions of Fertile Crescent hence the reason that occasionally we call them Central farmers. Ghalichi 2024 used also the term East Anatolian farmers. Given some archaeological data from Van region we can assume that most of historic Armenia (except probably the most western and southwestern regions) was inhabited by this type of farmers.

Besides this "Central"/"Armenian like" type there were also farmers with higher CHG ratio. First we have seen them in Aknashen from Armenia. Now we have another similar CHG shifted sample from Georgia plotting close to modern Georgians. It's not exactly identic to Aknashen but rather plots close to Darkveti-Meshoko ( labeled as Caucasus Eneolithic ) raising the possibility that Darkveti-Meshoko culture formed as a mixture of Shulaveri and CHG. The Darkveti culture is remarkable because genome wide it's genetic profile looks a good candidate for being Pre-Proto-Kartvelian. High CHG and very low Steppe. But the absence of G2a1a there and scant sampling from west Caucasus makes those suggestions still speculative.

Another sample from Aruchlo/Georgia plots close to CHG hunters. The ARO006 with YDNA R2. Making it a hunter who learned farming without having any significant admixture from those farmers. The presence of such hunter related genetic profile in Shulaveri culture means that there were at last two different languages in SAS. One derived from the first farmers and another derived from the hunters who learned farming. It's remarkable that archaeology supports this dualistic nature of Shulaveri culture. Two different potteries were made in Shulaveri. One of them was Chaff-tempered. The other one was Grit-tempered. Chaff-tempered was almost certainly made by the first farmers who came from southern regions of historic Armenia. While the Grit-tempered was made by groups derived from the local hunters.

It's interesting that both pottery traditions continued in ancient South Caucasus and historic Armenia after the Neolithic period. Grit-tempered was prominent in Sioni (also found in Adablur and Guinchi) culture which evolved in Early and Middle Chalcolithic (5300-4300BC). . We can conjecture that they were CHG shifted. Offcourse this is a just a prediction based on archaeology which can be wrong, given that currently there are no samples from this period. While Chaff-tempered pottery became prominent in Late Chalcolithic period (4300-3600BC). The Late Chalcolithic period DNA both from Armenia and Azerbaijan shows that they were mostly derived from the first Neolithic farmers having some extra new admixtures.

And finally we can now say with high degree of certitude that the CHG shifted genetic profile of Kura-Araxes culture (3600-2400BC) had local origins. When farmers settled all over Kur and Arax river valleys the forest-mountain zone between those two valleys also known as Lesser Caucasus became a sort of refugium where they preserved the initial hunter gatherer ancestry in higher proportion. This is the reason why the oldest radiocarbon dated Kura-Araxes sites are found in north Armenia (Gegharot) and south Georgia.

But this is not the whole story. Apparently Kura-Araxes also had two potteries and genetic profiles. Which could mean that for at last 4000 years two genetic profiles were competing in South Caucasus starting from the Neolithic period till the end of Early Bronze Age.

PS. There was in reality six samples from Aruchlo. But one of them has so little coverage that it was not included in the calculations.

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.