New Kura–Araxes Y-DNA Samples from Ghalichi et al. (2024)

New Kura–Araxes Y-DNA Samples from Ghalichi et al. (2024)

Ghalichi et al. (2024) published seven new Kura–Araxes (KA) ancient samples from Georgia, specifically from the Dzedzevbi site near Dmanisi, along with two additional samples from Velikent in Dagestan.

Because of low genomic coverage, it was not possible to determine the deep subclades of these samples. However, the available data suggest that two male individuals from Dzedzevbi belong to haplogroup J2b2, while another appears to belong to J1, most likely from the Z1842 branch. The Velikent sample is also J1.

Current Y-DNA Dataset from Kura–Araxes Layers

At present, we have 16 Y-DNA samples from confirmed Kura–Araxes contexts. Of these:

• 11 belong to J1-Z1842

Most of these J1 cases occur in regions geographically close to the eastern part of the Greater Caucasus range, including:

• Dagestan

• Kakheti

• Berkaber (Tavush)

• one case near Dmanisi

The strong predominance of J1 is almost certainly the result of a founder effect, since J1 appears to have been rare during earlier Neolithic periods.

Other Haplogroups in Kura–Araxes Contexts

When moving away from the eastern Caucasus regions, other haplogroups appear:

• R1b-V1636 — Sevan Basin

• G2b — Kaps, Shirak

• J2-M92 — Doghlauri, central Georgia

• J2b2 — Dzedzevbi (two cases)

According to analyses by Genarchivist researchers, one of the Dzedzevbi individuals belongs to J2b-FT3464, a minor branch found today in West Asia and Europe, while the other belongs to J2b2b-Z2453, an older lineage already present in Neolithic contexts such as the Shulaveri culture and Hajji Firuz Tepe.

Possible Interpretations

What can be inferred from this distribution?

As I have previously suggested, the J1 concentration in the northeastern regions of the Kura–Araxes horizon may be associated with North-East Caucasian (NEC)–speaking populations.

However, the entire Kura–Araxes horizon cannot have been NEC-speaking, because such a scenario would likely have left clear linguistic traces, which are not observed.

The rapid shift in Y-DNA composition when moving away from the eastern Caucasus strongly suggests that another ethnic group (or groups) was also present within the Kura–Araxes cultural sphere.

Possible Candidates

Two main possibilities are usually considered:

• Early Anatolian-speaking populations

• Hurro–Urartian-speaking populations

At present, the available dataset is still too small to establish clear connections between South Caucasus populations and the regions where Anatolian or Hurro–Urartian languages were later spoken (Anatolia, the Levant, and Mesopotamia).

Nevertheless, some patterns are already beginning to emerge.

See also

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

Ukraine Neolithic Hunter-Gatherer Ancestry in Yamnaya

Ukraine Neolithic Hunter-Gatherer Ancestry in Yamnaya

Lazaridis et al. (2024) discovered that Yamnaya populations contain a component of Ukraine Neolithic hunter-gatherer ancestry (UNHG). The term UNHG can be somewhat confusing, since in some archaeological traditions—especially in former Soviet scholarship—a hunter-gatherer community may be labeled “Neolithic” simply because it produced pottery, even if it did not practice farming.

Ghalichi et al. (2024) confirmed the presence of roughly 15% UNHG ancestry in Yamnaya populations. One example of a lineage associated with this component is I2-L699, which is regularly found in steppe populations and appears to derive from UNHG groups.

Importance for Armenian Ethnogenesis

The presence of I2 lineages in Yamnaya-related cultures is particularly relevant for discussions of Armenian ethnogenesis, given the presence of I2a2b in the Trialeti–Vanadzor culture.

Until recently, we had little additional information about this lineage. The closest European sample related to it was found in Eneolithic Croatia, with a common ancestor dated by FTDNA to around 8200 BCE. This age is sufficiently early for the lineage to have existed both among European farmers and UNHG populations.

A New Clue from the Steppe Eneolithic

Ghalichi et al. (2024) reported a new sample that may shed light on how I2a2b could have entered early Yamnaya communities as a rare lineage.

The study includes a female individual from the region near the Azov–Black Sea junction, labeled “Steppe Eneolithic outlier west” (KHB) and dated to around 4000 BCE near the Taman Peninsula. This individual shows a very high proportion of UNHG ancestry (about 43%), suggesting that the population may have migrated into the region from Ukraine.

Possible Scenario

If this outlier represents a regular population present in the region, it raises the possibility that I2a2b-Y16419 was also present there during the Eneolithic period. When Yamnaya and later Catacomb cultures formed, this lineage may have been incorporated into those populations as a minor component.

Later, it may have moved southward, eventually becoming part of populations associated with the Trialeti–Vanadzor culture, where it experienced a more significant expansion.

Future Research

To verify this hypothesis, additional ancient DNA samples will be necessary, particularly from:

• the Azov–Taman region, and

• southern Ukraine more broadly.

Such data may help clarify how UNHG-derived lineages became integrated into steppe populations and later appeared in the South Caucasus.

The J2 haplogroup has a complex structure.

The J2 haplogroup has a complex structure. For those who want to understand it better here is a tree made by Rozhansky more than 6 years ago. We have already four detailed topics related to each major subbranch. Top four of most popular J2 branches in Armenia.

• The history of J2-M67
• The history of J2-L25
• The genetic history of J2-Z6065
• The genetic history of J2b

Other interesting branches are the

• +Z6049 found in Caucasian hunters. Popular today in Caucasus. A review about one of its subclade.
• +PF5197 found in India, Iran and Gulf region. Also, in ancient Neolithic Armenia.
• +M319 Popular in ancient Crete in Minoans. But also, in Eneolithic steppe.

The populations from left to right are Nakh, Balkar, Ossetian, Georgian, Armenian.

Updated in 2024 July

Lernagog 1 - a new Neolithic site in Republic of Armenia near Talin.

New details are emerging about the Lernagog 1 site which was discovered in 2017 by an Armeno-Japanese team. Radiocarbon dates show that it is the oldest Neolithic site in South Caucasus and can be qualified as Early or Middle Neolithic (8-7th millennium BCE) Until the discovery of this site the advent of food producing in South Caucasus was mostly dated after 6200 BCE, known as Shulaveri- Aratashen- Shomutepe culture.

Tthe youngest hunter-gatherer date obtained in foragers cave (Kmlo 2) was 7400 BCE in Armenia. Thus, there was a hiatus of more than 1000 years between the end of the last forager and the start of farming and pastoralism. The Lernagog 1 site fills this hiatus. Research shows that they were making clay houses and were mostly pastoralists. No human bone is found yet

There are two possibilities. One is that Lernagog were local hunters who learned the pastoralism. If so, they would be closer to Aknashen sample. Another possibility is that they were migrants from Fertile Crescent "core area" (see the map). This latter scenario would mean that they were closer to Masis blur sample we have.

Ancient DNA from Republic of Armenia.

 Ancient DNA from Republic of Armenia.

The first table represents them by periods.

The second one by published papers.

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

Notes:

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

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

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

See also

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The word for horse in Hurrian

 The word for horse in Hurrian ešši / iššiya is strikingly close to Armenian word eš (genitive išoy ) meaning donkey. This resemblance becomes even more striking if we take into account the fact that Armenian word for donkey was initially meaning horse and derives from the PIE root *éḱwos. The shifts are regular and well attested for the Armenian. E.g. *ḱwón > šun meaning dog.

Many scholars noticed that the Hurrian word seems to be a loanword from a satem IE language. But few of them discussed the possibility of a loanword from the Armenian. In his paper about the word ešši 'horse' in Hurrian Vyacheslav Ivanov mentions that the closest form is the Armenian. He also criticizes Starostin's proposal that the word for horse in PIE is a loanword from North Caucasian. The phonetic shifts required from NC to PIE are far more unrealistic than the inverse. It's quite easy to demonstrate that most of the words for horse in North Caucasian languages are borrowings from Iranian languages. Starostin was also claiming that Armenians borrowed from the Hurrian and not the inverse.

Armen Petrosyan discuss this subject in his book about the Armenian Epic. He is inclined to believe that it's Hurrian who borrowed this word from the IE languages. More specifically the Armenian. He also discusses the possible etymology of Išuwa ( Ծոփք ) meaning land of horses. A land where a cult of equines persisted until medieval era.

Today we have DNA studies of ancient horse remains. And we can have better idea what theory is more likely. In the current stage of our knowledge, we know that horses were present in many parts of Eurasia. Including Anatolia and Armenian Highlands. But the currently existing domesticated horses descend from the one that was domesticated in Pontic-Caspian Steppe.

Guimaraes 2020 compares mtdna from ancient horse remains in Anatolia and South Caucasus before and after 2000BC. Their conclusion is that after 2000BC the mtdna diversity in Anatolia increases while the local mtdna lineages like P, O and X sharply drops or disappear. They conclude that numerous new horse lineages were introduced to West Asia via Caucasus at the end of third millennium BC. This fits well with the known human migrations from Catacomb culture to South Caucasus in the same period. This data strongly supports the idea that the word for horse in Hurrian is a loanword from Armenian. It must be noted that Catacomb migrants were not the only group that introduced new horse lineages. Around 1700BC a group known as Mitanni Aryans appear in West Asia and them also might have introduced both new genes and words. The word aššuwa ( aśva in Sanskrit) attested in cuneiform texts is one of them.

PS The mtdna Q in pre-2000BC South Caucasus was found in Kakhetia East Georgia dated around the 2500BC (not radiocarbon). It's remarkable because unlike P, O and X it's number increases after 2000BC. This can have two explanations. One version is that this sample Q was related to Early Transcaucasian Kurgan groups also known as Martqopi-Beden. It's age, it's Y dna (Y-HT-1) and the horse burial practice supports this version. But it is also possible that it was native to South Caucasus and became a successful because of hybridisation from a local lineage and those introduced from Steppe. Unfortunately, numerous Paleolithic equine horse remains from Armenia didn't have the necessary quality to learn their mtdna. Let's hope we will learn more about haplogroup Q in the future.

Those new ancient samples change the modeling of Armenians.

Those new ancient samples change the modeling of Armenians. Steppe ancestry increase and comes more closer to what is expected from the level of Z2103, I2c2 and other haplotypes.

Target: Armenian

Distance: 0.9251% / 0.00925141

50.2 TUR_Arslantepe_EBA

36.0 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C

10.0 RUS_Catacomb

3.8 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Talin

0.0 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En

0.0 TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA

No Steppe in Imeretia.

Target: Georgian_Imer

Distance: 2.2635% / 0.02263516

65.2 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En

16.0 TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA

9.2 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Talin

9.0 TUR_Arslantepe_EBA

0.6 RUS_Catacomb

0.0 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C