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.

Ghalichi et al. (2024) and the Indo-European Question

Ghalichi et al. (2024) and the Indo-European Question

A new paper by Ghalichi et al. (2024), which includes more than 100 ancient DNA samples, provides additional details about the interactions between Eastern European populations and West Asian populations across the Caucasus.

One particularly interesting result is a Mesolithic sample from the North Caucasus (Satanae Cave, SJG001), dated to around 6100 BCE. This individual shows a genetic profile almost identical to other Eastern European hunter-gatherers (EHG). The sample carried haplogroup R1a, although from a minor branch different from R1a-M417, the lineage later associated with many Indo-European expansions.

This finding suggests that the Yamnaya genetic profile did not exist from very ancient times, but instead formed after 6000 BCE. The Yamnaya population contains ancestry from both EHG and populations south of the Caucasus.

Formation of the Steppe Genetic Profile

The development of what is now known as the Steppe genetic profile appears to have been connected to the emergence of early farming cultures in the South Caucasus.

The Shulaveri–Aratashen–Shomutepe (SAS) culture began no later than 6200 BCE. From this period onward, farming populations mixed with Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) and began to expand northward into the Caucasus steppe zone.

A new case of J2b2a-L283 has now been identified in the steppe zone of the North Caucasus (sample ZO1002, see map). This individual dates to 3800 BCE, making it older than both the Maykop and Kura–Araxes cultures. The sample already shows some EHG admixture, suggesting that it may represent a lineage descended from Shulaveri-related farmers who were attempting to settle in the steppe.

Later, this haplogroup would appear as a rare lineage within Yamnaya populations, before expanding significantly in the Balkans.

Predominance of Local Steppe Lineages

Despite these connections with populations south of the Caucasus, the most common Y-DNA lineages among Eneolithic steppe pastoralists remained those of local Eastern European origin, especially R1 and I2.

Additional examples include:

• a Nalchik farmer carrying R1b-V1636

• one of the oldest known R1b-M269 samples (KST001) from Konstantinovka, dated to around 3800 BCE

Two Key Questions

These findings raise two important questions:

1. Why do Eneolithic steppe groups and Yamnaya populations contain so few J haplogroups, despite their significant West Asian / Caucasus autosomal ancestry?

2. Which population spoke Proto-Indo-Anatolian—the Shulaveri farmers or the EHG-associated R1 populations?

Autosomal–Y-DNA Mismatch

Before addressing the first question, it is important to note that this mismatch between autosomal ancestry and Y-DNA lineages is not unique to Eastern Europe.

A similar pattern occurred in Western Europe. After the initial spread of G2 haplogroups with early Neolithic farmers, there was later a strong resurgence of the local I2 lineage. For example, in the British Isles, early farming populations sometimes show 100% I2 Y-DNA, even though their autosomal ancestry was about 70% derived from Anatolian farmers.

Possible Explanations

Several explanations have been proposed for this phenomenon.

One possibility involves social structure. Neolithic farming societies of West Asia may have had more egalitarian or even matrilineal social systems. A recent study of Çatalhöyük suggested evidence for matrilineal organization.

In contrast, Eastern European hunter-gatherer societies may have been more patriarchal. When societies with different social systems interact, this can affect uniparental markers differently: the Y-DNA of one group may dominate, while the mtDNA of the other group persists.

Another explanation sometimes proposed in popular discussions is mass killing of males during conflicts. However, this interpretation does not easily explain historical cases such as the Scythians, Saka, and Turkic tribes. These groups had strongly militarized cultures and often engaged in violent conflicts, yet they maintained very diverse Y-DNA lineages.

This suggests that warfare alone does not necessarily produce a single dominant haplogroup, since the outcomes of clan conflicts are often highly unpredictable.

When early farmers moved north of the Caucasus, they were likely the technologically more advanced population. It would be unlikely that they consistently lost every conflict without ever expanding their own lineages. Therefore, warfare and mass killing alone cannot explain the observed genetic patterns.

Other explanations may exist, but the social-structure hypothesis is one possible mechanism.

Linguistic Implications

The linguistic implications of these findings—particularly regarding the origins of Proto-Indo-Anatolian—will be discussed in a separate topic.

On the Early Names of Van

On the Early Names of Van

According to the 12th-century historian Vardan Areveltsi, the original name of the city of Van was Yervandavan. Historically, however, the earliest attested name of the city was Tushpa, likely pronounced Tosp. This name later became associated with the surrounding Tosp canton, where the city of Van is located.

Interestingly, Greek and Roman sources do not clearly mention the name “Van,” whereas the form Tosp is well documented.

Vardan’s claim may nevertheless have a rational basis. A nearby canton was known as Yervandunik’ (“the land of the Yervanduni”), a name that also appears in the Araratian plain, representing hereditary lands of the Yervanduni dynasty. Tosp may therefore have become the capital of this dynasty, possibly leading to the emergence of a new name associated with it.

After the decline of the Yervanduni, the city’s name may have evolved from the local Biaina term—likely pronounced Vayn—which eventually developed into the modern name Van.

Tosp served as the royal city of the Biaina dynasty (a term used by Grekyan), better known as the ruling dynasty of Urartu. Based on royal names, the Yervanduni and Biaina dynasties appear to have been distinct groups.

At some point, a shift of power from the Biaina dynasty to the Yervanduni dynasty seems to have occurred. However, the details of this transition remain unclear due to the lack of historical records.

Future archaeological research and paleogenetic studies in Tosp/Van may help clarify this dynastic transition—one that is often mistakenly interpreted as a simple shift from Urartu to Armenia.

Preliminary Remarks on New Ancient DNA from the Caucasus

Preliminary Remarks on New Ancient DNA from the Caucasus

While we are waiting for the publication of a new ancient DNA paper about the Caucasus, which will reportedly include more than 100 samples, some preliminary remarks can already be made.

All six Y-DNA samples from the site of Guinchi in Dagestan (Shamil region) belong to haplogroup J1. Some of the higher-quality samples fall within the BY100 branch, which is common today among Northeastern Caucasian populations.

These individuals appear to date to the Kura–Araxes cultural period. They show a moderate level of steppe ancestry, which they most likely inherited from the preceding Chalcolithic populations.

This finding further strengthens the theory that Nakh–Dagestanian speakers descend from populations associated with the Kura–Araxes culture, which expanded into the northeastern Caucasus after around 3500 BCE. At this point, the hypothesis is increasingly supported by genetic data.

From a linguistic perspective, the estimated age of Proto–Northeast Caucasian (Proto-NEC) is roughly consistent with this timeframe. The presence of moderate steppe ancestry in these early populations also helps explain why modern Dagestani groups possess steppe ancestry today—they inherited it already during the Early Bronze Age.

However, modern Dagestani populations have approximately twice the level of steppe ancestry compared to the Early Bronze Age individuals. This suggests that additional steppe ancestry was introduced later. A likely candidate is the Catacomb culture, which expanded toward the South Caucasus after about 2500 BCE. Later Iranian and Turkic nomadic incursions into the region probably also contributed to this additional steppe component.

Despite this progress, several questions remain unresolved.

The Nakh branch appears to have less steppe ancestry than other Dagestani groups and is predominantly associated with haplogroup J2. This may indicate that the Nakh region experienced an additional genetic influx from the south, plausibly introducing these J2 lineages.

The origins of the Lezgin branch also remain uncertain. It is still unclear whether they migrated from the north to the south or whether they descend directly from Kura–Araxes populations that remained on the southern slopes of the Greater Caucasus.

We can now say with considerable confidence that the Udi people, although linguistically related to the Lezgin branch, are genetic outliers within the Northeast Caucasian family. They possess a much higher proportion of Armenian Highlands–related farmer ancestry, which they most likely acquired through gene flow from Armenians, especially given their shared Christian faith and historical proximity.

Finally, despite the strong connection between Northeast Caucasian speakers and the Kura–Araxes horizon, there is no evidence that the entire Kura–Araxes cultural sphere spoke NEC-related languages.

Assyrian References to the Muški

Assyrian References to the Muški

Below is a list of Assyrian cuneiform texts in which the term Muški is mentioned. The earliest reference dates to the first quarter of the 12th century BCE.

The last king of the Hittite Empire, Šuppiluliuma II, ascended the throne around 1207 BCE. This leaves virtually no chronological window for the Muški to have migrated from the Balkans, crossed the entirety of Anatolia, and reached the Alzi region (near modern Sasun) before being recorded by the Assyrians.

Even if one were to ignore this chronological constraint, such a rapid, long-distance migration would be highly implausible from both economic and political perspectives.

In conclusion, even without ancient DNA evidence, the theory that the Muški originated in the Balkans was already difficult to sustain. With the advent of archaeogenetics, this hypothesis has become even less tenable.

The source Karen Radner's review

Remarks on the Origins of Homo sapiens

Remarks on the Origins of Homo sapiens

The topic of human origins is not directly related to the main subject of our group. Nevertheless, a few remarks may help in understanding the broader picture.

Ancient DNA research has confirmed that modern humans (Homo sapiens) were closely related to Neanderthals. They can be considered sister species (or subspecies) that ultimately descend from the same common ancestor, Homo erectus. Geneticists have also identified another related group known as the Denisovans. We learned about Denisovans mainly through ancient DNA studies, since the few fossil remains alone were insufficient for clear classification.

One of the most surprising results of genetic research is that modern Africans have virtually no Neanderthal or Denisovan ancestry, whereas modern Eurasians do. Any such ancestry found in Africa today appears to be the result of recent back-migration from Eurasia.

This observation complicates the traditional narrative of human origins. Fossil evidence shows that Homo erectus was already present in Eurasia about two million years ago, as demonstrated by discoveries at Dmanisi archaeological site. Therefore, it is theoretically possible that the three later human groups—modern humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans—developed in Eurasia from intermediate populations such as Homo heidelbergensis.

Despite this possibility, the phylogenetic trees of Y-DNA and mitochondrial DNA still strongly support an African origin for modern humans. The most basal haplogroups, A and B, are found exclusively in Africa.

The geneticist David Reich discusses these apparent contradictions in his book Who We Are and How We Got Here as well as in various interviews.

Overall, it seems increasingly likely that human origins were more complex than the simple “Out of Africa” model suggests. One possible scenario is that early human populations may have had deep roots in Eurasia, later moved into Africa around 400–500 thousand years ago, and then re-expanded out of Africa about 100 thousand years ago.

This complexity is one reason why caution is needed when discussing the origins of very old and widespread haplogroups, such as haplogroup E.

Further research—especially additional ancient DNA samples—will be necessary to clarify these questions.

The haplogroup G

 The haplogroup G is the third most frequent in Armenia after R1b and J2.

G was prominent in early Neolithic farmers, especially in those that moved to Europe. Despite its popularity in West Caucasus Rootsie 2012 analyzed the modern diversity of G and made this conclusion about its homeland.

..by evaluating 1472 haplogroup G chromosomes belonging to 98 populations ranging from Europe to Pakistan. Although no basal G-M201* chromosomes were detected in our data set, the homeland of this haplogroup has been estimated to be somewhere nearby eastern Anatolia, Armenia or western Iran, the only areas characterized by the co-presence of deep basal branches as well as the occurrence of high sub-haplogroup diversity. ...

In the last decade ancient DNA supported this homeland theory with a slight shift to more southern regions toward Fertile Crescent.

Three branches are frequent in Armenia.

• G2a2b-M406 more than 3.5%
• G2a2b-P303 around 3%
• G2a2a-PF3147 around 2.5%
  

Other branches are less frequent.

• G2a1
• G1 prominent in Hamshen Armenians
• G2b - The genetic history 
• Over time there will be reviews about those branches.