Linguistic is a mature science and we should not expect any groundbreaking findings from a new paper.

 Linguistic is a mature science and we should not expect any groundbreaking findings from a new paper. What can do a modern linguist is to have a new interpretation of already known facts, or at best he can find a few new lexical parallels. Nielsen's paper is important because it shows that the linguistic data do not contradict to the available genetic data about the origins of Armenians. And more important it can reinforce it, giving new details.

The most important argument for Proto Armenians dwelling in the northern parts of historic Armenia is the phonetic system of Armenian which is very close to Georgian and Zan phonetic systems.

Creanza et al. 2015 analyzed more than 2000 languages and based that came to the conclusion that the phonetic systems of two neighboring languages correlates better with geographic distance than with their affiliated linguistic families. Another interesting conclusion was that an isolated language drifts. But unlike the genetics were the drift decrease the diversity, the drift in the language increases the number of phonemes.

This by the way can explain the high number of phonemes in the North Caucasian languages. Returning to the Armenian and Kartvelian we can say that similar phonetic systems mean relatively long period of coexistence.

On the other hand, this do not mean that the Kur-Araxian culture which became the substrate for the Armenian language was necessarily and predominantly Kartvelian. First the number of mutual loanwords is too small for that. Most loanwords in Armenian are from the Zan branch which can be connected to the Colchian archaeological culture. Moreover we do not know well about the phonetic system of Urartian. Given that we know about their phonology only via the cuneiform it is possible that their phonetic system was also close to the Armenian.

Another important question is the migration of IE Anatolians. If further genetic data do not show evidence that they migrated via Balkans, then the only available option left will be their origins or migration via the historic Armenia. In this scenario Kura-Araxes becomes indispensable for their spread. So, there is a need to look at the possible IE Anatolian substrate in Armenian. Nielsen mentions this.

And finally based on the available genetic and archaeological data there is little doubt that the Nakh-Daghestani linguistic family descend from a subset of Kura-Araxes. We can't now deduce the exact boundary of this subset, but we can expect that Proto-Armenian would have a contact with them also. So, another analyze of Armenian and Nakh-Daghestani connections is needed.

Returning to the Kartvelian family. Based on the current genetic and archaeological data the most likely cultures related to the Kartvelian family were the Proto-Colchian (2700-1700/1500BCE) and the Colchian culture (1700/1500-700BCE) in the western Georgia. Some Kartvelian presence in Koban culture is also possible but it's not relevant for ancient Armenian connections. What is more important is that Colchian culture axes were found in northwestern regions of historic Armenia which can explain the stronger presence of Zan loanwords in the Armenian. More ancient DNA and archaeological research from that region, will help to better understand this question.

#Proto-Armenian

The origins of Grey ware culture in Iran

 The origins of Grey ware culture in Iran

We have a decent number of ancient DNA from Urmia basin. Based on that we can say that the Urmia basin was a dynamic place. One of interesting findings is the increase of Iran/Zagros Neolithic ancestry in LBA period. (after the 1600bc). This increase started probably at the end of MBA.

The best archaeologic event that match this genetic shift is the spread of Grey ware. Initially Grey ware was considered as an Iron Age pottery but new studies of Iranian archaeologists propose a Bronze Age spread of this pottery which is found in many sites in North Iran (see the map )

Apparently the current genetic data supports their theory. The origins of this pottery was debated. North eastern Iranian origin was proposed, but a North Central Iranian origin is also possible. The closest populations to Dinkha tepe 2 are Lors and Mazandarani. If this has any predictive value then a Central Iranian origin seems more plausible.

In any case the current genetic data supports a more eastern origin of this pottery than the lake Urmia.

As for the ethnicities related to this pottery, the best candidate are the Kassites. Kassite's language remain unclassified. But it seems that they had an Aryan adstrate which is quite plausible given that Mitanni Aryans appear roughly the same period. They were also horse worshippers which also was in most likelihood an Aryan influence.

It is quite possible that Mitanni Aryans were also making the Grey ware before they moved to Syria. Where different potteries were produced by locals.

#Iran

Genetic history of larger Aintab region.

 Genetic history of larger Aintab region. The region which includes modern Gaziantep, Hatay and Kilis provinces.

There are large number of ancient DNA from the larger Aintab region. Based on that data we can reconstruct the genetic history of that region since the Neolithic to Medieval and modern periods.

We lack samples from the Neolithic period but apparently the Early Chalcolithic sample dated after 5800bc was similar to preceding Neolithic period.

In Middle Chalcolithic (after 5000bc) period there is a small shift to east but it's not yet significant.

We lack samples from Late Chalcolithic period which starts at 4300bc and ends around 3100bc. This period in that region is known as Amuq F period which is equivalent to Chaff faced ware in south Caucasus and historic Armenia. The archaeological studies shows an obvious discontinuity in that period. Strong increase of settlement's size and number. Apparition of distinct new pottery.

Indeed in the succeeding Bronze Age we see a completely different gene pool. Large increase of Central farmers which becomes the most important component in Aintab - Amuq region. This new genetic profile persists until historic periods and is present in modern people living there also.

The people who introduced this change are known as Chaff faced ware culture people. Based on the data we have from Crete those people didn't stopped in southern Anatolia but continued to move to west reaching Aegean islands, where we see large number of Y DNA associated with them in Minoan period.

In Early Bronze Age Kilis three is some increase in Levantine ancestry. This increase is related to Semitic people expansion which must have occured no later than 3000BC. Eastern Semitic people like Akkadians and Eblaite descend from this event. The Taurus mountains acted as a barrier for their expansion.

In Alalakh Middle and Late Bronze Age we notice a more cosmopolitan ancestry. Influences from Anatolia (Luwians?) and increase of Iran Neo (Mitanni Aryans?, Khabure ware?). More samples are needed to differentiate Hurrian and IE Anatolian influences on that region. Also to asses the real impact of Mitanni Aryans migration.

We lack samples from Iron Age and Antiquity. Then in Medieval period we have samples from Aintab who without much doubt were Armenians.( See the R. Robert Navoyan 's link in the comments ). The migration of Armenians in that period is well known. As for medieval samples from Kilis it's much harder to understand their ethnic affiliation.

In conclusion the most important demographic event in larger Aintab region occured in Late Chalcolithic period related to Chaff Faced Ware culture.

Who were those people is unknown. In Crete their impact is associated with Minoan language, while in south Anatolia we have Indo-European Anatolians. See the map.

How to reconcile this contradiction? Maybe Chaff faced ware was a multi-ethnic phenomenon? Or maybe IE Anatolians came later in Early Bronze Age with another migration? With whom migrated the R1b from ancient Aintab? Another possibility is that Minoan language is derived from local Neolithic farmers not from the new migrants. It must be noted that recent studies consider the possibility of the IE Anatolian influences on Minoans.

With more data this puzzle will be solved.

When the tools and settings matters. Part 1

 When the tools and settings matters. Part 1

Here I present two models with exactly same source and target populations.

The first one is unscaled and the second one is scaled.

As You can see the most significant change affect the EHG level which is 2.5 times higher in the unscaled.

You may wonder which one is the most correct. Well the unscaled coordinates are the one that are produced by the smartpca in their unaltered form.

While the scaled coordinates are deliberately altered by an algorithm. I don't know exactly how this algorithm works. It's Davidski who owns it rights.

But the main idea of scaling is too artificiality increase the distance for distant and drifted populations. For instance the East Asian populations but also the local drifted pops like CHG and Turkey_N. Those artificial changes alters the result in different ways. As You can see for Armenians it is creating a masking effect that hides the real EHG.

It must be noted the qpadm numbers are close to the unscaled numbers. But qpadm also has its own tips and secrets. I will speak about it in the third part.

In any case questions like how much EHG , Levant or CHG do have an X population do not have a strict answers. They are rather ranges than just one correct answer

Some remarks on a genetic shift that affected modern RoA in Iron Age.

 Some remarks on a genetic shift that affected modern RoA in Iron Age.

Those are the possible events by their importance.

1. Politic of large population movements organized by the Urartian kings. This policy would decrease the Etiuni genetic profile in ancient RoA and increase new genetic profiles from other regions. It would result also in the apparition of Etiuni profile elsewhere.

Numbers in cuneiform texts are sufficient to explain this shift. But with the current paleogenetic data available this is not yet visible. At last not on a scale comparable to the claims of the kings. Out of 30 samples from 800-600 BC only two are from south. Most probably with more samples from Urartian cities like Teishebaini, Erebuni, Argishtihinili and others we will see them in the future. Another reason that could "hide" the newcomers is the practice of cremation. Even though it was limited to a subset of Urartians.

2. A theory exist that in its final period the Urartian kingdom elite moved to the modern Armenia. For instance mentions of last Rusa and king Sarduri son of Sarduri are found in Karmir Blur (Teishebaini) but not in Tushpa. It's possible that in its final periods the Biainili dinasty lost control of Tushpa and prefered to move to north. A similar event occured in last period of Assyria and other kingdoms. This theory is not widely accepted but there are some reasons to believe that it occured.

3. A new groups moved to Armenian heartland from more southern regions than Van basin. From historic Korduk and Nor Shirakan. Those groups are mentioned in Khorenatsi as Yervandians, Zarehians, Vahuni, Nersehians. They are mentioned as native but in cuneiform texts possible related names are found in the south. Their supposed arrival fits to late and post Urartian periods. It is probably associated to wider regional changes. Tribal names like Parnaki are attested in the most southern regions while later we see toponyms with it in more northern regions. Cawdek' (Ծաւդեք) in the south but also in Artsakh / Syunik. What triggered those migrations, are they really significant and how much impact they left is unknown.

4. A possible Persian and Medes impact. This sounds trivial given historic events but the direction of genetic shift in modern RoA contradict to the expected impact. There is no visible increase in Iran_Neo ancestry (Lazaridis and Hovhannisyan do not detect Iran_Neo increase). It would be also strange that ancient Medes and Persians had much lower steppe than what was already present in ancient Armenia. So it's possible that this event affected indirectly via the event number 3.

5. Transfer of capital to Armavir. This event is dated to 330BC but could have started earlier. Anyway it's very unlikely that it has left much impact.

Besides those points we also need to better understand the Middle Bronze Age Karmir-Berd culture which was an offshoot of Van-Urmia culture. It affected Araratian plain so this could have altered the Araratian plain Etiunians genetics. But the samples we have from Karmir Blur do not speak in favor of strong impact. Anyway more samples from Araratian plain are needed in Lchashen Metsamor period.

I think I mentioned all possible events that are responsible for this change. With more genetic data this puzzle will be solved. There is also need to review once more ancient texts for better understanding this situation. Combined with archaeology I hope all answers will be found

According to the link below this coin was minted by the satrap of Armenia Orontes ( Eruand ) who is mentioned in the Xenophon's Anabasis.

 According to the link below this coin was minted by the satrap of Armenia Orontes ( Eruand ) who is mentioned in the Xenophon's Anabasis. He was "exiled" to Mysia where he minted this coins. Later he managed to return back to Armenia after organizing a rebellion against the Achaemenid king. The Pergamon inscription mentions him as son of Artašir. We have a thread about this inscription in this group. Links can be found in the comments

The closest populations with G25 scaled to:

 The closest populations with G25 scaled to:

Romans who lived in republican Rome.

Myceneans. The 2nd and 3rd charts

Both of those populations have left written texts and no one doubt about their ethnicity. As we can see a simple comparison to modern populations is not a solid way to make judgements about the language of an ancient population.

It's only one argument. But they are many other arguments. Like the linguistic, the ancient texts, the archaeology, the comparison to the preceding population, the overall common sense and finally the uniparental markers especially the Y DNA.

This is the main reason that most recent DNA papers do not rely anymore on this type of argument. Lazaridis proposed the theory, and many scholars like Anthony now agree that Lchashen Metsamor culture which is known in Urartian texts as Etiuni land was Armenian. Their proposal is based on many lines of arguments. Not just one. And in this group we were discussing this possibility years before Lazaridis proposed it in 2022. Now we have a nice situation when the data from various fields coalesce to the same conclusion.

I understand that some people could have doubts and are not happy with this conclusions. Most probably they have their own pet theory. They are welcomed to present their own vision of the situation. This group do not forbid alternative theories.

But if an alternative theory starts from a denial of Etiuni, it's definitely do not increase the credibility of an alternative theory. One can say that Etiuni was an extinct Armenian dialect. That is possible. But saying that it is not Armenian while another group having the same admixture elsewhere is Armenian is irrational. They were different Armenian groups in ancient Armenia. All them stemming from Middle Bronze Age developments. And Etiuni is one of those groups. One of largest. Someone who claims that Biainili is Armenian ( which by the way is possible ) but Etiuni is not Armenian, this person needs to explain where he place the deep sources of Armenic languages. Otherwise it's a sort of creationism where Armenian emerges only with Biainili-Urartu and was in an unknown place before that. Not only there is a need to be specific about the deep past but also how he connects Armenian with other IE languages. This is the real way of defending an alternative theory not denying Etiuni