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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are some chances that Kaskean from North Anatolia will not be anymore considered as unrecorded language.

There is a possibility that the Kaska people of northern Anatolia will no longer be considered speakers of an unrecorded language.

Sasseville published a paper this year in which he examines some Hittite cuneiform texts containing an unknown language and suggests that these unknown words may be Kaska lexemes. The paper is behind a paywall, but a brief discussion with ChatGPT gave me the impression that Sasseville is inclined toward the theory that the Kaska language had some connection with Hattic.

The currently limited archaeogenetic data from northern Anatolia also support this theory. Rasuloğlu Höyük, which is linked to Hattic culture, yielded G2-M406 and T1a2a. The same haplotypes were found in more northern locations where the Kaska people were attested.

This year has also been remarkable for Kaska archaeology. A site explicitly linked to the Kaska people was discovered, and a settlement near Samsun has been proposed as the famous city of Nerik.

All links are provided below.

https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document

About Rasuloglu aDNA

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DWaYca1Rf/

About ppssible connection with Nerik

Traces of Indigenous Kaška People Discovered in Sacred Hittite City of Nerik | OMÜ | Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi

A new site

First archaeological evidence of the Kaskas, the Hittites' fierce enemies, discovered - Anatolian Archaeology

A remarkable linguistic review from Yediay et al. 2024 written by Kroonen, Thorso and Wigman.

 A remarkable linguistic review from Yediay et al. 2024, written by Kroonen, Thorsø, and Wigman.

It is in the supplements. Hrach Martirosyan’s paper is also referenced. The link is in the comments.

---

Armenian is currently spoken in the Republic of Armenia and by a worldwide diaspora, but it has historically formed a patchwork of dialects across large parts of Anatolia and the South Caucasus. Its first substantial attestation is Classical Armenian literature, appearing from the 5th century CE. Traditionally, it is considered an independent branch of the Indo-European family tree, but it is frequently placed in a higher-order subgroup with Greek.

As previously mentioned, our new IBD analyses show that Bronze Age individuals from both Greece and Armenia are best modeled as having shared ancestry derived from a population closely related to previously unpublished Middle Bronze Age samples from Moldova, associated with the Late Yamnaya culture. This contrasts with, for example, individuals associated with Italic languages, who derive their Steppe ancestry via Corded Ware and Bell Beaker individuals. These results are consistent with the assumption of a primordial Graeco-Armenian subgroup that started diverging by the middle of the 3rd millennium BCE at the latest. The rather sudden replacement of the previously widespread Transcaucasian Kura-Araxes culture by the Trialeti culture by the end of the 3rd millennium BCE, with certain similarities to early Mycenaean culture, probably represents the first tangible sign in the region of an Indo-European element ancestral to the Armenian branch.

From the Iron Age, samples with Urartian and pre-Urartian contexts show a similar proportion of ancestry associated with the western Steppe, which is consistent with the existing view that the Urartian population was multiethnic and multilingual, and it supports the hypothesis that it may have contained an Armenian-speaking component. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, Steppe ancestry emerges in the South Caucasus already in the Middle Bronze Age, with no significant later input, and it is only a marginal ancestry component in Central Anatolia. This makes the traditional hypothesis of a migration of Armenian speakers across Anatolia after 1200 BCE increasingly doubtful.

Many scholars have assumed a particularly close relationship between (Thraco-)Phrygian and Armenian, even closer than that of Greek and Phrygian. However, more recent study of Phrygian has revealed a scarcity of exclusively shared features with Armenian, making such a hypothesis difficult to support. Likewise, our IBD results yield no support for assuming a common migration of Armenians and Phrygians through Anatolia, but rather suggest that the shared innovations of Greek, Phrygian, and Armenian are attributable to a higher-order subgroup (or linguistic area) connected with the Late Yamnaya culture of the 3rd millennium BCE.

Complex interaction over Caucasian range.

Complex interaction over the Caucasian range

We now have sufficient DNA from both the south and north of the Caucasus to outline the migratory events that shaped the pre-Bronze Age history of the Caucasian range. Here is a summary of these events.

Skipping the Paleolithic and Mesolithic periods, the key events are as follows:

Around 5500–5000 BC, farmers from the Kura-Araxes basin, almost certainly related to the Shulaveri culture, crossed the Caucasus and moved north. Although still contested by some, I have little doubt that zoological data will support the idea that pastoralism appeared in Eastern Europe due to this event. It spread rapidly north toward the Volga and slightly later toward Ukraine. These are the earliest kurganic cultures in Eastern Europe that can be linked to Indo-European populations.

However, the two most frequent haplotypes associated with pastoralism in Eastern Europe are R1b-V1636 and I2-L699, of local origin (EHG and UHG). Occasionally, J2 and J1 are observed. Notably, J2b2b from Eneolithic Moldova belongs to the same branch as Shulaveri Y-DNA from Mentesh Tepe in Azerbaijan. The J2b2a1-L283 haplotype, which later expanded with Yamnaya, might also trace back to Shulaveri. The lack of a similar change in Y-DNA, despite important autosomal shifts in Eastern Europe, is beyond the scope of this summary.

Around 4300 BC, a migration occurred from north to south. Little was known about this movement before ancient DNA evidence, but the appearance of R1b-V1636 in the south, alongside kurganic burials mixed with local jar burials, indicates that northern pastoralist groups ventured south. Their migration appears to have been limited in scale and peaceful, integrating into the so-called Chaff-Faced Ware groups present across the Highlands and South Caucasus. Steppe ancestry in Areni during the Chalcolithic period is strong evidence of this migration.

Around 3900–3800 BC, a new group moved north, likely via Daghestan, playing a role in the formation of the Maykop culture. The suggestion of a Daghestan route comes from the absence in ancient Georgia of haplotypes found in Maykop, including L2, T1a3, and J2-P81. A mass migration of Chaff-Faced Ware people via Georgia would have caused significant dilution of CHG ancestry, which is not observed, particularly in western Georgia. Maykop was complex, with contributions from Central Asia introducing haplogroup Q1. Although Maykop likely influenced Yamnaya culturally, it is not directly ancestral. Maykop Novosvobodnaya individuals had G2a2a, possibly resulting from a distinct migration via the central Caucasus, though data are still insufficient for firm conclusions.

Around 3600 BC, another migration occurred from south to north. These were Kura-Araxes culture people associated with haplotype J1-Z1842, likely moving via central Caucasus regions such as modern Mtskheta-Mtianeti or Kakheti. This event likely disrupted Maykop interests. The widespread presence of J1-Z1842 in the North Caucasus strongly associates it with Nakh-Daghestani speakers. Meanwhile, near the Azov Sea, a Proto-Yamnaya group associated with R1b-Z2103 was preparing to expand around 3500 BC. This group did not move south immediately, only after 2500 BC, later creating an offshoot in the North Caucasus known as the North Caucasian or Kubano-Tersk culture.

The map illustrates the two-way interactions between north and south over the eastern passes. The genetic history of the western passes in the Caucasus is different: it was more isolated and had less impact.

Grooved ware (ակոսավոր խեցեղեն), the missing piece of puzzle.

 Grooved Ware (ակոսավոր խեցեղեն), the missing piece of the puzzle

We have had many discussions in this group about the modern genetic profile of Armenians—how, where, and when it formed. Nareg Asatrian has frequently posted genetic qpAdm models showing the modern Armenian profile as a mixture of two populations. Similar models have been reproduced by other commentators and have started to appear in academic papers as well, most notably Hovhannisyan et al. 2025.

Although these models are statistically feasible and useful as rapid abstractions, the real historical events behind the formation of the modern genetic profile were more complex. Two key events are usually emphasized: the Middle Bronze Age migration from the Steppe and the Urartu expansion (840–600 BCE) with its policies of relocations. More than 1,500 years separate these two events, and it would be unusual if nothing remarkable occurred between them. In reality, a significant demographic event affected historic Armenia around 1200 BCE, known as the spread of Grooved Ware, also called Nairi Ware.

Based on the comprehensive study by Guido Guarducci, the oldest forms of Grooved Ware, which he calls Proto-Nairi, appear in the South Caucasus, mostly in Lchashen culture sites, and in northwestern Iran (1400–1300 BCE). The attached map is from Guarducci’s book. The red areas represent Proto-Nairi. The color coding can be misleading, as western Georgia is included even though it did not have Grooved Ware. The best way to interpret the map is to focus on the archaeological sites (dots) rather than the colors.

Around 1200 BCE, all the regions colored green suddenly witness the appearance of this new type of grooved pottery. Some scholars believe this event was associated with large migrations. However, there is considerable debate about the geographic origin of the migrants. Summarizing the opinions, they can be grouped into three categories:

1. Grooved Ware in the green zone came from the South Caucasus.

2. Grooved Ware in the green zone expanded from the Van basin.

3. The origins of Grooved Ware in the green zone were in the upper Euphrates, where a large number of sites with this type of pottery are found.

The pottery found in the red and green zones is not completely identical but shares important features. It is clear that the initial impulse came from the South Caucasus. However, a direct migration of Lchashen people into all the green lands would imply that modern Armenians should have higher Steppe ancestry than they do today. Another possibility is that the initial impulse from the South Caucasus affected groups living in the Van basin or upper Euphrates, who later expanded independently, spreading a genetic profile different from that of Lchashen. Such a scenario aligns better with the modern Armenian genetic profile.

Of course, later Urartian activities were also important in shaping the modern Armenian genetic profile. However, the Grooved Ware period is crucial for understanding the genetic history of the Highlands prior to the formation of Urartu. Unfortunately, the currently available ancient DNA is insufficient to favor any of the aforementioned theories, and, as usual, we will have to wait for new data.

If the aceramic nature of this site is confirmed then this will be the oldest Neolithic site in South Caucasus and probably in a wider region.

If the aceramic nature of this site is confirmed, it will be the oldest Neolithic site in the South Caucasus and probably in the wider region. Following the Lernagog 1 discovery, dated to the 7th millennium BCE, this would be the next major Neolithic site—most likely even more important than Lernagog 1.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DBu1jBTtj/

The possibility that Sumerians originated from north Mesopotamia raise the probability that Proto-Sumerians had the occasion to contact the Fertile Crescent farmers who moved to South Caucasus and further north of Caucasus.

 The possibility that the Sumerians originated from northern Mesopotamia increases the likelihood that Proto-Sumerians had contact with Fertile Crescent farmers who moved into the South Caucasus and beyond. This could mean that some lexical parallels between Sumerian and Proto-Indo-European (PIE) are genuine. Aleksi Sahala from the Helsinki Institute summarized proposed parallels. Not all cases are of high quality, but some have strong chances of being real cognates.

Here are some examples:

Sum. gud, gu4 ‘ox, bull; cattle’ ~ PIE *gwou(s)- ‘cow; ox’; Hitt. *kuṷāu-;
Sanskrit: go; Greek: bous (βοῦς); Tocharian B: keŭ; Old Norse: *kú; Armenian: kov.
Cattle were domesticated in the core Fertile Crescent region of West Asia and spread to the South and North Caucasus. It is plausible that the term used by pastoralists in the Pontic and Caspian steppe came from northern Mesopotamia, as it did for the Sumerians. The Egyptian words ka ‘ox’ and kaut ‘cow’ may share this origin. Notably, ancient Egyptian farmers carried T1a1a and H2 haplotypes, which were also present among historic Armenian and South Caucasus farmers.

Sum. šáḫ(a) ‘pig; boar’ → Akkadian šaḫû ‘pig’; Ugaritic šeḫû ‘pig’ ~ PIE *suh₁- ‘swine’; Sanskrit: sūkara (सुक्र); Tocharian B: suwo; Latin: sūs; Gothic: swein.
Variants include šaḫ, šúḫ (ŠUBUR). The reading with is widely accepted and supported by Akkadian. Similar words are found in Kartvelian languages, e.g., GZ ešw- ‘wild boar, pig’. These likely share a prehistoric etymology. The Armenian xoz is not directly derived from PIE but may be related to the same areal term or borrowed from Parthian.

Sum. sí-sí ‘horse’ ↔? Akkadian sisium ‘horse’ ← Hurrian issi(a) ‘horse’ ~ PIE *h₁ekwos ‘horse’; Hittite: aśuwas; C. Luwian: a-aš-šu; Sanskrit: áśva (अश); PIE Anatolian: *aĉwa-; Latin: equus; Albanian: sasë; Armenian: eš.
The trajectory of this word is likely from PIE to Sumerian. The author conjectures Indo-Iranian mediation, but the Armenian eš / išoy, formerly meaning ‘horse’, is the best source for the Hurrian form (Petrosyan 2002). The Armenian term later underwent a semantic shift (Martirosyan 2009). Sumerians and Akkadians likely received the word from Hurrians. Most Sumerian attestations are from the Ur III period, after the Akkadian period.

Sum. urud(a) ‘copper’ → Akkadian erû ‘copper’ ~ PIE *h₁reudh-ó- ‘red’; Sanskrit: rudhira; Avestan: raoðita; Tocharian A: rtär; Greek: eruthros (ἐρυθρός); Lithuanian: raudonas; Gaulish: roudos; Old Norse: rjóðr.
This is another notable example. The semantic shift is probably from a color term to a metal, similar to argentum ‘silver’. This word is attested in Sumerian from the 4th millennium BCE. Copper use predates Mesopotamia in the Highlands. If the word for ‘red’ was originally an Indo-European term, the most likely period is the Chaff-Faced Ware culture (Late Chalcolithic, 4200–3500 BCE), a mixed population almost certainly including IE speakers.

For other linguistic parallels, see the link in the comments. Also relevant are studies on PIE–Semitic lexical parallels.

The exact branch of G2 found in Middle Bronze Age kurgan in Atskuri near Akhaltsikhe is now available. Its the G2-Y258395.

 The exact branch of G2 found in a Middle Bronze Age kurgan at Atskuri near Akhaltsikhe is now identified as G2-Y258395.

Today, it is a minor branch found among Armenians, Turks, and Georgians. The parallel branch PH1780 is predominantly Georgian and Kartvelian, except for the subbranch PH311, which is more cosmopolitan. A slightly more distant parallel branch, L1264, is mainly found in the northwest Caucasus among Abkhaz–Adyghean speakers.

Given that the center of gravity of G2-Y258395 is located in what is now Turkey, it is reasonable to assume that the original ancestor of this branch likely lived somewhere between the Ardahan and Erzurum regions, rather than at Atskuri itself. Ancient samples from northeastern Turkey are needed to confirm this.

All three of these branches are part of the larger haplotype G2-L1266, which is around 7,800 years old. It is now reasonable to conclude that this haplotype was a Neolithic lineage that moved from the south—probably from the Upper Euphrates region—into the western and northwestern Caucasus during the Neolithic period, where it is abundant today. Another possible route, not yet fully ruled out, is a migration via Daghestan to the North Caucasus and the Maykop culture, followed by a backflow to the South Caucasus through the western Caucasus. However, this latter scenario is less likely than the first.

More information: G2-Y258395 YFull tree

In Armenian legends modern Armenia is an important place where many patriarchs lived.

In Armenian legends, modern Armenia is presented as an important region where many patriarchs lived. Beginning with Aramaneak, the son of Hayk, many generations lived and ruled in the Araratian Plain and its surrounding areas. Aramayis, Shara, Amasya, Gelam, Harma, Sisak, and others left their names in local toponyms. It was also in the Araratian Plain that the legendary capital Armavir — which was also a real city — was located. This fact is used as an argument for the Etiuni theory, since Etiuni was likewise situated in what is now the Republic of Armenia.

However, Hayk himself, who represents the eponymous patriarch of the Hay people (Armenians), was primarily active near Lake Van. His main domain was in Hark in Taron, west of Lake Van. He battled Bel in Hayoc' Dzor, which was located southeast of Lake Van. At least two settlements associated with him — Haykashen and Haykaberd — are also situated near Lake Van. The latter, Haykaberd, is today known as Cavushtepe, from where several ancient DNA samples have been obtained.

Assuming that legendary memory is not an arbitrary construct, this could suggest that the regions around Lake Van were as important for the ethnogenesis of Armenians as modern Armenia.

We have already observed indications of this in the available ancient DNA. However, the existing data is not sufficient to reach definitive conclusions. In any case, this does not change the broader picture of Armenian origins derived from Middle Bronze Age migrations. Most likely, however, important details will emerge with new data from the Lake Van region.

Syunik particularity.

Syunik Particularity

Davidski has produced new G25 coordinates based on the Skourtanioti et al. (2025) paper, including the 25 new samples from Syunik. He removed noisy SNPs that were almost certainly the result of postmortem damage. After this correction, the PCA of the “Hellenistic” era Syunik samples appears more compact and less heterogeneous, while modern Syunik individuals plot within the Aghitu Hellenistic cluster.

The conclusions remain the same as in the previous post regarding the Aghitu cave samples.

Some samples that show a shift toward the Iranian Plateau are probably from the Achaemenid/Orontid period (600–300 BC) rather than the Hellenistic period (300 BC–1 AD). The shift toward the Iranian Plateau is even stronger in a Late Antique sample from Caucasian Albania, specifically from the Shamakhi region. Therefore, it may be argued that Iranian influence was probably stronger in the eastern parts of the South Caucasus than in other regions of historic Armenia and the Caucasus. However, this influence appears to have been transient in Armenia, given that modern Syunik Armenians do not show a strong shift toward the Iranian Plateau.

The reason why Syunik does not display an abrupt genetic change in the post-Urartian period — similar to what is observed in the Araratian Plain, Sevan, and Shirak regions — is probably that Urartu did not exercise strong control over Syunik and did not establish new cities there with relocated populations. As a result, the Etiuni genetic profile persisted longer, and the transition to the modern genetic profile was gradual.

A similar pattern of gradual change may have occurred in other parts of historic Armenia that did not experience strong control by the Urartian Empire. Examples include Artsakh, Utik, and parts of Gugark.

These data support the theory proposed in Petrosyan and Palyan (2023) regarding the post-Urartian genetic shift. We suggested that this shift was a consequence of Urartu’s population relocation policies.

Additionally, it is possible that after the fall of the Biainean dynasty in Van, the Biainean elite relocated to the Araratian Plain — a theory suggested by some scholars. However, this hypothesis requires additional data in order to be confirmed or falsified.

The Middle Bronze Age (2400-1500BCE) in South Caucasus

The Middle Bronze Age (2400–1500 BCE) in the South Caucasus

Now that the DNA files from the Skourtanioti et al. (2025) paper on Georgia and the South Caucasus are available, we can examine them more closely. The focus of this thread is the crucial period of the Middle Bronze Age (MBA), when new Y-DNA lineages of steppe origin (R1b-Z2103, I2a2b) appeared in the South Caucasus and throughout historic Armenia.

The MBA data from Georgia show that only eastern Georgia was affected by steppe migrants. The blue dots indicate sites where steppe ancestry and steppe-associated Y-DNA were present, while the red dots mark sites where they were mostly absent. The second chart presents the same pattern numerically. This distribution is possible only if steppe migrants crossed the Caucasus via Dagestan and the eastern Caucasian passes.

Theoretically, migration through the Central Caucasus is also possible; however, in that case, the migrants would likely have acquired additional CHG (Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer) ancestry, which is not observed. On the contrary, MBA samples from both Georgia and Armenia show an additional shift toward Anatolian farmers. This shift is possible only if the migrants crossed what is now Azerbaijan, where an Anatolian farmer–rich population had been present since at least the Late Chalcolithic and apparently persisted into the Early Bronze Age.

This scenario explains two key findings of the paper:

1. The reason why the average steppe ancestry is lower in MBA Georgia than in MBA Armenia. This difference is due to geographic heterogeneity. Western Georgia, which lacked or had very low levels of steppe ancestry, likely harbored a non–Indo-European population, almost certainly Kartvelian tribes.

2. The paper also notes an excessive shift toward Anatolia during the MBA. This can be explained by migration through regions inhabited by Anatolian-shifted populations. The most plausible candidate is the Leyla-Tepe culture in what is now the Republic of Azerbaijan, which may also explain the presence of haplogroup E1b in MBA Armenia.

P.S. Thanks to Tigran Sg for providing the labeled G25 coordinates and for first identifying this pattern.

Another perspective on 25 Antique era samples from Syunik (Aghitu) from Skourtanioti et al. 2025.

Another Perspective on 25 Antique-Era Samples from Syunik (Aghitu), Skourtanioti et al. (2025)

The majority of the samples occupy an intermediate position between Iron Age Syunik (marked as LIA) and modern Syunik, which is expected. The shift from LIA to modern Syunik may have been caused by a source similar to Turkey Iron Age (IA) populations, including samples from the Van and Batman regions.

The remaining samples display various shifts: some toward the Iranian Plateau, one case with a strong shift toward the Levant, and at least two cases shifted toward Anatolia or even Europe.

I do not think that all of these samples necessarily date to the Hellenistic period. Only one has a radiocarbon date, while the others are dated archaeologically, which can be misleading in cave contexts. However, if they are indeed from the Hellenistic era, this would suggest that the Etiuni genetic profile persisted in Syunik for quite a long time.

Most of the Y-DNA lineages are typical of the Etiuni profile, particularly R1b-L584. The remaining haplogroups may also be local, such as J2-M92 and E1b. I2a1-L699 could likewise derive from the Etiuni population. If the reported G1 haplogroup is accurate, it may originate from northwest Iran, though a local origin is also possible. The paper itself does not mention G1; it was identified by users of Genarchivist.

There is little doubt that most of these individuals were Armenian speakers during their lifetime.

R1b - L584 in distant lands

R1b-L584 in Distant Lands

R1b-L584 is associated with the Trialeti-Vanadzor and Van-Urmia cultural horizons. However, there are several cases of this lineage appearing in distant regions. The most remarkable examples are the presence of L584 in Moldova during the Late Scythian period and in Mongolia during the Uyghur Khaganate period.

These cases cannot have a local steppe origin. They are almost certainly the result of migration from the Armenia–Iran–Caucasus region, given that older samples from Hasanlu and Armenia share common ancestors with these steppe L584 individuals. The question, therefore, is which historical event may have caused this migration.

In my opinion, one possible explanation is the back-migration of Scythians from West Asia to the north. The two cases in Mongolia could be connected either to Scythian movements or to the spread of Manichaean proselytism. The Uyghur Khaganate was a short-lived polity that adopted Manichaeism as its state religion.

https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-FGC14617/tree

Remarks on a major paper about Scythians.

Remarks on a Major Paper about the Scythians

Despite more than a dozen ancient DNA papers on the Scythians published so far, the “true” Scythians described in ancient Greek sources — those living north of the Black Sea — have remained poorly sampled. The study by Andreeva et al. (2025) fills this lacuna.

The main finding of the paper is that, despite the relatively homogeneous material culture labeled as “Scythian” by modern archaeologists, the actual populations behind this culture were genetically quite diverse.

The principal Scythian cluster, labeled Scy_Major, displays the expected autosomal profile: predominantly Sintashta/Srubnaya-related ancestry, with minor East Asian and Central Asian farmer (BMAC) components. The most frequent Y-DNA lineage was R1a-Z93, as expected. Other haplogroups identified include I2, G2, J2, N1a, Q1b, and R1b. The presence of G2 and J2 is particularly notable, as these lineages appear to have joined Scythian communities from the northwestern Caucasus. Specifically, they belong to G2-L1266 and J2-Z6046, both typical of that region.

Another interesting finding concerns the Maeotians. Their autosomal profile was characteristically North Caucasian and distinct from that of the Scythians. This supports the theory that the Maeotians were Caucasian populations, most likely affiliated with Abkhaz–Adyghean groups.

In contrast, the so-called Scythians of Moldova and Hungary were apparently local Thracian and Pannonian populations rather than “true” Scythians.

Finally, a finding relevant to Armenian history is that Late Scythians of Crimea possessed some Iran Neolithic–related (possibly South Caucasian–related) ancestry. They may have acquired this component while crossing the Caucasus and later returning to the steppe. If further research confirms this, Herodotus’ account of the Scythians ruling in West Asia for 26 years and then returning northward may find genetic support. The biblical Ashkenaz, described as living near Ararat/Armenia, is also traditionally linked to the Scythians.

A paper dedicated to microbes that causes infectious diseases.

A Paper Dedicated to Microbes That Cause Infectious Diseases

Scholars examined a large number of ancient human remains in order to detect ancient microbes. They concluded that the shift to farming — and especially to pastoralism — increased the prevalence of infectious diseases. Cohabitation with livestock appears to have been the main cause of this increase.

In Europe, the mass migration from the steppe around 3000 BC coincides with a peak in microbial DNA detected in ancient remains. The authors propose that steppe pastoralists, who relied heavily on livestock, developed greater immunity to certain zoonotic diseases than European farmers, who depended primarily on crop cultivation. This may help explain the population changes observed in Europe.

Below is an excerpt from their conclusion:

---

“We observed some of the highest detection rates at roughly 5,000 bp, a time of substantial demographic changes in Europe due to the migration of Steppe pastoralists and the displacement of earlier populations. Steppe pastoralists, through their long-term continuous exposure to animals, probably developed some immunity to certain zoonoses, and their dispersals may have carried these diseases westwards and eastwards. Consequently, the genetic upheaval in Europe could have been facilitated by epidemic waves of zoonotic diseases causing population declines, with depopulated areas subsequently being repopulated by opportunistic settlers who intermixed with the remaining original population. This scenario would mirror the population decline of Indigenous peoples in the Americas following their exposure to diseases introduced by European colonists. Our findings support the interpretation of increased pathogen pressure as a likely driver of positive selection on immune genes associated with the risk of multiple sclerosis in Steppe populations roughly 5,000 years ago, and immune gene adaptations having occurred predominantly after the onset of the Bronze Age in Europe.”

The paper authored by Armen Petrosyan and me which was initially published in Armenian (2023), is now available in Russian.

The paper authored by Armen Petrosyan and myself, originally published in Armenian (2023), is now available in Russian. It has been published in the journal of the Institute for Linguistic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, located in Saint Petersburg. The article includes several updates based on recent publications. An English version will also be available soon.

ПРОБЛЕМА ПРОИСХОЖДЕНИЯ АРМЯН В СВЕТЕ ПОСЛЕДНИХ АРХЕОГЕНЕТИЧЕСКИХ ДАННЫХ

В статье представлены новейшие археогенетические данные, на основе которых рассматривается одна из важнейших проблем истории Армении — происхождение и формирование армянского народа. Согласно этим данным, независимо от локализации ранней индоевропейской (индо-хеттской) прародины, поздняя индоевропейская прародина сформировалась в степных и лесостепных регионах Восточной Европы — от бассейна Волги до Днестра. Именно оттуда происходят все современные индоевропейские языки.

Археогенетические данные убедительно свидетельствуют о миграции населения через Кавказ из восточноевропейских степей на Южный Кавказ и Армянское нагорье, начиная с середины III тысячелетия до н. э. Эти переселенцы и их потомки создали триалети-ванадзорскую, севан-арцахскую, ван-урмийскую и лчашенско-мецаморскую культуры среднего и позднего бронзового, а также раннего железного веков.

Вплоть до конца существования царства Урарту (VII–VI вв. до н. э.) местное население на территории современной Армении (земля Этиуни в урартских источниках) сохраняло значительную долю степной патрилинейной ДНК (около 75%). Армянский язык, по всей вероятности, был языком создателей этих культур, и археогенетические данные свидетельствуют в пользу этиунийской гипотезы происхождения армян.

Ключевые слова: археогенетика, индоевропейская прародина, ранняя археология Армении, предыстория Армении, протоармянский язык, протоармяне, формирование армянского народа.

www.academia.edu

Currently I have very little time. But hopefully soon will be able to present the genetic history of this two haplotypes.

Currently, I have very little time. However, I hope to soon be able to present the genetic history of these two haplotypes.

About MyHeritage autosomal calculator.

About the MyHeritage Autosomal Calculator

Recently, I had the opportunity to review several MyHeritage ethnic proportion calculator results. I must say that some of them appear quite nonsensical. At this point, I do not know whether this issue is specific to Armenians or if it is more widespread.

What is particularly strange is that in February 2025, MyHeritage announced the release of version 2.5 of their calculator, which, according to their blog post, was supposed to improve the identification of Armenian-related ancestry. However, the examples I have seen so far are somewhat disappointing.

Another issue is that FTDNA apparently no longer accepts MyHeritage raw data files. This can be quite frustrating for individuals who wish to obtain an alternative interpretation of their ancestry results. Previously, the two companies used identical file formats, but apparently something has changed.

Remarks on Eriahi

Remarks on Eriahi

Some names attested in Etiuni can also be found in later Armenian sources. Well-known examples include Welikuni/Welikuhi and Silukuni, known in Armenian as Gelakuni and Cluk (Ծղուկ), reflecting the regular w > g sound shift.

However, instead of Eriahi we find the name Shirak, which is most likely a later term from the Arsacid era. Since the time of Kapantsian, theories have been proposed that Eriahi could be of Indo-Iranian origin, based on the similarity of the name to Aria. However, ancient DNA from the Shirak region does not particularly support this theory. We now have dozens of ancient DNA samples from various sites in Shirak, and none of them can be securely linked to Indo-Iranian populations. Eriahi appears to have been a regular Etiuni tribe, similar to the other tribes of Etiuni.

So, was its name lost? Possibly yes, but most likely not. The root of Eriahi is Eria, which could also have been pronounced as [eræ] according to Urartian orthographic conventions, or even as [aræ]. This pronunciation would be quite close to the name of the patriarch Ara.

Many toponyms are associated with the patriarch Ara: Aragats, Mount Ara, Ara’s Field, and others. However, this theory has one significant difficulty — geography. Most of the toponyms related to Ara are located in the Araratian Plain, and only Aragats overlaps with Shirak. This issue could be explained if we assume that the tribe once occupied a larger settlement area or that its population moved over time.

An update to the previous posting.

Update on J2-Z6065>P81

Thanks to the vigilance of our members, Tigran Sg and others, I re-examined all available data on J2-Z6065>P81. Here is an update to the previous post.

In the Lazaridis et al. (2024) preprint, a new Maykop sample was published. The paper itself did not provide many details about its subclade, and I initially assumed that the coverage was insufficient. However, after the paper was formally published in Nature this year and the files became available, its subclade could be identified. According to FTDNA, it belongs to J2-Z6065>P81. Another reason I overlooked it earlier is that the Chinese website YTree places P81 in a very different position within J2, which further contributed to the confusion.

In any case, the presence of J2-P81 in a Maykop context makes sense. The lineage is also found today in the northwestern Caucasus and in Ukraine. It is particularly noteworthy that its parallel branch has been identified in Bronze Age Anatolia, at Ovaören. This strongly suggests that both branches were originally associated with Chaff-Faced Ware communities in historic Armenia. One branch appears to have moved northward, becoming part of the Maykop genetic profile, while the other moved into Anatolia, potentially becoming associated with Hittite–Luwian populations.

According to YFull, the two branches share a common ancestor approximately 8,400 years ago, which roughly coincides with the formation of the Shulaveri–Shomu Neolithic cultural horizon.

Returning to the J2-P81 sample from the Alan period, we can now be confident that it had a local origin, at least dating back to the Bronze Age or even the Eneolithic.

Comments on migrations over Caucasus

 Comments on Migrations across the Caucasus

Ancient DNA has made it possible to uncover migrations across the Caucasus in the distant past. Some of these movements were expected, while others were surprising. Despite these advances, we still know relatively little about more recent migrations.

The limited amount of data currently available nevertheless allows us to suggest two younger migration events.

The first is connected with the rise of the Koban culture in the North Caucasus, which appears to have been influenced by populations from the southwestern regions of the Caucasus around 1400–1200 BCE, more specifically by the Colchian archaeological culture in western Georgia. Scholars had long suspected such a connection, and there were even proposals to unite the Koban and Colchian cultures into a broader cultural complex.

However, migration from the south does not mean that the Koban culture was exclusively southern in origin. It also included a local population component. Thus, it was most likely multiethnic, although the southern component appears to have been Kartvelian. Later, around 600 BCE, the Scythians conquered the Koban cultural area, and Iranian-speaking Alans began to emerge there. The Scythians also crossed the Caucasus, but so far we do not have any ancient DNA samples from the South Caucasus that can be securely linked to them.

The second possible migration across the Caucasus appears to have originated further south, most likely from historic Armenia. Based on data from eastern Georgia, it began during Late Antiquity (1st–4th centuries AD) and was associated with an increase in Anatolian-related ancestry. We now also have ancient DNA from the so-called Alan period in the North Caucasus, and quite surprisingly, some individuals carry Y-DNA lineages that most likely originated in historic Armenia.

[Read the update: for example, J2-Z6065>P81. We cannot fully rule out its earlier presence in the region, but current data do not provide evidence for that.] Two cases of L584 have also been identified. In Damgaard et al. (2018), one medieval sample from the Saltovo–Mayaki culture in the North Caucasus showed a strong Near Eastern genetic shift.

At this stage, we do not yet know what caused this migration or what the ethnic composition of these migrants was. However, the limited data from the Early Medieval period in the North Caucasus suggest that the migration did not stop in eastern Georgia and likely continued further north.

Links in the comments.

An important update about the J2-P81

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/196TcXY17b/

An excerpt from De Martino's paper.

An Excerpt from De Martino’s Paper

It appears that more scholars are adopting the idea that the name of the Mitanni kingdom (whose archaic form was Maitani) was derived from the name of a person or clan that founded the kingdom. De Martino does not mention it, but there is evidence from the Upper Euphrates that may support this interpretation. A certain Mita from Pahhuwa (near Hayasa), who lived in the 15th century BCE, is known to have rebelled against the Hittites.

This indicates that the name Mita indeed existed during that period. However, we should not rush to the conclusion that the founders of Mitanni came from the Upper Euphrates. The Mita from Pahhuwa may well have had an Indo-Iranian origin and could have moved there from the south. Fournet has proposed an Aryan etymology for this name.

At the same time, other scholars express skepticism that the first legendary ruler, Mita/Maita — who is not directly attested in the sources — had an Indo-Iranian name. The same applies to the second ruler, Kirta, who is mentioned only once. Starting with his son, however, all the kings bear Aryan names.

Additionally, the Greek-period term Matiene may represent a legacy of the Mitanni. Apparently, in antiquity there were still groups who identified themselves with the Mitanni polity that collapsed around 1200 BCE. What languages these groups spoke is difficult to determine.

A map based mainly on Urartian and other inscriptions.

A map based mainly on Urartian and other inscriptions, from Grekyan (2023), The Urartian Onomasticon: A Prosopographic Study.

Ten Years Since the First Yamnaya Ancient DNA

Ten Years Since the First Yamnaya Ancient DNA

Ten years ago, in 2015, the first ancient DNA samples from the Yamnaya archaeological culture were published in the study by Haak et al. The discovery of R1b-Z2103 in Yamnaya caused a major sensation, as many commentators at the time expected to find R1a, whose correlation with the spread of Indo-European languages seemed self-evident.

Last year, Lazaridis et al. (2024) largely clarified the origins of Yamnaya autosomes. However, the precise origin of its main Y-DNA lineage, Z2103, remains unresolved. Yediay (2024) addressed this issue (see picture 2), noting that virtually all known cases of Z2103 found in the Eurasian steppe belong to the Z2106+ branch, while all currently known cases of basal Z2103* are found in the ancient South Caucasus.

How can this apparent contradiction be explained?

At the current stage of research, we know that Z2103 experienced a dramatic founder effect during the spread of the Yamnaya culture and was practically absent from the Pontic–Caspian steppe before the emergence of that culture around 3300 BCE. As a result, 41 out of 51 Y-DNA samples extracted from Yamnaya individuals are Z2103-positive (more than 80%). Therefore, the original homeland of Z2103 must have been close to the region where the Yamnaya culture first emerged.

Yamnaya autosomes are largely derived from the preceding CLV (Caucasus–Lower Volga) cline. The genetically closest known sample comes from near the Azov region (Krivianskiy). However, in addition to CLV ancestry, Yamnaya populations also carried extra Ukraine Neolithic Hunter-Gatherer (UNHG) ancestry and some Caucasian farmer–related ancestry. These two components significantly narrow down the possible homeland.

Previously, an infiltration of UNHG ancestry into the Krasnodar region of Russia has been observed, while the additional Caucasian farmer–related ancestry was also present in the same region. Based on this evidence, it is reasonable to assume that Z2103 began its expansion somewhere between the Azov and Caucasus regions.

Such a homeland helps explain several observations:

• The reason why all three basal Z2103* branches (Y4362, L584, PF331) are found in West Asia. Their proximity to the Caucasus likely facilitated southward migrations.

• Z2106 may also have formed near the Caucasus. Its main subbranch, R-Y503415, has been identified both south of the Caucasus and north of it.

• An initial spread from west to east would also explain why the Afanasievo culture appears almost simultaneously with Yamnaya in the Altai region. Most Afanasievo males belong to Z2108, a rare subclade today found in China. Some Z2108 lineages also remained in the Pontic–Caspian steppe, where the subclade KMS67 later expanded.

• Finally, after filling the Pontic–Caspian steppe with their settlements, Yamnaya groups moved into the Balkans, where the subbranch Z2110 is found. However, in the Balkans the most successful founder effect appears to have occurred in J2b2a-L283, another minor Yamnaya lineage originating from South Caucasian farmers.

Although this principle is not universal, a potential homeland should also be associated with a diversity of related archaeological cultures. Near the Krasnodar region we find two other cultures related to Yamnaya: Novotitorovka and the North Caucasus culture. The Novotitorovka culture is particularly noteworthy because it yielded numerous wagons similar to those discovered in Lchashen in Armenia. This further raises the possibility that the region between the Azov area and the North Caucasus is precisely where we should expect to find Y-DNA lineages ancestral to those later found in West Asia, including the still elusive I2a2b.

Moesia and the Question of Its Namee

Moesia and the Question of Its Name

Moesia was a province of the Roman Empire. It was located in what is now Bulgaria, Serbia, and partly Romania, extending in the west as far as the borders of modern Albania.

Its name has often been compared with that of the Mysians, a people who lived in the northwestern region of Anatolia. The presence of a similar name in the Balkans has sometimes been used as an argument for the migration of the Mushki from that region.

However, Boteva questions the origin of the name Moesia and argues that it was likely a fabrication of the Roman Imperial period. No known source mentions this term in connection with that region before the 1st century AD. According to this view, the name itself was derived from Mysia and written as Moesia in order to conform to older Latin orthographic conventions.

The reason the Romans began using this term for the region was probably ideological and political. Western Moesia was largely inhabited by the Dardani, a tribal name that played an important role in Roman epic traditions concerning Trojan origins. In these traditions, the Roman founding ancestors were linked to the Dardani. However, when the Romans conquered the Balkans, they came into conflict with the actual Dardani people. In Roman sources, these Dardani were portrayed as barbarians attacking Roman territories, creating a contradictory narrative: in one case the Dardani were noble ancestors, while in another they appeared as hostile enemies.

To avoid referring to their new enemies by the prestigious name Dardani, Roman authorities may have chosen to designate their lands with a new name. Thus, the term Musia or Moesia was adopted, borrowing a name from Anatolia. In this way, the name Dardani became obscured and gradually faded from use in reference to the region.

If this interpretation is correct, then the argument that the name Moesia reflects a migration of the Mysians or Mushki from the Balkans is no longer tenable.

Coming soon… A review of R1b-Z2103

Coming soon… A review of R1b-Z2103

The Novotitorovka and North Caucasus (also known as Kuban-Terek) cultures are derived from, or closely related to, the Yamnaya cultural horizon.

Elamites

Elamites

The paper by Amjadi et al. (2025) published ancient DNA from the Chalcolithic period of the South Zagros, dated to around 4600 BCE. The sample comes from the Gol Afshan Tepe site, associated with the Bakun cultural period, which immediately precedes the so-called Lapui period (4100–3500 BCE), usually linked to Proto-Elamite developments. Assuming that there was no dramatic population change between the Bakun and Lapui periods, we may conjecture that the Proto-Elamite language originated among a population with a large amount of Zagros/Iran Neolithic ancestry.

Consistent with its autosomal profile, the sample carried Y-DNA haplogroup R2. This lineage was common among ancient Zagros farmers and today is found mainly in South Asia and in some parts of West Asia—for example, among Armenians in Sasun (see the second map).

The Elamite civilization flourished in the southwestern Iranian plateau. The Elamite language was widely used in the Achaemenid Empire as an administrative language. Persians referred to the Elamite region as Hujiya > Khuzi, from which the name of the modern Khuzestan province is derived. Elamite may have still been spoken in the medieval period, as Arab sources report the presence of an incomprehensible Khuzi language in that region, distinct from Persian. The Armenian word khuzhan, meaning hooligan or wild person, is derived from the name of that region.

If further research confirms a connection between the Elamite language and Zagros/Iran Neolithic populations, several implications may follow:

• Sumerian: Since Sumerian appears unrelated to Elamite, it may instead be associated with another population known as the Central Iranian farmers rather than with Zagros farmers.

• Northern Iran: Northern Iran seems to have had a different genetic history. A contemporary Chalcolithic DNA sample from the Urmia Basin (Hajji Firuz Chl) is strongly shifted westward and plots close to Central Iranian farmers. Their migration eastward may have diluted Zagros Neolithic ancestry in northern Iran, where other ethnic groups are known to have lived during the Bronze Age. The most prominent among them were the Kassites. The Kassite language has no known connection with Elamite, although a possible link between Kassite and Hurrian has been proposed.

• Elamite–Dravidian hypothesis: A theory connecting Elamite with Dravidian languages of South Asia has been proposed, though it is not widely accepted. If Elamite is indeed linked to Zagros/Iran Neolithic populations, this could provide additional support for the hypothesis. However, Dravidian-speaking populations also carry a substantial component of South Asian-specific ancestry related to Andamanese hunter-gatherers.

• Administrative languages and ethnicity: The widespread use of Elamite in the administration of the multiethnic Achaemenid Empire may offer insight into the status of the Urartian language in the kingdom of Biainili. We now know that Biainili was not solely an Urartian state; other ethnic groups, most prominently Armenians, were also part of the kingdom. Elamite inscriptions from the Achaemenid period have been discovered in Armavir, Armenia. This again illustrates that the presence of written texts in a particular language in a given region does not necessarily imply a widespread presence of its speakers there.

The western Iranians.

 The western Iranians.

Three major ancient western Iranian groups were the Persians, Medes and Parthians. Until now we didn't have ancient DNA samples that could be securely linked to this groups. Iron Age samples from south of Urmia could be related partly to Medes but given their genetic profile and dating such linking was remaining speculative.

Amjadi et al. 2025 published first historic western Iranian ancient DNA samples that were either Parthians, either eastern Medes. The location (Marsin Chai, Vestermin) of those samples was in the border of Medes and Parthian satrapies so there is some incertitude how they were identified in their lifetime. (See the map).

Liarsangbon samples could be related to Medes given their more western location. It's remarkable that some of them had also slightly more western genetic profile. J1-620(xP58)>FGC6069 was found in Liarsangbon. Without much doubt of local origin. Another undefined J2a was also uncovered from that site in Parthian empire period.

Genome wide Achaemenid period samples from Marsin Chai were grosso modo looking similar to Bronze Age samples from the same region (TepeHissar, Shahtepe) nevertheless they are not identical.

Looking closer on the PCA it's clear that they are slightly more "northern" shifted. And in some cases slightly "western" shifted. The slight western shift could be of local origin but could be also from Sintashta/Andronovo cultures in Central Asia that had substantial Anatolian Farmer related ancestry.

Despite this no R1a was found from those ancient Iranian remains, only J2b2a2. This can mean that R1a was low but also can be due to sampling issue. Given that many samples were relatives and had the same Y DNA.

Overall those ancient Parthians/Medes have quite high Zagros/Iran Neolithic ancestry with low EHG/ANE. Also they have some South Asian related Onge/Andaman island Hunter Gatherer ancestry.

They are different from Urmia basin Iron Age samples which are more western and who plot close to antique era samples from Armenia. This difference can be due to geography but can be also related to different ethnic background. Ancient Medes samples from core Media are needed to understand this difference.

Returning to the R1a issue it must be noted that the R1a appear both in Armenia and Georgia at Achaemenid period. Even more interesting samples from Meskhetia region in Georgia yielded surprising results. Out of seven Y DNA from Sassanian period Meskhetia here were 2 cases of R1a and 2 cases of Q2 which almost certainly was introduced there by western Iranians. Another J1-P58>Z1853 from Meskhetia was also of non local origin. All this show that western Iranians must have more diverse Y DNA pool and more sampling is needed to understand their diversity.