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.
• 
  

Remarks on Skourtanioti 2024 paper on the Genetic History of South Caucasus

Elamites

Amjadi et al. (2025) published ancient DNA from the Chalcolithic period in the South Zagros, dated to around 4600 BC. The sample comes from the Gol Afshan Tepe site and is associated with the Bakun period, which immediately precedes the so-called Lapui period (4100–3500 BC), often linked to the Proto-Elamites.

Assuming there was no major population shift between the Bakun and Lapui periods, we can reasonably suggest that the Proto-Elamite language developed among populations with a strong Zagros/Iran Neolithic genetic component. This is supported by autosomal data, as well as the presence of Y-DNA haplogroup R2, which was common among ancient Zagros farmers and today is found mostly in South Asia and parts of West Asia (for example, among some Armenians from Sasun).

The Elamite civilization flourished in the southwest of the Iranian plateau. The Elamite language was widely used as an administrative language in the Achaemenid Empire. The Persians referred to the region as Hujiya > Khuzi, from which the modern name Khuzestan derives. Interestingly, Elamite may have survived into the medieval period—Arab sources mention an incomprehensible “Khuzi” language distinct from Persian in that region.

There is even a linguistic echo in Armenian: the word khuzhan (խուժան), meaning “hooligan” or “wild person,” is derived from that regional name.

---

Possible implications

If future research confirms a strong link between Elamites and Zagros Neolithic populations, several important conclusions may follow:

• Sumerian is likely unrelated to Elamite, suggesting it originated from a different population, often referred to as “Central farmers,” rather than Zagros farmers.
• Northern Iran had a different genetic trajectory.
  A Chalcolithic sample from the Urmia basin (Hajji Firuz) is shifted toward western populations and clusters closer to Central farmers. This suggests eastern migrations diluted Zagros ancestry in northern Iran, where other groups—such as the Kassites—later appeared. Kassites are not clearly linked to Elamites, though connections with Hurrians have been proposed.
• Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis gains some support.
  The idea that Elamite is related to Dravidian languages is still debated, but a Zagros Neolithic origin could strengthen this theory. That said, Dravidian populations also carry strong South Asian-specific ancestry (including Andaman-related hunter-gatherers).
• Language vs. population mismatch in empires.
  The widespread administrative use of Elamite in the Achaemenid Empire shows that a language’s presence in inscriptions does not necessarily reflect the dominant spoken language of a region.
  This is relevant for understanding Urartian (Biainili) as well: inscriptions alone don’t prove linguistic dominance. For example, Elamite inscriptions have been found in Armavir (Armenia), yet that doesn’t imply Elamite-speaking populations lived there in large numbers.

See also

• Ancient Kartvelians and the Formation of Iberia