A multidisciplinary approach for elucidating Mushki origin

A scientific article by Aram Palyan and Seb Peltkyan about the ancient people known as the Mushki, who probably had a Proto-/Para-Armenian origin.

In this article, the authors use a multidisciplinary approach to the question of the origin of the Mushki, relying, among other things, on paleogenetic data. Soviet researchers had already associated the Mushki with the Proto-Armenians. Thus, Igor Mikhailovich Diakonoff considered them Proto-Armenians who had migrated from the Balkans. This was based largely on the fact that later Assyrian sources used the name Mushki for the Phrygians as well, which gave rise to the theory that they had migrated from the Balkans through Anatolia toward the Armenian Highlands. However, the Mushki are first mentioned by the Assyrians farther east, precisely in the Armenian Highlands. Modern evidence instead supports a migration of the Mushki from the east — that is, from the Armenian Highlands toward Anatolia — where they apparently carried their ethnonym with them, which was later used by the Assyrians to designate the Phrygians.

The main arguments of the paper:

• The homeland of the Mushki was at the headwaters of the Euphrates during the Bronze Age. Their actual endonym was most likely *mosk'.

• Beginning around 1200 BCE, they migrated southward and southwestward, where they came into contact with the Assyrians and possibly with the post-Hittite kingdoms.

• Since the Phrygians are closest to the Greeks and unquestionably originated in the Balkans, the Mushki could not originally have been Phrygians, although by the 8th century BCE the term Mushki referred to the country of Phrygia.

• The reasons why the term Mushki became a name for the Phrygians are unknown, but there are many examples in history of such transfers of names, including France, Bulgaria, Palestine, etc.

• The Paleo-Balkan term musk, meaning “mule,” was most likely derived from the name of the Mushki. Both archaeological and paleogenetic evidence suggest that mules began to be bred in Anatolia and from there spread into Europe.

• The term Mushki has no clear etymology, but a number of strong arguments suggest that -k' is a suffix. Tribes and toponyms/onomastic forms with such a suffix are attested around the headwaters of the Euphrates and in northern Anatolia.

• The ethnic identity of the Mushki remains unclear. However, the presence of this suffix, together with the fact that during the Iron Age the genetic marker of the Trialeti-Vanadzor culture (I2a2b) migrated westward, supports the possibility that the Mushki may have been an Armenian tribe, although not Proto-Armenian in the sense previously proposed. A connection with the Kaskians, who inhabited northern Anatolia, is also possible.

• The migration of the Mushki and other tribes also left an archaeological trace in the form of grooved pottery (Grooved Ware, c. 1200 BCE).

• A Kartvelian origin is unlikely. However, the Georgian terms Mtskhe and Mtskheta (Samtskhe) may derive from the name of the Mushki. Genetic traces of a migration of the Mushki from the headwaters of the Euphrates northward into present-day Samtskhe in Georgia also do not support the Georgian hypothesis.

• The transition from mosk > mc'xe occurred in two stages and was probably completed by the 5th century CE. First there was the transition mosk' > moc', followed by the addition of the suffix -x. The Byzantine term Mesch is the Greek designation for the Georgian mc'xe.

• Ultimately, the Mushki (Greek Moschoi) ceased to exist as a distinct ethnic group with its own identity and were assimilated among Armenians, Georgians, and Cappadocians, where they left their mark in the form of mythical founding fathers.

Text from the Armenian DNA Telegram channel.

The original paper: An Examination of the Muški Tribe: A Multidisciplinary Approach Including Paleogenomics.

The King Pharnavaz (Փառնավազ)

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

In Movses Khorenatsi’s history, the first crowned king of Armenia (after Assyrian rule) was Paruyr Skayordi. He was an ally of the Medes and, according to Khorenatsi, participated in the destruction of the Assyrian Empire. However, the historian Sebeos reports a different story about the same period [1]. He mentions a certain Pharnavaz who was loyal to the Babylonians and was recognized by Babylon as king of Armenia. Afterward, this Pharnavaz and his descendants controlled lands in the southwestern regions of historical Armenia (Ałdznikʿ and Tsopkʿ).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

[1] Tsakanyan, R., The Versions of Khorenatsi and Sebeos on the Fall of Assyria, VEM, 2017, № 4(60), pp. 230-239, in Arm.

See also

• A tribe Parnaki is attested in Iron Age Assyrian texts

Genetic history of H2-P96

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

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

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

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

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

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

New ancient DNA from Greece.

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

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

==========

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

An open thread about Bronze Age Anatolian Y DNA

An open thread about Bronze Age Anatolian Y-DNA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be continued.

An unusual branch of E1b-M123 from ancient Aghitu

An unusual branch of E1b-M123 from ancient Aghitu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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