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.

A Broader View of Eurasian Genetic History

A Broader View of Eurasian Genetic History

This group is dedicated to Armenians, but since many topics discussed here are indirectly related to Indo-European (IE) and therefore to Armenian origins, it is useful to take a broader view of Eurasian genetic history. Another reason to discuss East Asian genetics is that two of Armenia’s neighboring countries speak Turkic languages, whose origins lie in that region.

After the initial spread of modern humans across Eurasia around 45,000 years ago, populations gradually divided into two broad groups:

• East Eurasians, living east of the Himalayan region

• West Eurasians

Initially, these populations were genetically quite similar, as confirmed by ancient DNA studies. However, after the Last Glacial Maximum (around 20,000 years ago), a new and more genetically drifted population formed in East Asia, associated with what is historically described as the Mongoloid phenotype. This development occurred primarily through local evolution and genetic drift, rather than large-scale migration.

Today these populations are often described as belonging to the Mongoloid anthropological group, while West Eurasians are traditionally described as Caucasoid (Europoid).

Origins of East Asian Ancestry

East Asian ancestry likely formed in the region of northern China and the Amur basin. The main Y-DNA haplogroups associated with these populations include:

• N

• O

• C2

(See the attached maps.)

Another important lineage is haplogroup Q, which existed in Paleolithic Siberia and had West Eurasian origins. This lineage was associated with the population known as Ancient North Eurasians (ANE), a genetic group that no longer exists in its original form today.

Formation of Native American Populations

Native Americans (Amerindians) formed through a mixture of ANE populations and early East Asian populations in the Far East. Despite this mixture, their dominant Y-DNA lineage remained the western-derived haplogroup Q1. These populations entered the Americas approximately 15,000 years ago.

Expansions from East Asia

At various points, several technological and cultural innovations gave East Asian populations significant demographic advantages.

One notable example is pottery production. Some of the earliest known pottery comes from the Amur region and northern China, dated to roughly 12,000–18,000 years ago.

Later expansions were associated with particular Y-DNA lineages:

• Around 7,000–8,000 years ago, haplogroup N spread from Mongolia into Siberia, initiating a major migration that eventually reached northern Europe and Finland. Today, haplogroup N is most common among Uralic-speaking populations, whose homeland likely lay east of the Ural Mountains. Some Turkic-speaking groups also carry this lineage, though generally at lower frequencies.

• The expansion of haplogroup O is closely associated with the development of agriculture in China, including both rice farming in southern China and millet farming in northern China. These farming populations expanded southward, largely replacing earlier populations related to Australo-Melanesian groups such as the Onge, Papuans, and Australian Aboriginal peoples.

• Finally, haplogroup C2, originally restricted to the Amur region, expanded dramatically during the historical period, especially in connection with Mongolic and Tungusic-speaking populations, including the Evenks.

Linguistic Families Expanding from East Eurasia

Several major linguistic families originated in East Eurasia and spread both languages and genetic ancestry across large parts of the world. The autosomal impact of these expansions can be seen in the fourth map. Although such maps may slightly exaggerate the extent of these influences, they provide a general impression of the scale of these demographic movements.

The main language families involved include:

• Uralic

• Turkic

• Mongolic

• Tungusic (Evenk)

• Sino-Tibetan (whose most famous representative is Chinese)

• Austroasiatic, which expanded as far as India

• Austronesian, which spread from Madagascar across Indonesia to Easter Island in the Pacific

I will dedicate separate threads to some of these linguistic families that are particularly relevant to Armenian history.

Steppe Eneolithic and the Origins of Yamnaya Ancestry

Steppe Eneolithic and the Origins of Yamnaya Ancestry

In 2019, Wang et al. published three ancient DNA samples from the northern Caucasus foothill steppe region. These samples were labeled Steppe Eneolithic. In genetic studies, the term “Steppe” is usually used to describe DNA profiles related or similar to the Yamnaya genetic profile.

These Steppe Eneolithic samples were remarkable because they already displayed a genetic profile similar to Yamnaya, while being older than the Yamnaya culture itself. At the time, however, they did not receive the attention they deserved, largely because they were not associated with a well-known archaeological culture.

In 2024, Lazaridis et al. proposed a new term for this population: the Caucasus–Lower Volga (CLV) cline, and added additional samples with similar genetic profiles. Genetic modeling showed that Yamnaya populations derived most of their genome-wide ancestry from these CLV groups.

Despite this important progress, two crucial Y-DNA markers were still not securely linked to the CLV population: R1b-M269 and R1a-M417, the two major lineages that later expanded widely across Eurasia and are often associated with the spread of Indo-European languages.

New Evidence

The study by Ghalichi et al. (2024) helped fill this gap. Two new cases of R1b-M269 were discovered north of the Caucasus, predating the Yamnaya culture. These individuals had ancestry similar to other Steppe Eneolithic groups and were dated to approximately 3800 BCE.

It is worth noting that an older R1b-M269 sample (I33307) from Kalmykia, dated to around 3700 BCE, had already been reported. However, its genetic profile is identical to Core Yamnaya, which raises the possibility that the radiocarbon date may be somewhat inaccurate. In Lazaridis et al., this sample was classified as part of the Russia_CaspianInland_EBA_Yamnaya group, which is why it is not included in the list of Steppe Eneolithic Y-DNA samples (4700–3000 BCE).
(See the map for the geographic area.)

Steppe Eneolithic Y-DNA Distribution (4700–3000 BCE)

• R1b-V1636 — 9 samples

• R1b-M269 — 2 samples

• R1a — 1 sample

• I2-L699 — 1 sample

• J2a — 1 sample

• J2b2a — 1 sample

Another possible early R1b-M269 case (around 4500 BCE) was discovered in a Varna culture burial in Bulgaria. Its autosomal profile clearly shows Steppe Eneolithic–related ancestry, indicating that it was not related to local Neolithic farmers but rather represents a migrant from the Caucasus–Lower Volga region.

The Varna culture itself was unusual, characterized by a highly hierarchical social structure. Its graves contained large quantities of gold artifacts, among the earliest known examples of gold metallurgy.

The Role of J2b2a-L283

Another important finding in the Steppe Eneolithic context is J2b2a-L283. Its autosomal profile shows a stronger Caucasus-related component, which is understandable. Nevertheless, it clearly belonged to the emerging Eneolithic kurgan populations, from which both the Yamnaya culture and the Corded Ware culture would develop several centuries later.

The Question of R1a-M417

So far, R1a-M417 has not yet been identified in the Steppe Eneolithic / CLV context. However, one of the oldest R1a-M198 samples (closely related to M417) was found in the Middle Volga region, suggesting that M417 may eventually be discovered within the CLV or Steppe Eneolithic populations as well. Currently, one of the oldest known R1a-M417 individuals comes from a Yamnaya layer in the Balkans.

Implications for Yamnaya Origins

Based on these findings, I remain skeptical of the hypothesis that Yamnaya originated directly from the Sredny Stog culture in Ukraine, as sometimes suggested in discussions.

The highest diversity of R1b-Z2103 lineages that are positive for Z2103 but negative for Z2106 is found in the Near East, suggesting that the region where Z2103 began its expansion was likely close to the Caucasus. Additional ancient DNA samples will hopefully clarify this question in the future.

Note

The Eneolithic Y-DNA list above does not include samples from Steppe Maykop, which have a different origin related to Central Asian ancestry.

In addition, one R1b-V1636 sample is dated to around 2800 BCE, slightly later than the 3000 BCE cutoff used here. However, its autosomal profile indicates that it belonged to the preceding Steppe Eneolithic population, rather than to Core Yamnaya.

See also

• Qpadm models about the Core Yamnaya origins.
• The Yamnaya culture and it's legacy.

The Kura-Araxes culture. An open thread.

Ghalichi et al. 2024 have published 7 new KA ancient samples from Georgia. Site Dzedzevbi near Dmanisi. And two more samples from Velikent Dagestan.

The low coverage didn't permit to find the deep subclades of those samples. But apparently two male samples from Dzedzevbi are J2b2. While the other is J1 almost certainly from the Z1842 branch. The Velikent is also J1.

Overall, there is now 16 Y DNA from known Kura-Araxes layers. 11 of them are J1 from the Z1842 branch. Most cases of J1 are found in regions that are geographically close to eastern Great Caucasian range. Dagestan, Kakhetia, Berkaber in Tavush and one case near Dmanisi. The strong prevalence of J1 is almost certainly the result of founder effect, because in earlier Neolithic periods the J1 was rare.

Moving away from the eastern parts of Caucasian range we see other haplotypes. Like R1b-V1636 from Sevan basin, G2b from Kaps Shirak. J2-M92 from Doghlauri central Georgia. And now two cases of J2b2 from Dzedzevbi. According the Genarchivist activists one of them is from the J2b-FT3464 a minor branch found today in Near East and Europe. While the other J2b was J2b2b-Z2453. An old Neolithic branch found in Shulaveri culture and Hajji Firuz tepe.

What can we deduce from this distribution? As I have already noted the J1 in northeastern parts of Kura-Araxes horizon can be associated with North-East Caucasian (NEC) speakers. But the whole KA horizon couldn't have been NEC speakers otherwise this would have left linguistic traces. For which there is no evidence. The rapid shift in Y DNA distribution when moving away from eastern Caucasus is another strong argument that there was another ethnic group (or groups) in Kura-Araxes.

Who could be this other group(s)?

The two main candidates are the Anatolian speakers and Hurro-Urartians. Currently the data is still too small to connect the dots between South Caucasus and Anatolia/Levant/Mesopotamia where Anatolian Hurro-Urartian languages were spoken. But some patterns are already visible.

See also

• Here is an excerpt from the Petrosyan 2023 paper about the origins of Kura-Araxes culture.
• 
  

I2a2b-Y16419 a possible Ukraine hunter gatherer lineage in Yamnaya/Catacomb?

Lazaridis et al. 2024 had discovered that Yamnaya has some Ukraine Neolithic hunter gatherer ancestry. UNHG. This term can be confusing but it's a result of different naming convention in ex-Sovietic countries, when a hunter-gatherer community gets the Neolithic label if they had a pottery.

Ghalichi et al. 2024 confirmed the presence of some 15% of UNHG in Yamnaya. The I2-L699 regularly found in steppe was derived from UNHG for example.

The presence of I2 in Yamnaya related cultures is an important subject for the Armenian ethnogenesis given the presence of I2a2b in Trialeti-Vanadzor culture.

Till now we didn't have any extra information about this haplotype. The closest European sample to it was found in Eneolithic Croatia with a common ancestor reported to live at 8200BC by the FTDNA. This age is amply sufficient for this lineage to be present both in European farmers and in UNHG.

Ghalichi et al. 2024 had a new sample which probably can help to understand how I2a2b could end up in early Yamnaya communities as a rare lineage. The paper reported a single female sample from near Azov and Black Sea joining region labeled as "Steppe Eneolithic outlier west". KHB dated at 4000BC near Taman peninsula. This sample has large amount of UNHG ancestry (43%). In most likelihood it infiltrated there from Ukraine.

If this outlier represents a regular population living in that region, then this raises the possibility that the I2a2b-Y16419 was also living, there since the Eneolithic and with the formation of Yamnaya/Catacomb became part of those cultures as a rare lineage. Later it moved to south and had a great luck to expand with Trialeti-Vanadzor culture.

For verifying this theory more ancient DNA is needed from the aforementioned region in particular and from south Ukraine in general.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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