J2-Z6065 in the Armenian Highlands

J2-Z6065 in the Armenian Highlands

J2-Z6065 is the third most frequent branch of J2a in Armenia, after M67 and L25. Its initial homeland was almost certainly located in historic Armenia.

At present, the oldest known Z6065 sample comes from the Neolithic site of Masis Blur in Armenia. Notably, this lineage is absent among early Anatolian and European farmers and is rare or missing in ancient Minoan populations, suggesting that Z6065 had a slightly more eastern origin compared to related branches such as M67 and M319, with which it shares a common ancestor.

J2-Z6065 has two major sub-branches:

---

1. Y13341 / FGC15782

Like many lineages that formed in the Armenian Highlands, Z6065 appears to have expanded during the Chalcolithic period, moving westward into Anatolia. It has been identified at sites such as Ilipinar in Anatolia and Dinkha Tepe in the Urmia basin.

However, its most significant expansion occurred during the Middle Bronze Age (around 4300 years ago).

• The subclade Z6065 > YP879 was likely associated with the Van–Urmia cultural sphere and expanded alongside it, as well as with the related Karmir Berd culture.
• This lineage has been identified in the Urartian city of Sardurihinili and in Late Bronze Age Keti (modern Armenia).

Today, YP879 accounts for approximately 2.5% of the Y-DNA among modern Armenians.

---

2. Y7687

This sub-branch likely followed a broadly similar early trajectory but diverged through different historical processes.

• The subclade Z43661 is most likely associated with Bronze Age Anatolia, and there is a strong possibility that it represents a Hittite–Luwian–related lineage.
• Ancient DNA evidence from the Bronze Age site of Ovaören supports this hypothesis.

Today, this branch is well represented in both Turkey and Armenia.

A distinct lineage within this branch, M47, shows a very different geographic distribution, being most prevalent among Gulf Arab and Iranian populations.

• M47 expanded during the Bronze Age, but also shows evidence of later expansions.
• The historical context of these expansions remains unclear due to the lack of ancient DNA.
• One possible hypothesis is that M47 was initially associated with the Kassites, and later became integrated into Iranian and Semitic populations.

---

Conclusion

Overall, J2-Z6065 appears to be a lineage deeply rooted in the Armenian Highlands, with multiple expansion phases:

• Chalcolithic dispersals toward Anatolia and adjacent regions
• Middle Bronze Age expansions tied to local cultural complexes (e.g., Van–Urmia)
• Later regional developments, especially in Anatolia and the Near East

Further ancient DNA discoveries will be essential to clarify the full historical trajectory of its subclades.

Trialeti–Vanadzor Culture and Its Genetic Legacy in the South Caucasus

Trialeti–Vanadzor Culture and Its Genetic Legacy in the South Caucasus

The possible steppe connection and Indo-European affiliation of the Trialeti-Vanadzor culture have been discussed for a long time. However, its partial presence in regions that later became known as Iberia and Caucasian Albania made this interpretation difficult to accept.

Today, ancient DNA allows us to better understand past population shifts and helps resolve these apparent contradictions.

---

Y-DNA Patterns in Eastern Georgia

The first Y-DNA chart (based on Skourtanioti et al. 2024) excludes one sample from western Georgia.

During the Late Bronze Age–Early Iron Age (1500–800 BCE)—known in eastern Georgia as the Lchashen-Tsitelgori culture—the Y-DNA distribution closely resembles that of Armenia:

• A predominance of R1b and I2, lineages that expanded during the Middle Bronze Age with the Trialeti–Vanadzor horizon
• Two J2 samples from the Bazaleti site (north of Mtskheta), near the foothills of the Greater Caucasus

One of these J2 individuals shows low steppe ancestry, indicating the northern boundary of Trialeti–Vanadzor influence, consistent with the region’s lowland–highland geographic division.

A single G2a1 sample suggests that central Georgian Kura–Araxes-derived populations may have had a different Y-DNA structure compared to Kakhetian groups, which were predominantly J1.

---

Iron Age Transformations

In the Iron Age II (800–600 BCE), data are limited, with only one G2a1 sample available.

The Early Antiquity period (600–300 BCE)—coinciding with the rise of the Achaemenid Empire—shows a major shift:

• Appearance of R1a in both Armenia and Georgia
• Increased importance of G2a1 and J2 lineages (likely subclades of CTS900)

Unlike Armenia, which experienced a southward genetic shift, eastern Georgia likely underwent a different directional change, though current qpAdm models lack sufficient resolution to define it precisely.

---

The Bragdzor Family: Evidence of Migration

A key insight comes from a familial burial at Bragdzor.

Three individuals were closely related:

• The father and his brother shared Y-DNA (J2) and mtDNA (K1a4c)
• The father displayed autosomal DNA very different from local Lchashen populations

He had:

• High CHG (Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer ancestry)
• Virtually no steppe ancestry
• A profile similar to modern West Georgians

This indicates that he was a migrant, arriving in the region around 800 BCE.

This date coincides with the proposed linguistic separation of Kartvelian languages, including the divergence of Georgian and Zan, which typically occurs alongside geographic expansion.

Further evidence of migration:

• His son’s mother (likely his wife, buried in the same grave) was an Etiuni/Lchashen woman, suggesting incoming males without accompanying women

Despite this, the Bragdzor lineage did not leave a lasting genetic impact in northern Lori, as later samples show continuity with earlier populations.

---

Formation of Iberia and Kartvelian Expansion

In contrast, related groups did leave a strong impact in eastern Georgia, contributing to the formation of Proto-Iberia, later known as Iberia in the Hellenistic period.

Additional supporting samples:

• A G2a1 individual from Keti (~650 BCE)
• A Hellenistic-era individual from Samsun, likely linked to Zan populations

These individuals share:

• High CHG ancestry
• A clear distinction from Caucasian Albanian-related samples, which show more Zagros Neolithic ancestry and lower CHG

---

Conclusion

The steppe-derived populations that entered the South Caucasus around 2500 BCE (Trialeti–Vanadzor horizon) had a long-lasting genetic impact, visible until the Iron Age.

However, during the Iron Age:

• Mountain populations expanded into lowlands, contributing to the formation of Iberia and Caucasian Albania
• In historic Armenia, state formation under Urartu and the Orontid dynasty led to different genetic shifts
• The Achaemenid Empire likely also influenced population structure across the region

Due to the limited dataset, these interpretations remain provisional, and further ancient DNA evidence will be necessary for definitive conclusions.

See also

• The possible homeland of Kartvelian languages

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

Two different stories in Anatolia

After the Neolithic period migrations from east changed the genetic landscape of plain Anatolia. Those migrations were not an one time event but two major events dated to different periods. It must be noted that in the current state of archaeologic knowledge there are no Neolithic sites in northern Anatolia. Food producing appear there in the Chalcolithic period which starts after the 5800 BCE. See the dividing line on the map.

Currently we have two Early Chalcolithic samples from Hattusa (Buyukkaya) in the north and Tell Kurdu in the south (the green circles on the map). They are dated to the same period after the 5800 BCE yet they have different shifts to east. The northern sample has a strong shift to east close to the Late Chalcolithic samples from the same place (Camlibel Tarlasi). While the southern site (Tell Kurdu) has a very little shift. In my previous thread dedicated to Aintab history I showed that in southern Anatolia the main migration from the east occurred at Late Chalcolithic, thus more than 1500 years later than in the north. Given that that those two events have a different archaeologic background then it's safe to assume that they are related to different ethnic groups.

Based on the currently available data we can link the Late Chalcolithic migrations in the south to the Minoans and IE Anatolians. While the northern Early Chalcolithic migration can be associated with Hattic people. This theory is supported by the strong presence of G2-M406 in Hattusan sites. While the same M406 was absent or rare in the Crete and Minoan civilization sites.

It's worth to note that in western Caucasus and Georgia the Neolithic settlements appear roughly in the same period. We can assume that the same impulse that introduced the food producing to north Anatolia moved also to western Georgia were a peculiar Neolithic culture emerged, different from the Shulaveri-Aratashen related sites in Kur-Araxian basin. Later those western Georgian farmers moved to north triggering the emergence of mountainous pastoralist culture known as Darkveti-Meshoko (after 4500BCE). We have samples from this latter culture. They are from a subbranch of J2-M67>CTS900. What linguistic group is related to the introduction of food producing to the west Caucasus is a more complex subject, which will be discussed later

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.

Qpadm models about the Core Yamnaya origins.

We have one sample from north Caucasus PG2004 which is similar to so called BP group of Caucasus Lower Volga cline.

Modeling Yamnaya as a three-way mixture of CLV_BP, Aknashen and Ukraine Neolithic hunter gatherers was very easy, as in the paper.

BP group 66.5%

Aknashen 19.5%

UNHG. 14.0%

p value 0.17

It didn't require from me any extra effort to find the correct "settings" (outgroups). Adding western Ukraine Trypllia farmers didn't made the model better. Aknashen was still wanted while Trypllia not. I tried various ways to make Trypllia wanted, but it didn't work. Finally, I removed Aknashen and forced the model to rely solely in Trypllia. I got a p value lower than 0.05. So practically a failure. Nikitin 2024 dedicates a special chapter to this subject. Their conclusion is that Yamnaya probably do have some Trypllia but it's very low.

My conclusions are the same. Aknashen ancestry in Yamnaya is real. It is supported by Y DNA of preceding period, and I am sure that the scrupulous analysis of mtDNA will show the same result. Finally, if I had access to the Nalchik farmer data then the percentage would be twice higher.

Then I tried the same in G25 and here a surprise. The raw unscaled models behaved in the same manner as qpadm albeit with a different proportion. But the scaled G25 showed a clear a preference for Trypllia. I said in this group many times that tools and settings matters. And this an excellent example why the use of scaled models can lead to misleading results. I want to remind that scaled coordinates are artificially altered numbers.

Keeping this in mind let's see what means CLV-steppe ancestry in Bronze Age Anatolia that Lazaridis 2024 supposedly has found but Lazaridis 2022 didn't detected. I don't have Cayonu files to reproduce their models in qpadm but what we know from G25 behavior is that:

+ When Anatolia N and CHG are used in models as source they mask the steppe ancestry and show a lower number. This was done in Lazaridis 2022 which not only didn't find any steppe in BA Anatolia but even in Van Urartu.

+ When a Mesopotamian or Levantine and Iran Neo are used as sources and CHG and Anatolia_N are ommitted then this exaggerates the steppe ancestry in northwest Asia. In Lazaridis 2024 they used Cayonu Neolithic which was a north Mesopotamian population. This exaggerated the steppe ancestry in Bronze Age Anatolia where Hittite lived. If the same Cayonu was used for Minoans, they would find steppe even in Minoans and probably Alalakh Hurrians and Semites also. Which doesn't make sense. Uniparental markers do NOT support such high level of CLV-steppe ancestry in BA Anatolia. Quite contrary they speak about very low or virtual absence of it. Just one R1b-V1636 in the midst of more than dozen local haplotypes.

My conclusions are that based on this genetic data it is not possible to consider IE homeland issue fully solved. We are very close it. And the broad picture. But the exact details are not still there, and linguistics also can be helpful.

What is needed now is to have more than 50 Y DNA from Bronze Age Anatolia. Also, a large number of Y DNA is needed from South Caucasus and historic Armenia LC-EBA period to see what happened to those Late Chalcolithic migrants from north. How much they left an impact and why their autosomes were diluted after the Areni C. It is also important to have samples from LC kurganic burials like Aknalich and Soyuq Bulaq.

See also

• When the tools and settings matters. Part 1 and Part 2

The Kurgan builders.

The Caucasus Lower Volga cline (CLV) having both south Caucasian and Eastern European foragers ancestry is a genetic term. The material cultures behind this term were variable but they had one important common feature. Virtually all the samples from CLV cline were found from kurgans. Kurgan is an artificial mound, a tumulus on top of the grave. A kurgan could harbor a single or multiple graves. Given that it requires a lot of manpower it was usually built for elite persons. Smaller kurgans also existed. Other prominent features of kurganic burials in Pontic Caspian steppe were the red ochre, the raised knee position etc. The origins of this tradition are uncertain, and the dates of the oldest kurgans debated but what is well known now that it expanded with Eneolithic (is equal to Chalcolithic) pastoralists (4500-3500bc) who had the CLV ancestry, replacing older local hunter's flat grave tradition. Besides kurgans, we know that those people had a patrilocal and exogamic culture.

Kurganic people moved to north, toward middle Volga region and the Khvalynsk culture (after 4500bc) emerged there. In middle Volga region various branches of haplogroup Q1 were integrated into early steppe pastoralist communities. Q-L939 the branch of Georgian Bagrationi. Q-YP1669, probably Q-F26062 and some others to be found.

They also moved toward the Balkanian peninsula where they mixed with local European farmers where various kurganic cultures emerged (Cernavoda, Usatovo, Suvorovo). This migration has been proposed to be the source of Anatolian languages. Currently there is no evidence that they reached deep into Anatolia. Nevertheless it's possible that some obscure ethnicities like Mysians in Turkish Thrace and north west Anatolia were derived from those migrants. Although a later Yamnayan origin is also possible for them. Yamnayans themselves also had kurgans.

The new "finding" in Lazaridis 2024 paper is about the migration of those kurganic CLV people to south Caucasus. I use brackets because the presence of steppe ancestry in Areni cave was known since 2016. But only now it got an interpretation. This migration apparently occurred at 4300BC a period known as late Chalcolithic which is associated with Chaff faced ware. Chaff ware was not from steppe but had a local Neolithic origin. A syncretic culture emerged. A variant of which is known as Leila tepe culture in what is now Azerbaijan. We have already seen that those chaff groups moved to west toward Anatolia. The R1b-V1636 is associated with this event. We have now three cases of V1636 stretched from Aintab to Sevan basin.

The new proposal of Lazaridis is that they were the IE Anatolians and based on this they propose that the CLV is the place were Indo-Europeans emerged. This is the main difference of this paper from the Lazaridis 2022 in which they placed the homeland of PIE ( or Indo-Anatolians ) in south of Caucasus.

My next post will be about the Indo European origins based on the linguistics and how those known migrations fits into the great picture. Also I will discuss the real number of steppe ancestry in Bronze Age Anatolia and will show that the current data size is very small for having a good understanding of the situation.

** The first picture is a reconstruction of a kurgan .They are usually eroded over time. This one reconstructed. The second picture is the tumulus of Lydian king Alyattes. This is one of the largest known kurgans.