Frequently users ask the same question.

 Frequently users ask the same question. Why samples from Levant, Iran, Anatolia and Caucasus are used to model ancient and modern samples from Armenia, if ancient samples from Armenia are alrwady available.

For the academic papers the answer to this question is simple. They want to have an universal model which they can use for any sample from any time in Near East. For this reason they use the extreme, (from genetic point of view), homogenous populations available from Near East. Which by the way are not necessarily the most successful populations inside Near East.

Anatolian Neolithic farmers for example had a successful expansion in Europe. But in their homeland their ancestry dropped in Chalcolithic when new migrants from historic Armenia/North Mesopotamia settled there. The same is true for Caucasian hunters, Levant Neolithic and Zagros/Iran Neolithic.

All those populations had a serious dilution of their ancestry in Chalcolithic. But given that the main "coupables" of this dilution themselves can be modeled as a mixture of this 4 populations then scholars prefer to use only those 4 source, to avoid too much complication.

If in Anatolian context they say there is an increase of Caucasus then this mean usually a migration from historic Armenia. But an increase of Caucasus in Steppe do not automatically mean a migration from Armenia. If they say an increase in Iran Neo in Anatolia then it means a migration from North Mesopotamia. But an increase of Iran_Neo in Central Asia do not mean migration from Mesopotamia. Etc etc. You must always keep in mind the geography to understand this strange language. It's not a conspiracy but rather an easy way for them.

There are also technical reasons. Old samples from Mesopotamia and historic Armenia are rare and they are not as homogenous as one would want them to be. Most probably in the future this situation will change.

As for citizens, they can do whatever they want. There is no any rule that forbids the use of ancient Neolithic samples from Armenia. I always do that in my charts and they give better fits than just 4 pops from Near East. We can go further and experiment with more samples from ancient Armenia. We have some examples for that also in this group. But they are some constraints. Using too much samples with similar ancestries can create results that are hard to understand and very volatile. For example You will have apparent sharp differences between quite close pops

There is some big data that is accumulating about the Upper Paleolithic period in Caucasus and Europe

 There is some big data that is accumulating about the Upper Paleolithic period in Caucasus and Europe. We have 26000 year old samples from West Georgia and now very important samples from Crimea. (~36000 year old).

This samples from Crimea can be labeled as Proto Gravettian culture. The Gravettian culture is very important for Europe because their autosomes are at the origin of later WHG that appears after the LGM. Gravettian culture is also important because it's the first apparition of the haplogroup I in Europe which later will expand in the form of I2. We had a thread about this subject in the group.

With this new data it's becoming clear that the population that created the Gravettian culture moved via Caucasus to Eastern Europe and from there to Balkans and Western Europe. Replacing the local more archaic humans, who left virtually no ancestry in modern Europeans.

This make sense from the Y DNA point of view because I and J have common ancestors and the oldest cases of J are found in Southern Caucasus.

Based on the Yfull the I and J separated from each other 42000 years ago. Which is consistent with the archaeological dates we have.

And finally the Upper Paleolithic samples from Western Georgia are very unusual. They are quite different from post-LGM period Caucasian hunter-gathers (CHG). Those Caucasian Upper Paleolithic samples have lot shared alleles with Anatolian hunter gatherers and farmers. But even more surprising they had shared alleles with WHG that didn't existed yet at that period. Also they had shared alleles with Eastern European Upper Paleolithic samples like Kostenki14 and Vestonoce cluster, the aforementioned Gravettian culture.

This situation make sense given the common origins of J and I. We could expect that in the deep past they were coming from a population with similar autosomes.

Below in Figure 1 You can see the closest pops to Georgia Upper Paleolithic. As You can see it's more oriented to ancient Europe with high Anatolian and WHG ancestries.

The next puzzle now to solve is the origin of CHG and Iran_Neo. What made them so different from Anatolia forager's/farmers. And the ultimate question were was the common origin of all this folks.

All links are below.

Figure 2. The Gravettian Venus figurine

Ancient DNA from Republic of Armenia.

 

Ancient DNA from Republic of Armenia.

The first table represents them by periods.

The second one by published papers.

The archaeological periods used in the first table are from Pavel Avetisyan ( Պավել Ավետիսյան ) and Arsen Bobokhyan "ARCHAEOLOGY OF ARMENIA IN REGIONAL CONTEXT", 2012.

Notes:

Sarukhan_unknown samples have now radiocarbon dates and are placed in LBA and EIA.

Middle Bronze is based on Lazaridis 2022 classification (5 samples) and plus two samples from Bobokhyan 2023. Reich labs AADR classification is not used, because of inconsistencies.

Reich lab AADR has 217 entries but 4 of them are duplicates. So there 213 aDNA in total. Three recent samples are not included yet there. Which makes overall 216 samples

Y DNA found in post-Urartian period. 600BC - 500AD.

 Y DNA found in post-Urartian period. 600BC - 500AD.

The sample size is small for an accurate picture but it gives an idea what changed in this period compared to the preceding one. J2 increases. R1a appears. R1b and I2 decreases. J1 is Z1842 so it can be from the previous period. Genome wide they are similar to modern Armenians

The most remarkable is the apparition of 2 cases of L1a2. This should not be confused with L1a1 found in Areni cave. Both L1a1 and L1a2 are rare in modern Armenians.

One of L1a2 is in the 3300 year old branch. https://www.yfull.com/tree/L-Y11220/ So its an Iron Age expansion.

There is a modern Armenian and a Georgian who are close to the ancient L1a2 found in Beniamin. There is little doubt that those modern people are related to that ancient person. Where it formed and to what historic event it can be related is unknown. It could have formed somewhere near Kura river. In this case the presence in Chechens is explained. Another possibility is that it came from North Zagros/Mesopotamia. In this case the presence in Arabs is explained. But it's probable that it has a local origin related to Urartu/Biainili.

The other L1a2 from Karmir Blur is in a different branch that is not found yet in modern Armenians.

https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/L-Y6288/tree

It's close to another ancient sample from Iron Age Hasanlu tepe in NW Iran. So there is little doubt that this case of L1a2 has a southern origin in RoA. It can be connected to the increase of Iranian influence in post-Urartian period. Although genome wide there is no evidence of increase of Iran_Neo. Which means that those new haplogroups didn't have a strong demographic impact, which is also visible in their rarity in modern Armenians.

We need much more aDNA from post-Urartian period especially between 600BC-200BC. My feeling is that the theory of Yervanduni (Orontid) dinasty from a region near Musasir in the most southern parts of historic Armenia ( North Zagros ) will find a genetic support. It must be noted that Khorenatsi reports not only Yervand but also Zarehians , Vahunis and others who appear in that period. So its possible we see the apparition of those clans which are not attested in the Urartian period

Ancient DNA from Pontus kingdom and the genetic legacy of Kaskians.

 Ancient DNA from Pontus kingdom and the genetic legacy of Kaskians.

We have Hellenistic and Roman era samples from Samsun in north Turkey. They are interesting because they give an idea about the population of Pontic kingdom and permit to test some theories about Kaskians in general and Tibaren in particularly. The kingdom of Pontus emerged after the collapse of Achaemenid empire and was centered around modern Amasya and Samsun.

Tibarens were a tribe that are mentioned in Greek sources living around modern Ordu (ancient Cotyora ) in antic era. Given that Ordu is close to Samsun ( ~150km ) we can use those aDNA to have an idea about the genetic profile of Western Pontic and Paphlagonia.

The most frequent type is the Samsun_Anc_A. Dated from 177BC to 300AD. They had a typical Anatolian genetic profile. They are more western relative to Amasya_EBA which is in most likelihood related to Greek migrations. Nevertheless Greeks didn't replace completely the local population which has its deep roots in Palaic, Kaskian Paphlagonian and Tibaren periods.

The current data means that the population preceding Greeks was predominantly Anatolian Chl/EBA like which is confirmed by Amasya EBA samples. They lack extra CHG both in EBA and Hellenistic periods. It's worth to note that modern Turkey North cluster also do not have extra CHG.

Steppe ancestry was absent in EBA as in most Anatolia. Later in Hellenistic/Roman period Steppe appears at low level.. The Y dna we have from this period are G, J2 and T1a.

Those results are supporting the idea that Kaskians were local North Anatolian population probably affiliated to Hattic. Tibia was an important Kaskian town from which their king originated. So it's quite possible that Tibarens were simply an offshoot of Kaskians and their name was related to Tibia. In Greek period Tibios was a generic name given to all Paphlagonians.

There was also a single outlier Samsun_Anc_B dated at 170BC with obvious West Caucasian origin. She was not admixed with locals but was buried with them. This means that she migrated in her lifetime. The closest populatipn to her are Svans. She has a very high CHG unusual for that region and even for modern Laz. There was no information about her social status and a special burial type. So she was probably part of that period's main society. Another possibility is that we see here the apparition of Zan tribes (attested as Sannoi). The earliest mentions of terms related to Zan, Sanni and Tsan coincide with this period by Strabo. Although to confirm a migratory theory more samples are needed from more Eastern regions.

PS I also added data from contemporary Central Anatolia (Gordion, Boghazkoy) to have a general idea. Apparently they were more eastern shifted than Samsun A samples. Most probably due to stronger Greek impact on coasts than in inland.

"Migration Processes In The Armenian Highland From The Ancient Times" conference papers are now available online.

 "Migration Processes In The Armenian Highland From The Ancient Times" conference papers are now available online.

Yervand Grekyan's paper is also related to the subjects discussed in our group. He describes Catacomb culture and the apparition of that burial type in South Caucasus after 2500BC. The main reason of their migration was most probably the significant change in climatic conditions in most of West Eurasia during that period.

The paper is in Armenian with pictures.

https://arar.sci.am/dlibra/publication/391104/edition/361772/content?fbclid=IwAR2zCxlgs_If04obZ9eolWhyQi94NfFgdcrogbagrMYJYdxlkLgrshW9K7s

Some Urartian terms are discussed in this paper of Armen Petrosyan.

 Some Urartian terms are discussed in this paper of Armen Petrosyan.

+Urart. personal name Lubšuṣini is etymologized as Arm. lousacin "luminous" / "born of light"

Note that Urartian [b] can denote the phoneme [w] so this personal name can be related to Armenian Lousacin. Old form would be Lousocin.

This would be another word with a root -cin (ծին) in it. The most famous being the Diucini.

+ Arm. kot‘oɫ կոթող “monument, tower” corresponds to Urart. qudula-ni "temple, tower", which denoted the specific tower temples of Haldi.

Apparently the Armenian word kot'ol is a loanword from the Urartian.

(99+) Ստուգաբանություններ. Etymologies | Armen Petrosyan - Academia.edu

A new paper about the origin of Armenians

 A new paper about the origin of Armenians in the light of recent archaeogenetic data. The authors are Armen Petrosyan and me. It is published by the Institute of archaeology and ethnography in a collection of conference papers dedicated to migration processes in Armenian Highlands since to old times to 20th century. The chief editor is Yervand Grekyan, thanks to whom we have a well presented paper.

The paper is in Armenian and if I am not wrong it is one of the first attempts to present to Armenian audience the available genetic data from the Lazaridis 2022 paper about the Southern Arc. The most recent publications of 2023 are not discussed given that this paper was written four months earlier.

The English version will be available in the future. Old members of our group already know about the content of this paper. We discussed them many times. But still it can be useful to read it once more.

https://www.academia.edu/.../%D5%80%D4%B1%D5%85%D5%88%D5...

Hrach Martirosyan discuss etymologies of three musical terms in Armenian

 Hrach Martirosyan discuss etymologies of three musical terms in Armenian. One of them is quite famous because it has a parallel in non-IE Hattic language.

It's the word jnar (ջնար, meaning lyre, harp) which can be compared to Hattic zinar a type of musical instrument, lyre. The cuneiform z can stand for j also.

Similar words are attested in neighbouring languages also. The Greek word kithara is also probably from the same arealic origin.

But it's Armenian and Hattic that are specifically in palatalized form. One theory explained this by an unattested Luwian word from which supposedly Hattic borrowed. But given that this Luwian word is not attested that theory remains purely hypothetic. Here Martirosyan propose a different trajectory for this word. Armenian and Greek borrowed from the same substratic source. Later in Armenian the satemic shift transformed it into jnar and it ended up in Hattic.

Notice that the similar root in Hurrian is not palatalized kinnar. This Hurrian word is usually connected to a Semitic words with similar meaning. It's remarkable that this word is also found in Armenian in the form k'nar ( քնար ). Usually assumed to be a Semitic loanword.

Returning to jnar,I can't evaluate how likely is this theory, but one thing is certain: Hattic and Armenian haf a genuine lexical parallel that is accepted by many scholars.

The paper.

https://www.academia.edu/.../Armenian_musical_instruments...

Here the list of those terms in Wiktionary.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/.../Reconstruction.../kinnar

Peopling of Eurasia and origins of haplogroup K and P.

 Peopling of Eurasia and origins of haplogroup K and P.

If You follow genetic forums You probably had noticed unusual theories placing the homeland of haplogroup K or K2 in South East Asia and by consequence the haplogroup P would have moved to Siberia via the China. While later P supposedly moved to west in the form of R and Q. There is no much evidence for this theory but it is still there. So let's see what aDNA tells us.

We have quite old cases of haplogroup P from NE Russia (site Yana). And we have the occasion to check their autosomes and possible route of migration. Those samples are dated to 33.000 years ago so for modeling them we would need more older sources to avoid the effect of shared ancestry. I chose the available Upper Paleolithic samples from Eurasia. Unfortunately no such a sample is available from West Asia.

As You can see the fit is decent for Upper Paleolithic samples. It's clear from the model that Yana people had predominantly Western Eurasian Upper Paleolithic ancestry. They almost certainly migrated to North East Russia from/via the Central Asia.

They have also some China Tianyuan ancestry. Tianyuan is a 40.000 year old sample from North China. So it's quite possible that the first settlers of Siberia had some contacts with Paleolithic North Chinese populations, but this do not mean that they came from China.

It's remarkable that the paper discussing those samples says the same thing. G25 gives the same result as academic tools. So it should not be surprising that the paper says nothing about a migration via SE Asia.

Even more interesting is that the most important source of ancestry is the Vestonice16 which is associated to Gravettian culture and not more older BachoKiro and more proximate Ust-Ishim from Russia.

In the distance charts You can see that Yana and Tianyuan are from different worlds. It seems Tianyuan moved there from South ( although it's possible that it has a different route ) while Yana moved to Siberia from Western Eurasia.

.

As for the presence of minor branches of P in South East Asia they are simply a result of minor migrations from Western Eurasia to Indochina via the India. See the Yfull https://www.yfull.com/tree/K/

In sum the homeland of haplogroup P was in Western Eurasia. From there the main group moved to Siberia and North Eurasia while some minor branches moved to South East Asia

The Copper age also known as Chalcolithic (5300-3600BC) is one of most remarkable periods in Armenian Highlands

 The Copper age also known as Chalcolithic (5300-3600BC) is one of most remarkable periods in Armenian Highlands. Copper was abundant in mountains and populations using it and living there had an important changes in lifestyle which gave them a competitive advantage. This resulted in waves of migrations out of historic Armenia and neighbouring regions. Many haplotypes are related to this migrations. One of them is the T1a1a-L208.

It's homeland was in southern parts of the highland and North Mesopotamia. From there it moved to Levant and probably to Mesopotamia. In Levant the T-L208 makes it's first apparition in Chalcolithic period ~4000 BC. Genome wide those Levantine L208 samples have a shift toward North Mesopotamia compared to the previous period. From there they moved to Africa. A recent aDNA paper from Morocco confirmed a previous finding of T-L208 who had a significant Levantine ancestry. It's quite possible that L208 moved also to South toward Horn of Africa where it reaches its highest levels today. Although it's possible that some of L208 moved to East Africa from Yemen in Iron Age with Ethio-Semitic tribes. In any case those high levels of T-L208 in Somalian tribes are due to founder effects. T-L208 was also found in Kilis EBA and Alalakh MLBA. (South Turkey)

T-L208 has a number of branches. One subbranch that is found in modern Armenians is the Z709. An ancient sample from LBA Karashamb ( RoA ) was from this branch. It seems it was already present in Northern regions of the Highland since the Chalcolithic like the E-M84.

Z709 itself has an important subbranch which had an expansion in MBA, the P77. It's hard to pinpoint the exact culture with which it expanded. But the Khabur ware is a good bet. P77 was not found in Bronze Age Levant so we can assume that it's homeland was near historic Sasun and North Mesopotamia. One case of P77 was probably present in Roman era Boghazkoy in Anatolia. Chances are high that this T-P77 is related to Hurrian expansions in MBA. But more data is needed to confirm this theory. In modern Armenians the highest levels of haplogroup T is found in Sasun Armenians

I am starting to work on the new AADR file

 I am starting to work on the new AADR (Reich lab) file were new labels are given to ancient samples in general and Armenian one in particular.

This is important because it will also affect the G25 labels in Davidski's files.

After making sense of this I plan to propose labels for G25. But prior that some errors should be corrected. For instance there is a Beniamin LBS which is wrong it might be Beniamin LBA. If You notice similar errors please write in comments.

A notable change is the removal of Urartian label for Etiuni samples except Karmir Blur which was a Urartian city since 680. So they understand that calling them Urartian is confusing. They are now labeled as IA.

A term Urartian Empire is added which was proposed by Zimansky and others. This is also due to genetic findings. Because it's clear that different tribes were living under the umbrella of Urartu.

Some labels are a mess for Beniamin. They should be simplified. I hope they will do that. Terms like Orontid, Artaxiad, Arshakid, Marzpanate period will help for better understanding.

In total 213 ancient DNA (with 4 duplicates). While 3 others are also available but not present in this list.

PS The G25 labels are not yet syncronised. It seems the number of G25 decreased by a dozen in Davidski's list. So keep Your old files they can be useful later for finding some coordinates.

https://docs.google.com/.../1-DZ.../edit...

Teisheba holds a battle axe.

 Teisheba holds a battle axe.

In Armenian it would be Tesev/Tesew.

The story of Hurrian thunder god Teshub fighting his father Kumarbi and Greek god Zeus fighting Cronus has many similarities.

 The story of Hurrian thunder god Teshub fighting his father Kumarbi and Greek god Zeus fighting Cronus has many similarities. Those similarities concern specific details which makes unlikely the possibility of random coincidence. Two possibilities can be envisaged for explaining this situation.

- That all similarities are due to Greeks influenced by Hurrian and Near Eastern myths.

- That at last part of similarities are due to IE influence on Hurrians.

In the Wikipedia page about the Teshub we can find the opinion of Beckman on this subject:

-----

According to Gary Beckman these similarities are not a sign that the conflict over kingship in heaven was a narrative of Indo-European origin, but rather instead an indication that it was what he deems a “theological ‘areal feature’” known across Mesopotamia, Anatolia and the Mediterranean.[247]

-----

Beckman do not discuss the possibility that the Hurrian themselves could have been in contact with an IE group and the story of thunder god fighting his father and a monster dragon is an introgression in to Hurrian religion from an IE source in particular the Proto Armenian. But this possibility should be envisaged given the geographic proximity of Hurrian and Armenian homelands.

This possibility is supported by many lines of evidence presented in various papers of Armen Petrosyan.

- The Hurrian snake dragon Ullikumi has an IE etymology. Derived from a reconstructed *wel. The root wel is found in Etiuni and an indirect evidence suggests that prior the term vishap Armenians did have a term wel for the dragon.

- The name of Teshub has no Hurrian etymology. But it has a good etymology in Armenian. From the IE root *teks meaning "to weave," also "to fabricate," especially with an ax. In Armenian t'eshi/t'eshik meaning spindle derives from this root. Both the meaning spindle and ax are attested in Germanic languages derived from this root. In other IE languages the meaning ax is prevalent. Thus Teshub could have mean ax holder/keeper in old Armenian. *teks + *hep > teshub

- Armenian god Vahagn and vishap are loanwords from the Iranian. The thunder god killing a dragon is present virtually in all PIE derived groups. Thus Armenians also should have their own terms. Teshub/Teisheba and Welik attested in Hurro-Urartian texts are good candidates for those terms.

- Teshub initially was not the most important deity in Hurrian gods pantheon. It is first attested at around 2200/2100 bc. But it becomes prominent only in 2-nd millennium BC. So timing do not contradict to this theory.

- Teshub is not the only thunder god having the IE root *teks as a root. In Hayasa there was a thunder god U.taksana were taksan means carpenter in Sanskrit while the U is the ideogram for thunder gods. The apparition of this god in Hayasa pantheon might be related to Mitanni Aryans presence in that region. The reason why Teshub can't have Aryan origin is that phonetic shift corresponds to Armenian. And the timing will not fit.

This were the main arguments. You can read the others in the A. Petrosyan's paper in Russian.

https://www.academia.edu/101127679...

I am preparing a large thread about the post Urartian Armenia (RoA), especially the shift from Etiuni to Armenian genetic profile.

 I am preparing a large thread about the post Urartian Armenia (RoA), especially the shift from Etiuni to Armenian genetic profile. I started to look closer to some relevant samples. For instance the two samples labeled Sarukhan_unknown.

They are supposedly from 72 BC but their autosomes are typically Lchashen Metsamorian (1500-800/600bc). This is the main reason why they are labeled as "unknown". Because their genetic age do not much their supposedly radiocarbon age.

After looking closer I realized that they were not radiocarbon dated. Here what the supplement says about their ages.

"Context: Date(s) from same site (I20437)"

This means that they are dated based on the archaeologic context and the radiocarbon dating of I20437 which is indeed from Artashessid period. Both by genes and radiocarbon.

In most likelihood their true age is LBA/EIA. Their Y DNA is also typical to that period. I2 and E-M84. This means that at this point the last sample after which we don't see anymore the typical Etiuni/Lchashen profile is dated at 603BC. A sample from Karmir Blur. This date correspond to the end of Urartu. Offcourse we have a gap between 600 and 400bc which needs to be filled. We also should keep in mind that radiocarbon dating will never give the necessary precision. But overall we can assume that it's during the end of Urartian kingdom that some important genetic changes occured in RoA.

PS Unfortunately there is also a typographic error with one of Sarukhan unknown samples. The one with id I20444 correspond to P6662 bone, but in the spreadsheet it is erroneously connected to P6644 bone. This is only a typo that do not affect the overall result.

Another example when an ancient deity is mentioned in old Armenian texts as a person

 Another example when an ancient deity is mentioned in old Armenian texts as a person.

Urartu had numerous gods. One of them was Quera. The name of this deity is also present in the city name Queraitase. Which is interpreted as a "gift of Quera".

In Hovhan Mamikinyan's texts there is a certain Quar/Kuar who was the son of Demetre and Gisane. He had also two other brothers Meltes and Hore(n). They founded cities in Armenia and gived their names to those cities.

It is remarkable that in India there is a god of wealth Kubera/Kuvera which was compared to this Quera. The Indian god has no reliable etymology. So it can be from pre-Aryan cultures.

The Y dna distribution by haplotypes in modern Armenians : dotting the I2-s.

 The Y dna distribution by haplotypes in modern Armenians : dotting the I2-s.

The first chart is based on modern commercial data from FTDNA. It shows the most important branches also known as haplotypes. As You can note, with the exception of R1b-Z2103 the rest of Y dna is quite fragmented. The number of haplotypes that score more than 3% of population is ten. In this list of top 10 the TVC lineage I2-BY423 (also known as Y16419) is in the 9th position. I think based on this chart it's obvious that any Armenian haplotype that score more than 3% can't be labeled as "very low" or "inexistent".

But this is not the whole story. In this top 10 at last 4 haplotypes have a Neolithic - Chalcolithic age ( J2- L25, G2-M406, T-L208, E-M84 ). And current paleogenetic evidence supports their relatively old expansion. Although in some cases they have also younger lineages. Like J2-L25 which has a subbranch L70. It makes the third of L25 and it expanded in Iron Age.

So if we concentrate only on Bronze Age expansions that have more relevance to modern ethnicities then the list will be arranged in a different way.

The main lineage that expanded in Early Bronze Age (Kur-Araxian culture) are the J1-Z1842 and most probably the J2-M92. It's possible that E-M84 also is partly related to KA but there is no direct proof of that theory.

The lineages that expanded in Middle Bronze Age and after are the R1b-Z2103, I2-BY423, J2-FGC15865 ( a lineage related to Van-Urmia culture ) and R1a-Z645 appears predominantly in Iron Age.

There is also a Bronze Agr lineage J1-L862. It's from Levant and Mesopotamia.

They are also lineages that expanded in Iron Age and later but their percentage points do not exceed 1.5-2%. And they are too late to be crucial for the Ethnogenesis. Even though they are important for understanding some aspects of Armenian history.

Returning to I2 in Armenia. The main question is that did it had a dramatic decrease over time given the available paleogenetic evidence?

Well to have an answer to that question one needs to compare apples to apples not to oranges. I mean that modern Armenian Y dna is gathered from a large territory stretching from Cilicia/Sebastia to Caspian Sea/Iran. If we want to understand how the level of I2 changed over time we need to compare data from equal geographic regions.

We don't have detailed Iron Age aDNA from the aforementioned region. But I think it's not hard to imagine that it's very very unlikely that I2 level exceeded 5% in Iron Age historic Armenia and it's large neighbourhoods if a systematic ancient DNA becomes available.

Even more. Inside ancient Republic of Armenia the I2 was present in high levels only in Sevan basin sites. See the second chart (Noratus, Lchashen, Sarukhan ) Karashamb in Kotayk is close to Sevan. If we look at Urartian era samples that do not have any aDNA from Sevan basin then we see a completely different picture. See the third chart. Offcourse 20 Y dna is a small sample size. But we can reproduce a similar result for LBA-EIA period if we remove all Sevan basin sites.

In any case it's obvious that in modern RoA territory there was an important change of Y dna distribution in Iron Age. I will dedicate a special thread to this subject. Obviously both I2 and R1b decreased but given current data we can say that while they decreased in RoA they must have increased in some other regions of historic Armenia. Otherwise how we would have 3% of I2 from large territory stretching from Anatolia to Iran?

In conclusion the current Armenian Y dna is dominated by haplotypes that expanded Bronze Age. Initially they had localized peaks in certain regions. But overtime they diffused out of their peak regions and modern distribution became more homogenous. I2 is not a special case in this story. The only thing that it has more limited geographic peak than R1b which in most likelihood expanded over larger regions.

PS We also should remember that native population of Sevan basin do not live anymore there. One can expect that they had a similar or higher level of I2 than Gardman Armenians