Genetic History of the Levant — Part A

Recently there has been a surge of interest in Levantine genetics. Here is a summary of the genetic history of the Levant in two parts.

Natufian Culture (13,000–9,000 BCE)

The Natufian culture was a hunter-gatherer society with the remarkable feature of being sedentary or semi-sedentary. The main Y-DNA haplogroups associated with Natufians include archaic forms of E1b and CT lineages.

Levant Neolithic (9,000–4,500 BCE)

The Neolithic in the Levant is divided into two phases: Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) and Pottery Neolithic.

Agriculture spread to the southern Levant from more northern regions. The core area where farming was first developed was in the Urfa region (Portasar / Göbekli Tepe) near the modern Syrian–Turkish border. Genetic data show an important northward shift in autosomes in the southern Levant during this period, particularly visible in PPNB samples from Israel and Jordan.

A strong genetic indicator of this migration is the haplogroup E1b-Z1919, which has two major branches:

• E-L618, which moved to Europe via Anatolia and today is common in the Balkans.

• E-V22, which moved south into Egypt and introduced farming there. Today it is common in northern Egypt.

Another important lineage from this period is E-M123, which today is mainly found in West Asia but also appears in Central Asia. Sporadic occurrences of H2 and T1a are also documented.

Copper Age / Chalcolithic (4,500–3,300 BCE)

There are relatively few samples from this period. The limited available data, associated with the Ghassulian culture, show another autosomal shift toward northern Iraq.

This shift is consistent with archaeological evidence indicating the emergence of new burial traditions. At present, it is difficult to determine exactly which cultural phenomenon caused this change in the southern Levant during the Chalcolithic period.

A similar shift toward northern Mesopotamia had already begun earlier in the northern Levant (Tell Kurdu). A plausible cultural candidate connected with this process is the Halaf culture.

The presence of T1a1a-L208 during this period also supports the idea that new groups were involved that were not directly descended from earlier Neolithic populations.

Early Bronze Age (3,300–2,200 BCE)

The transition from the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age in the Levant was a period of dramatic cultural change. Many old settlements were abandoned, while new mobile pastoralist groups spread throughout the region. These groups are usually identified with early Semitic tribes.

The autosomal change during this period is relatively subtle, showing a slightly more eastern genetic shift. However, the change in Y-DNA is much more pronounced. The frequency of E1b lineages declines significantly, while J1-Z1853 becomes the most common haplogroup from this period onward. J2b1 also increases in frequency during this time.

The exact location of the Proto-Semitic homeland remains debated. It is often placed in the Arabian Peninsula, and the slight increase in Natufian ancestry does support a southern origin. However, the appearance of additional ancestry related to historic Armenia suggests a region closer to Mesopotamia (see the map), where J1 may have already been present in earlier periods. Ultimately, J1 appears to originate further north in the Taurus–Zagros–Caucasus mountain region.

At present, ancient DNA evidence is still insufficient to precisely determine the Proto-Semitic homeland or the exact migration path of J1.

Wherever the Proto-Semitic homeland was located, Semitic populations expanded widely:

• northward to the Taurus Mountains,

• eastward to the Zagros Mountains,

• and southward across the Red Sea, reaching Ethiopia around 1000 BCE.

The earliest branch of the Semitic language family is East Semitic, represented by Eblaite and Akkadian, both now extinct. These populations settled in northern Levant and Mesopotamia, where their culture merged with that of the Sumerians and likely contributed to the end of the Uruk cultural system around 3100 BCE.

The Akkadians later established one of the earliest empires in history, uniting Mesopotamian city-states around 2330 BCE. This empire collapsed around 2150 BCE.

After the 2200 BCE climatic event and the fall of the Akkadian Empire, a new period began in the Levant, which will be discussed in Part B.

Alashkert Armenians

Alashkert Armenians

Alashkert Armenians display quite remarkable genetic characteristics. In FST analyses, they appear to be the closest to three geographically distant Armenian groups: Artsakh, Sasun, and Hamshen Armenians.

It is difficult to determine at this stage whether this pattern reflects their central or “average” position within Armenian regional genetic diversity, or whether it has deeper historical causes.

It should also be noted that a negative FST value effectively means zero, indicating the absence of any meaningful genetic distance between the compared populations.

 

Genetic History of Greece

Yediay et al. (2024) published a large number of ancient DNA samples from Bronze Age Greece, which helps clarify the origins of the Greek population. If we set aside the still poorly sampled Paleolithic period, Greece appears to have experienced three major migrations in prehistoric times.

1. Neolithic Migration (around 7000 BCE)

The first migration involved Neolithic farmers from Anatolia, ultimately originating from the Urfa region. These farmers moved into Greece around 7000 BCE, introducing agriculture. Farming appeared in Greece earlier than in any other part of Europe, and from there agricultural populations expanded northward into the rest of the continent.

2. Chalcolithic Migration (around 4000–3000 BCE)

A second migration arrived from regions associated with historic Armenia during the Chalcolithic period. This movement is associated with the Chaff-Faced Ware (CFW) cultural horizon in Anatolia. In Greece, this migration had its strongest impact in Crete and the Cycladic islands of the Aegean and may be connected with the formation of Minoan civilization (Linear A culture). Heggarty (2023), however, attempted to associate this migration with the origins of the Greek language.

This migration introduced several new haplogroups and may also be partly responsible for the so-called Mediterranean substrate present in both Greek and Armenian. A linguistic example is Armenian iwl / el (իւղ, եղ) meaning “oil,” which can be compared with Greek elaion (ἔλαιον) meaning “olive oil.”

3. Steppe Migration (around 2200 BCE)

The third migration came from the Pontic–Caspian Steppe around 2200 BCE. Similar to developments in Armenia, the transition from the Early Bronze Age to the Middle Bronze Age in Greece is associated with migrations from the steppe.

These migrants introduced haplogroups such as R1b-Z2103 and R1b-PF7562, along with smaller numbers of I2 and J2b2a. Mycenaean Greeks also carried significant levels of J2-Z6055, a lineage that had already been present in Greece since the Neolithic. Its high frequency in the Bronze Age likely reflects a founder effect.

Mycenaean Period (1700–1100 BCE)

After a relatively short Middle Bronze Age period, steppe ancestry becomes diluted during the Late Bronze Age (1700–1100 BCE), which corresponds to the Mycenaean civilization (see chart).

The Linear B script has been deciphered and represents an early form of the Greek language. Mycenaean Greeks possessed ancestry both from local Neolithic farmers and from earlier migrants arriving from more eastern regions. In genetic charts, this eastern component is sometimes labeled Anatolia_C, which is related to populations associated with Chaff-Faced Ware cultures of historic Armenia.

Yediay et al. (2024) connect the steppe migration with Indo-European speakers associated with the Yamnaya horizon, thus providing a convincing explanation for the origins of the Greek population.

Late Bronze Age Collapse and Greek Expansion

Around 1200 BCE, the Mycenaean civilization collapsed, forcing many populations to migrate. During this period, several groups moved into the eastern Mediterranean and became known as the Sea Peoples. One of these groups eventually settled in Cyprus, where they introduced the Greek language.

Even earlier, Greeks had already begun settling along the western coast of Anatolia. In Hittite texts, these groups may correspond to the Ahhiyawa. Numerous conflicts were fought over control of these coastal regions. The memory of these wars is preserved in the Greek epic poems the Iliad and the Odyssey.

Modern Greek is generally considered to derive from the Attic–Ionic dialect group.

Attempt to redo the models from recent papers.

 

Attempt to Redo the Models from Recent Papers

Modeling Armenia LBA as a simple mixture of Kura-Araxes and Catacomb fails: the p-value is too low (pic. 1).

Adding an Anatolian population such as İkiztepe_C improves the p-value. This approach was used in Skourtanioti (2024), and the model becomes feasible (p ≈ 0.2).

Using Çamlıbel Tarlası_LateC instead of İkiztepe further improves the p-value. This was done in Yediay (2024), yielding p > 0.3.

Replacing the Anatolian component with Leyla Tepe (from what is now Azerbaijan) improves the model much more (p > 0.7). However, the standard errors increase substantially because Kura-Araxes and Leyla Tepe are too close genome-wide. To reduce the standard errors, I need to adjust the settings (right populations). That will require some time, but I think it is already quite clear what is happening here.

Finally, when I add Ukraine Neolithic hunter-gatherers (Ukraine_N HG) as an additional source, the p-value rises to ~0.9, i.e., close to certainty. The standard errors also improve slightly, although they still require further refinement.

Conclusions

The populations that contributed to the formation of the Trialeti–Vanadzor culture (TVC) likely came from what is now the Krasnodar region, where they acquired a minor Ukraine_N HG component. They then moved via Dagestan, mixed with older South Caucasus Chalcolithic groups in the Kura-Araxes lowlands, and subsequently split into two branches:

• One branch moved upstream into the Kura–Debed region and formed the TVC.

• The other moved into the Urmia and Van basins and formed the Van–Urmia culture, although their genetic impact there appears to have been lower than in the TVC.

The Y-DNA associated with these groups should therefore be sought in the Krasnodar region, especially lineages such as L584, I2a2b, and PF331. Identifying Y4364 will be more difficult. It is even possible that the true homeland of Proto-Yamnaya was also located there.

Comments on the Chart Before Reviewing Yediay et al. (2024)

Comments on the Chart Before Reviewing Yediay et al. (2024)

Before reviewing the recent Yediay et al. (2024) preprint, a few comments about this chart are necessary.

Armenia Middle and Late Bronze Age samples clearly show ancestry from three main sources.

1. Kura–Araxes ancestry

The first component comes from Armenia EBA, associated with the Kura–Araxes culture. This is expected and does not require further explanation.

2. “Anatolia_C” ancestry

The second component is labeled Anatolia_C. At first glance this may seem surprising, but it actually has a straightforward explanation.

The Anatolia_C component largely derives from Neolithic and Chalcolithic populations of historic Armenia, associated with the Chaff-Faced Ware (CFW) cultural horizon. These groups lived before the rise of the Kura–Araxes culture and were also present in what is now Azerbaijan, where they are known archaeologically as the Leyla Tepe culture.

When the Caucasus hunter-gatherer–shifted Kura–Araxes culture expanded from its homeland in the South Caucasus, it did not completely replace these earlier populations. In many areas, they continued to live alongside the Kura–Araxes communities.

When steppe ancestry arrived from the north about 4,500 years ago, these groups most likely entered the region through what is now Azerbaijan, where they encountered the remaining populations associated with the Leyla Tepe culture. After mixing with them and acquiring this Anatolia_C-like ancestry, they moved toward the upper Kura–Debed river region, where they mixed with populations related to Armenia EBA.

Another possible source of Anatolia_C-like ancestry may have been populations living in the southern parts of the Araxes plain.

This pattern was also noted in Skourtanioti et al. (2024). However, the authors interpreted it incorrectly, proposing two separate migrations occurring during the same period—one from Anatolia and another from the steppe. Genetic bloggers had already pointed out earlier that this explanation is unlikely, and Davidski even opened a dedicated discussion thread on the issue.

3. Apparent CWC ancestry

The third component is the so-called CWC ancestry. This is almost certainly not a real signal.

The Corded Ware culture (CWC) is strongly associated with R1a, yet no R1a lineages have been found in Middle and Late Bronze Age samples from the South Caucasus (including Armenia and Georgia).

The reason CWC appears in the model is likely that the steppe groups who migrated into the South Caucasus carried a small amount of WHG-related ancestry. This additional WHG / Ukraine Neolithic hunter-gatherer affinity was already present east of the Azov region even before the formation of the Yamnaya culture.

This additional component could also explain the appearance of I2a2b in ancient Armenia.

It is important to note that CWC is genetically similar to Yamnaya, but it contains roughly:

• about 10% additional UNHG-related ancestry

• about 20% Euro-Anatolian farmer ancestry

Even a very small 1% WHG introgression into a Yamnaya-like population can create a statistical signal resembling 10% CWC ancestry in modeling. Given that MLBA samples already contain excess Anatolian ancestry, it is not surprising that the calculator interpreted this mixture as CWC rather than Yamnaya.

Thus, the CWC component in this case is an artifact of the modeling, although it reflects real underlying genetic processes.

Urartian period samples

A similar situation can be observed in Urartu-period samples, where the Anatolia_C component is higher. This indicates a stronger Neolithic-derived ancestry, while the steppe component is lower.

There is one exception—an outlier individual, who appears to have been a migrant from Etiuni.

A Greek Sample in the Armenian Genetic Cluster

A Greek Sample in the Armenian Genetic Cluster

One of the Greek samples in Hovhannisyan et al. (2024) falls within the modern Armenian cluster on the PCA. I was unable to find detailed information about this individual, except that the Greek DNA used in the paper was taken from Lazaridis et al. (2014, Nature).

Based on its position on the PCA, the sample does not appear to belong to Cappadocian Greeks. It also does not resemble Trabzon Greeks. The most likely possibility is that the individual belongs to the Urum population from southwestern Georgia.

The Urums settled in the Tsalka region of Georgia after the Russian–Turkish wars of the 19th century. We have one Urum individual in our group whose DNA appears similar to that sample. Of course, this remains only a hypothesis and requires further verification.

It should also be noted that Urums should not be confused with the Urumu tribe of the Iron Age. The word Urum derives from Rome / the Roman Empire, whereas the name Urumu has an uncertain origin, although it may possibly be related to Aramu.

In the second PCA, the main modern Greek cluster can be observed, clearly separate from modern Armenians. Compared with Mycenaean-period Greeks, the modern Greek cluster appears somewhat shifted toward the north.

Another Greek sample appears to be almost certainly of Anatolian origin, as it plots approximately between the Armenian and Greek clusters.

A new alphabetic system was apparently discovered in north Syria.

A Newly Discovered Alphabetic System in Northern Syria

A new alphabetic writing system has apparently been discovered in northern Syria. It may represent the oldest known alphabet, dated to around 2400 BCE.

Until now, it was generally assumed that the first alphabet developed from Egyptian hieroglyphs, with later modifications appearing in Sinai and spreading from there to the Levant and Phoenicia.

However, this newly discovered script from ancient Syria appears to be older than the Proto-Sinaitic alphabet. If confirmed, this finding could significantly change our understanding of how and when alphabetic writing systems first emerged and evolved.

https://hub.jhu.edu/.../ancient-alphabet-discovered-syria/

A Map Explaining the Formation of Modern Armenian Genetics

A Map Explaining the Formation of Modern Armenian Genetics

I created this map to illustrate how modern Armenian genetics formed. The map represents the genetic situation during the Middle Bronze Age, roughly 4,000 years ago. I deliberately chose these colors to emphasize the clinal nature of the genetic landscape.

The yellow area represents the Trialeti–Vanadzor / Lchashen cultural sphere, which shows high levels of steppe ancestry. In this context, these populations are usually associated with Etiuni.

The orange region has lower steppe ancestry, approximately comparable to that of modern Armenians. We have a few samples from this zone, including Van–Urartu.

The red region shows little or no steppe ancestry and instead has a stronger affinity to Levantine Bronze Age populations. It is notable that these areas were historically inhabited by Hurrians. We have some samples from Şırnak and Batman, although they are not recent enough to fully represent the situation during the Middle and Late Bronze Age. The Dinkha Tepe 2 sample dates to the Middle Bronze Age, but it comes from northwestern Iran, so it is not exactly representative of the red zone.

Further south, the Levantine lowlands were inhabited by populations genetically similar to the red region, but with a more pronounced southern shift. Numerous samples from sites such as Alalakh and Ebla illustrate this pattern.

Modern Armenians derive ancestry from all three regions—orange, yellow, and red. For most Armenians, the largest contribution comes from the orange region. Eastern Armenians show additional ancestry from the yellow zone, while Armenians from southwestern regions have significant orange ancestry but also some contribution from the red zone.

An important point to understand is that the orange region itself can be modeled as a mixture of yellow and red. In theory, this would allow us to reduce the number of colors used in the model, but doing so risks oversimplifying the situation. In practice, some alleles typical of the red region appear among eastern Armenians, while Armenians from southern and western areas also carry some alleles associated with the yellow region. Overall, these overlapping contributions cause all Armenian groups to cluster closely together on PCA plots.

Another key point is that modern Armenians do not show any significant additional ancestry from outside these colored regions. Of course, some sporadic influences occurred during later historical periods, but these are generally negligible and can usually be ignored in population-level calculations. Armenians who settled outside these regions sometimes acquired local ancestry, but such cases are historically documented and can be easily identified.

A reasonable question arises: why are samples from these three regions not directly used to model Armenians?

The issue likely relates to how modeling tools operate. When very closely related populations are used as sources, the standard errors increase, whereas using more distant populations often reduces them. Despite some exaggerated perceptions, the populations represented by these three colors are actually quite close genetically. For this reason, it can sometimes be easier to choose a more distant source from south of the red zone and obtain statistically feasible models. There may also be other technical factors involved that I am not fully aware of.

However, the real issue is not the models themselves. For example, Lazaridis also used Levant_N as a distal source and argued that its contribution increased after 600 BCE, yet this did not lead to sensationalist interpretations in the media. The real problem is the lack of historical interpretation accompanying many genetic models. When genetic results are not interpreted in the context of known historical processes, it is unsurprising that others interpret them according to their own narratives.

In this case, the relevant historical events are well known. One is the existence of a Hurrian cultural belt across the southern regions of historic Armenia, which likely had a more southern genetic profile. Another is the formation and expansion of the Urartian Empire. These two factors alone are sufficient to explain the main features of the modern Armenian genetic profile, although other events may also have played a role.

Hopefully, our paper with Armen Petrosyan will soon be published in English. In it, we discuss this period of genetic shift in eastern Armenia, and I hope it will help those who want to better understand this complex historical process.

PS below in the comments You can see a model mixing yellow and orange with high standard errors. Made by Nareg Asatrian

Sasun Armenians in Hovhannisyan et al. (2024)

 

Sasun Armenians in Hovhannisyan et al. (2024)

Hovhannisyan et al. (2024) published, for the first time, five genome-wide DNA samples of Sasun Armenians. Until now, we only had Y-DNA studies of Sasun Armenians, which showed that their Y-DNA pool differs somewhat from that of other Armenian subgroups (see picture 2). Various theories have been proposed to explain this difference based on historical records and local traditions.

The new paper examined this issue and found little difference between the autosomes of Sasun Armenians and other Armenian subgroups. This can be seen on the PCA, where Sasun samples plot close to other Armenians marked as E, W, and C, while Sasun is marked as S. All five Sasun samples fall on the southern side of the Armenian cluster, which corresponds well with their geographic location.

When the G25 coordinates of these samples become available, we will be able to examine them more closely.

Y-DNA Peculiarities

Understanding the distinct Y-DNA composition of Sasun Armenians will be difficult without ancient DNA from the region.

The haplogroup T likely had a homeland near or overlapping with the Sasun region. Meanwhile, the presence of R2 in Sasun may reflect a founder effect. Haplogroup R2 was prominent among Zagros Neolithic farmers and has recently also been identified among South Caucasus Neolithic populations.

Historical Context

The Y-DNA profile of Sasun may also be connected with the specific historical background of the region.

Assyrian sources mention a kingdom called Shubria in this area. The name of this kingdom derives from the older Sumerian term Subir. Very little is known about the Subir people, but later sources use the term Subarean language to refer to a Hurrian language. In the Iron Age, several Hurrian royal names are attested in this region. However, this does not necessarily mean that the earlier Subir populations were Hurrian as well.

The southern lowlands of Sasun had a Semitic presence, while in the north, in the Mush region, the Urumu tribes are attested. The Urumu, later known as Urme, were almost certainly an Armenian-speaking tribe.

Around 400 BCE, Xenophon described the Centrites River (modern Botan River) as the southern boundary of Armenian territory. Sasun lies north of this river, placing it clearly within the Armenian satrapy.

Conclusion

To fully understand the complex genetic history of Sasun and its surrounding regions, additional ancient DNA samples will be necessary

The Distribution of EHG Ancestry Today

The Distribution of EHG Ancestry Today

The Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (EHG) genetic profile appears in Eastern Europe after the Last Glacial Maximum (around 20,000 years before present). Before that time, the region was inhabited by different populations that apparently disappeared due to extremely cold climatic conditions.

EHG samples are found across a wide geographic area, ranging from the North Caucasus to Karelia in the far north of Eastern Europe. Various maps on the internet attempt to illustrate the global distribution of EHG ancestry today. However, these maps require some clarification (see the link in the comment section).

Two Ways to Measure EHG Ancestry

There are two main ways to estimate the amount of EHG ancestry remaining in modern populations.

The first approach ignores the fact that much of the EHG ancestry was dispersed through the expansions of Yamnaya and Corded Ware populations. This method is commonly used, but it can be misleading. Because EHG constituted roughly half of the Yamnaya genetic profile, people may mistakenly assume that higher EHG levels automatically imply greater Yamnaya ancestry, which is not necessarily correct.

The second approach attempts to separate Yamnaya and Corded Ware ancestry from the total EHG signal, in order to identify the amount of “pure” EHG ancestry that remained independent of those migrations.

Modeling Method

To do this, I selected Corded Ware samples as a source population, since Yamnaya itself never moved into northern Europe—only Corded Ware groups derived from Yamnaya did.

I also included Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) samples from Siberia in order to avoid a pseudo-EHG signal, and used Karelia hunter-gatherers as a reference for pure EHG.

All modern populations were included in the analysis.

Results: Pure EHG

The highest levels of pure EHG ancestry not associated with Yamnaya migrations are found among:

• Mari

• Chuvash (a Turkic-speaking group)

• Saami

• some northern Russians

• Udmurts

The highest value reaches about 33%, but most of these populations have less than 25%.

This indicates that relatively little pure EHG ancestry survives today outside the context of Yamnaya or Corded Ware expansions. It is mostly preserved in northeastern Europe, which makes sense because Corded Ware pastoralists never settled extensively in that region. The harsh climate likely made herding and early agriculture difficult, limiting their expansion there.

Corded Ware / Yamnaya Ancestry

The second chart shows where Corded Ware ancestry is highest today.

The peak levels occur in northern Europe, particularly among Germanic-speaking populations in Scandinavia, reaching about 53%.

Using Yamnaya instead of Corded Ware as a source produces essentially the same pattern. In other words, Yamnaya-related ancestry is highest in northwestern Europe.

This has a simple explanation: northern Europe, especially Scandinavia, had relatively low population density in prehistoric times, whereas southern Europe, West Asia, and South Asia had much denser populations. Migrating groups therefore left a larger genetic impact in sparsely populated regions.

Linguistic Implications

What does this distribution suggest about the language spoken by the northern EHG populations?

Since the highest levels of pure EHG are found only among a subset of Uralic-speaking groups, it is unlikely that the northern EHG originally spoke a Uralic language.

Moreover, many eastern Uralic-speaking populations have little or no EHG ancestry, although they do possess Yamnaya-related ancestry. The defining genetic feature of eastern Uralic speakers in Europe is the presence of Siberian / Nganasan-related ancestry, while their most frequent Y-DNA haplogroup (N1) also originates from Siberia.

Conversely, these northern populations virtually lack Y-DNA lineages associated with EHG. Any R1a present among them derives from Corded Ware expansions, not from earlier hunter-gatherer populations.

Taken together, this evidence suggests that the language spoken by the northern EHG populations is now extinct.

The Uralic-speaking populations likely arrived from Siberia sometime after 1500 BCE, while Indo-European groups in northern Europe—such as Balto-Slavic and Germanic speakers—descend largely from Corded Ware populations that expanded into the region after 2800 BCE.

Nine principal genetic profiles of Western Eurasians

Nine Principal Genetic Profiles of Western Eurasians

We frequently use these terms, so it is useful to understand what they refer to. Most of these genetic profiles appeared after the Last Glacial Maximum. Before the Glacial Maximum (approximately 20,000–26,000 years ago), Eurasia was inhabited by populations with different genetic profiles.

All of these genetic profiles ultimately share common origins and descend from a single ancestral population that has not yet been sampled in ancient DNA studies.

Çayönü and the Preservation of Early Neolithic Farmer Ancestry

 

Çayönü and the Preservation of Early Neolithic Farmer Ancestry

Çayönü is an early Neolithic site located northeast of Portasar / Göbekli Tepe.

In Lazaridis et al. (2024), ancient DNA from Çayönü was used to model the Neolithic farmers of Armenia. These models should be considered preliminary, since we still lack hunter-gatherer DNA from historic Armenia. Nevertheless, they provide a useful indication of what we might expect.

I wanted to examine where the ancestry of these Çayönü early farmers is best preserved today. For this purpose, I selected 16 ancestral components and used them to model modern populations around the world.

Unsurprisingly, ancestry related to Çayönü farmers is best preserved among modern populations originating from Mesopotamia and historic Armenia.

For comparison:

• Natufian ancestry from the neighboring Levant is best preserved today among populations in Yemen and Saudi Arabia.

• Anatolian Neolithic farmer ancestry is best preserved in Sardinia and southern Europe.

It should be noted that this method produces different results than a simple distance comparison between Çayönü samples and modern populations. A direct distance analysis would show large genetic distances because this ancestry has been diluted over time. Moreover, because Çayönü farmers are genetically close to Anatolian and Levantine Neolithic populations, individuals from those regions would appear artificially prioritized.

The method used here attempts to remove that shared ancestry in order to identify where the specific Çayönü-related component has had the greatest long-term impact.

The results are shown in the first chart, sorted from highest to lowest.

In my next post, I will apply the same method to EHG ancestry.

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.