The King Pharnavaz (Փառնավազ)

In Armenian historical tradition, the post-Urartian period — which, incidentally, is also the post-Assyrian period — is marked by the emergence of new elites.

In Movses Khorenatsi’s history, the first crowned king of Armenia (after Assyrian rule) was Paruyr Skayordi. He was an ally of the Medes and, according to Khorenatsi, participated in the destruction of the Assyrian Empire. However, the historian Sebeos reports a different story about the same period. He mentions a certain Pharnavaz who was loyal to the Babylonians and was recognized by Babylon as king of Armenia. Afterward, this Pharnavaz and his descendants controlled lands in the southwestern regions of historical Armenia (Ałdznikʿ and Tsopkʿ).

The Assyrian Empire was destroyed by an alliance of Babylon and the Medes in 614–609 BC. After this, Babylonian sources report three additional campaigns in northern Mesopotamia in which the lands of Urartu are mentioned as targets of attack and plunder. It is quite possible that, after the annihilation of Assyrian political influence, Babylon had interactions with rulers located in the southern parts of historical Armenia and recognized one of the local rulers as king. Thus, the reports of the Babylonian Chronicles fit well with Sebeos’s account of Pharnavaz.

The name Pharnavaz is absent from Urartian texts; however, Assyrian texts mention a certain tribe, the Parnaki, dwelling in a region north or east of Assyria, in the northern Zagros. A derivation of the personal name Pharnavaz from the Parnaki tribe is quite plausible and is supported by historical parallels found in Anatolia, where the satrapal Pharnacid dynasty bore both the names Pharnaces and Pharnabazus. The term Pharnavaz itself is composed of two Iranian words: *farna* (“glory,” “splendor”) and *bāzu* (“arm”), which, according to Armenian phonetic rules, could have developed into Pʿarnawaz (Փառնաւազ).

Assuming that Sebeos’s story has a real historical background, we can reconstruct the following chronology of events:

**8th–7th century BC.** A minor Iranian tribe, not directly affiliated with the Medes or Persians, was dwelling near historical Armenia. They are mentioned by the Assyrians. In the Armenian patriarchal list, the name Pʿarnak is also present in ancient times.

**At the end of the 7th century BC.** The destruction of Assyria and the extreme weakening of the Biainean dynasty triggered migrations and the emergence of new elites. The Parnaki tribe most probably settled in the southwestern regions of Armenia, had occasion to interact with the Babylonians, and became part of the local ruling class. It was assimilated by the Armenians, and the memory of King Pharnavaz became part of Armenian historical tradition. 

Another Pharnavaz is also important in Georgian historic tradition. He is the first kjng of Iberia around ~300BC and the founder of Pharnavazid dynasty. I will dedicate a separate post about the possible relation of this two Pharnavaz' and the position of Pharnacid dynasty of Anatolia in all this.

During the same post Assyrian period, or slightly earlier, Paruyr Skayordi was probably ruling in the eastern regions of historical Armenia — in or around the territory of the modern Republic. In that location, Paruyr Skayordi would have had occasion to interact with the Medes, and this memory was recorded by Khorenatsi. It must be noted that Khorenatsi also mentions Pharnavaz as a “grandson” of Paruyr Skayordi, but gives no further information about him. The Urartian cuneiform texts referring to the lands of Išqigulu and to Sagaputra (“son of Saka”) as king may also be interpreted as evidence for a Skayordi domain in the eastern regions.

In conclusion, the end of the Assyrian Empire was also a period of weakening for the Biainean dynasty and of political fragmentation in the Armenian Highlands. New elites appeared, possibly some of Iranian origin, and were assimilated into the Armenian-Urartian cultural milieu. Slightly later, the Orontid (Eruanduni) dynasty emerged and unified the country.

Genetic history of H2-P96

Based on the current stage of our knowledge, the homeland of H2-P96 was in the "core area" of the Fertile Crescent. From the region near modern Urfa - Diyarbekir, it expanded in different directions, carried by the early Neolithic farmers. H2-P96 has been found in ancient Anatolia and Europe, in the Levant and Egypt, and in South Caucasian Neolithic sites. Currently, there is no evidence that H2 moved eastward to Central Asia or South Asia.

This may sound counterintuitive, but the story of H2 is unrelated to H1, which is prominent in South Asia and India. The common ancestor of H2 and H1 lived 45,000 years ago, during the out-of-Africa dispersal wave. The ancestor of H2 remained in West Asia, while the ancestor of H1 appears to have been present in India since the Upper Paleolithic period. Currently, there is no evidence that H1 was related to the Zagros Neolithic farmers.

The three main directions of the Neolithic spread of H2 are somewhat similar to the story of T1a1. Due to poor resolution of many academic papers its impossible currently to reconstruct the story of H2 and its subclades with hugher precision.  That is why we will use just the generic P96 level. Which by the way has a TMRCA more than 16.000 yeaes.

• Anatolia and Europe: H2 moved into Europe from Anatolia with the early farmers. Despite some rumours of H2 presence in Paleolithic Europe—which still require solid confirmation—it is obvious that virtually all H2 found in early Neolithic cultures of Europe came from Anatolia.

• Levant and Africa: H2 was found in the PPNB period of the Levant. From there, it moved to Egypt. An ancient priest's mummy DNA analysis revealed H2 Y-DNA.

• Historic Armenia and the Caucasus: H2 was found at the Shulaveri culture site of Aruchlo in Georgia. It reached the Caucasus via historic Armenia. H2 is quite diverse among modern Armenians. Overall, H2 is rare in modern populations, except in a few cases. One such case is among Armenians, where it is found at non-trace (low but noticeable) levels.

New ancient DNA from Greece.

New ancient DNA from Greece, specifically from the Corinth region and western Greece. The older samples are similar to other samples from Greece and the Balkans, but the Roman-era samples show a shift toward Anatolia, somewhat consistent with Roman imperial events.

One of the Roman-era Corinthians has Y-DNA R1b-L584, consistent with this eastern shift. Another individual from the Roman era had J2-M92, plausibly reflecting Anatolian affiliation as well. Other Y-DNA haplogroups found at these sites are typical of the Balkans: E1b-L618, R1b-PF7562, J2b-L283, T1a2, and G2.

==========

The consensus of our findings (PCA, ADMIXTURE, and qpAdm using the “Most_Proximate” set of sources) shows that the Amvrakia and Tenea individuals can be considered descendants of the LBA and IA populations of the southern Balkans, especially the area of present-day Greece. In addition, the Roman Tenea individuals appear to have an additional minor contribution from the east, represented by BA Levant and Hellenistic Türkiye (Northwest and West, including Halikarnassos) in the “Most_Proximate” qpAdm analysis. Overall, local genetic continuity is suggested from LBA/IA Greece to Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic Greece, and to a lesser degree to Roman Greece. However, for the latter, the spatial sampling is inadequate to justify such a generalization.

An open thread about Bronze Age Anatolian Y DNA

An open thread about Bronze Age Anatolian Y-DNA

I plan to write a review about the origins of IE Anatolians. As stated earlier in this group, I believe that a definitive solution to this question requires dozens of Bronze Age Y-DNA samples from specific locations in central Anatolia that are neither Greek (Aegean coast), nor Hattic or Kaskian (northern Anatolia), nor areas with a strong Hurrian presence. Before such data become available, I would like to summarize the already available Y-DNA in order to identify patterns. I will not discuss in this thread the steppe markers R1b and I2. Their affiliation with IE migrations is unambiguous. What is more important about them is the route of migration and their possible linguistic affiliation within the IE family. I will discuss them in the review about Anatolian IE.

J1-Z1828* found at Harmanören - Göndürle Höyük, dated to ~2400 BC (Lazaridis et al. 2017).
There is no information about the downstream branch, but the chances are quite high that it belongs to the BY69 branch, which was found in Anatolia in later periods.

J2-Z6065>Y9268>Z43664 from Ovaören, dated to ~2750 BC (Damgaard et al. 2018).
This branch is parallel to P81 found in the Maykop culture.

Another J2-Z6065 was found in Yediay et al. 2024.

2× J2-M67>Z6273 from Kültepe (Kalehöyük), dated around 2500–1200 BC (Damgaard et al. 2018).
This branch may reflect a new post-Neolithic migration; however, its presence in Neolithic Italy (Cardial Ware) raises the possibility that it was already present in Anatolia since the Neolithic period.

Another possible Bronze Age Anatolian lineage is E-791. However, we need to wait for the publication of Yediay et al. 2024 and the raw files for full confirmation of this theory.

Indirect data suggest that J2-L70, and possibly upstream levels, was also a Bronze Age Anatolian lineage that expanded in the LBA–IA, possibly with the Luwians.

I did not include G2-M406 and T1a2a, as there are strong reasons to believe that they were initially associated with the expansion of the Hattic people.

The main visible pattern is that all these haplotypes have clear eastern connections. Another remarkable feature is their absence from a large set of Minoan Y-DNA. This supports the idea that they cannot be connected to Proto-Minoan migration or to the non-IE Hattic people.

To be continued.

An unusual branch of E1b-M123 from ancient Aghitu

An unusual branch of E1b-M123 from ancient Aghitu

An E1b-Z21466 was found in ancient Aghitu from the Hellenistic era. This branch is rare in ancient remains. Only one sample was previously known from the Imperial Roman period, and now another has been found in ancient Armenia.

You may ask why this is important. Well, Z21466 is a parallel branch of E1b-L791 (see the chart), which is also not particularly rich in ancient samples. L791 is important because indirect data suggest that its expansion is related to Bronze Age Anatolia. The presence of samples from the parallel branch may provide a hint about the direction from which L791 came to Anatolia. Even though the common ancestor of L791 and Z21466 is quite old (12,000 years), the limited amount of ancient DNA from these two branches suggests that they had a compact distribution in the past.

Most likely, the common ancestor Z841 is related to the spread of the so-called Central farmers from northern Mesopotamia northward, including historic Armenia, and possibly southward into southern Mesopotamia. Later, L791 expanded in Anatolia during the Bronze Age. Yediay et al. 2024 identified an E1b-Z830 in Bronze Age Anatolia. Most likely, it belongs to the M123 branch. When the files are uploaded, we will know its exact subclade.

Napoleon Bonaparte’s relatives have been tested, and he belonged to the E1b-L791 branch.

Y DNA from Hellenistic era Syunik Aghitu (Skourtanioti et al. 2025) are now uploaded to FTDNA and TheYtree.

Y-DNA from Hellenistic-era Syunik (Aghitu) (Skourtanioti et al. 2025) has now been uploaded to FTDNA and TheYTree. Sixteen Y-DNA samples were detected by TheYTree.

1× E1b-PF6759
1× G1 (low coverage)
1× J2-M92
1× I2-L699>S12195
1× R1b-Y4364
9× R1b-L584
2× undetermined R1b-M269

From this list, the most interesting is I2-L699, which is found for the first time in ancient Armenia. Its presence was expected, given that L699 was present in Yamnaya. With a few exceptions, such as the Sredni Stog enclave in the lower Don Yamnaya, it was a rare lineage from the Early Bronze Age in the Steppe, so it is not surprising that we have not seen much of it in ancient Armenia. This I2 is different from I2a2b. The latter had an important founder effect in the Trialeti–Vanadzor culture and is the main reason for its high frequency in ancient Armenia and Georgia.

This finding shows that dense sampling is needed to identify rare markers. Therefore, carriers of R1b-PF7562 and R1b-Z2110 can still expect to find their haplotypes in ancient Armenia.

According to Hovann Simonian, the haplotype of Andranik Ozanyan, also known as Zoravar Andranik or Andranik Pasha, was I2-L699>S12195>Y6998 (Pic 2). His branch does not directly descend from the Aghitu I2 but shares a common ancestor with it.

The administrative division of Achaemenid Persia is still a matter of debates.

The administrative division of Achaemenid Persia is still a matter of debate.

Most scholars agree that the satrapic system was hierarchical. There were main and minor satrapies, with the latter ruled by the former. In the Bisitun inscription, 23 lands are mentioned, which are usually assumed to represent the main satrapies during the reign of Darius. Herodotus’ list of 20 satrapies is an incomplete account of both main and minor satrapies, with a clear bias toward the western regions of the empire, while the eastern regions are very poorly represented.

Khorikyan discusses these questions, and based on his papers, I made a map of the main satrapy of Armenia mentioned in Bisitun and other sub-satrapies mentioned in Herodotus.

Saspeirs, Saspirs, or Sapirs, according to Herodotus, were located between Colchis and Media. For this reason, they have been placed in modern Armenia. However, if modern Azerbaijan was part of the main Median satrapy (map 3), then a location in eastern Georgia is also possible. Locating the Saspeirs in modern Armenia has no solid arguments. Neither in the Urartian period nor in the later Armenian period is there a single toponym that can be linked to Saspeir in modern Armenia. Meanwhile, such a toponym exists in Georgia: Iberia. Some scholars have proposed the theory that “sa-” is a Georgian prefix for land, as in Sakartvelo, and that the true root in Saspeirs/Sapirs is *speir or *pir, which may be the proto-form of Greek Iberia and Latin Hiberia.

From a genetic point of view, we know that Iberian-related ancestry had already formed in eastern Georgia in early antiquity. Therefore, some early Georgian polity must have existed there during the Achaemenid period. The Saspeirs could be the precursor of Iberia.

Matiene is another obscure tribe mentioned alongside the Saspeirs. Matiene existed in several places: in Anatolia and northwestern Iran. Khorikyan cites at least one Greek source in which Matiene is mentioned in a Caucasian context, and based on this, he places it in the headwaters of the Kura River.

From a genetic point of view, the presence of R1a and Q2 in the ancient Samtskhe region is remarkable. It could be related to Persian rule there, but it may also reflect a different influence from the Iranian plateau, with the Matiene being a plausible candidate.

Not much is known about the Alarodi—only two sentences mention them—so their localization will remain speculative.

In sum, Khorikyan proposes that the 18th satrapy was located north of Armenia rather than in eastern Armenia.

Finally, the Pactyuce mentioned alongside the Armenians is most likely a corrupted form of Patuka, a Luwian or Hittite term derived from peda, meaning “land,” from which Katpatuka is derived, meaning “lower land.” A village named Patuk is attested near Kharberd (Elazığ).

The third map shows the main satrapies according to Jacobs, while the second map shows the temporal expansion of the empire according to Mladiov.