A Broader View of Eurasian Genetic History

A Broader View of Eurasian Genetic History

This group is dedicated to Armenians, but since many topics discussed here are indirectly related to Indo-European (IE) and therefore to Armenian origins, it is useful to take a broader view of Eurasian genetic history. Another reason to discuss East Asian genetics is that two of Armenia’s neighboring countries speak Turkic languages, whose origins lie in that region.

After the initial spread of modern humans across Eurasia around 45,000 years ago, populations gradually divided into two broad groups:

• East Eurasians, living east of the Himalayan region

• West Eurasians

Initially, these populations were genetically quite similar, as confirmed by ancient DNA studies. However, after the Last Glacial Maximum (around 20,000 years ago), a new and more genetically drifted population formed in East Asia, associated with what is historically described as the Mongoloid phenotype. This development occurred primarily through local evolution and genetic drift, rather than large-scale migration.

Today these populations are often described as belonging to the Mongoloid anthropological group, while West Eurasians are traditionally described as Caucasoid (Europoid).

Origins of East Asian Ancestry

East Asian ancestry likely formed in the region of northern China and the Amur basin. The main Y-DNA haplogroups associated with these populations include:

• N

• O

• C2

(See the attached maps.)

Another important lineage is haplogroup Q, which existed in Paleolithic Siberia and had West Eurasian origins. This lineage was associated with the population known as Ancient North Eurasians (ANE), a genetic group that no longer exists in its original form today.

Formation of Native American Populations

Native Americans (Amerindians) formed through a mixture of ANE populations and early East Asian populations in the Far East. Despite this mixture, their dominant Y-DNA lineage remained the western-derived haplogroup Q1. These populations entered the Americas approximately 15,000 years ago.

Expansions from East Asia

At various points, several technological and cultural innovations gave East Asian populations significant demographic advantages.

One notable example is pottery production. Some of the earliest known pottery comes from the Amur region and northern China, dated to roughly 12,000–18,000 years ago.

Later expansions were associated with particular Y-DNA lineages:

• Around 7,000–8,000 years ago, haplogroup N spread from Mongolia into Siberia, initiating a major migration that eventually reached northern Europe and Finland. Today, haplogroup N is most common among Uralic-speaking populations, whose homeland likely lay east of the Ural Mountains. Some Turkic-speaking groups also carry this lineage, though generally at lower frequencies.

• The expansion of haplogroup O is closely associated with the development of agriculture in China, including both rice farming in southern China and millet farming in northern China. These farming populations expanded southward, largely replacing earlier populations related to Australo-Melanesian groups such as the Onge, Papuans, and Australian Aboriginal peoples.

• Finally, haplogroup C2, originally restricted to the Amur region, expanded dramatically during the historical period, especially in connection with Mongolic and Tungusic-speaking populations, including the Evenks.

Linguistic Families Expanding from East Eurasia

Several major linguistic families originated in East Eurasia and spread both languages and genetic ancestry across large parts of the world. The autosomal impact of these expansions can be seen in the fourth map. Although such maps may slightly exaggerate the extent of these influences, they provide a general impression of the scale of these demographic movements.

The main language families involved include:

• Uralic

• Turkic

• Mongolic

• Tungusic (Evenk)

• Sino-Tibetan (whose most famous representative is Chinese)

• Austroasiatic, which expanded as far as India

• Austronesian, which spread from Madagascar across Indonesia to Easter Island in the Pacific

I will dedicate separate threads to some of these linguistic families that are particularly relevant to Armenian history.

Steppe Eneolithic and the Origins of Yamnaya Ancestry

Steppe Eneolithic and the Origins of Yamnaya Ancestry

In 2019, Wang et al. published three ancient DNA samples from the northern Caucasus foothill steppe region. These samples were labeled Steppe Eneolithic. In genetic studies, the term “Steppe” is usually used to describe DNA profiles related or similar to the Yamnaya genetic profile.

These Steppe Eneolithic samples were remarkable because they already displayed a genetic profile similar to Yamnaya, while being older than the Yamnaya culture itself. At the time, however, they did not receive the attention they deserved, largely because they were not associated with a well-known archaeological culture.

In 2024, Lazaridis et al. proposed a new term for this population: the Caucasus–Lower Volga (CLV) cline, and added additional samples with similar genetic profiles. Genetic modeling showed that Yamnaya populations derived most of their genome-wide ancestry from these CLV groups.

Despite this important progress, two crucial Y-DNA markers were still not securely linked to the CLV population: R1b-M269 and R1a-M417, the two major lineages that later expanded widely across Eurasia and are often associated with the spread of Indo-European languages.

New Evidence

The study by Ghalichi et al. (2024) helped fill this gap. Two new cases of R1b-M269 were discovered north of the Caucasus, predating the Yamnaya culture. These individuals had ancestry similar to other Steppe Eneolithic groups and were dated to approximately 3800 BCE.

It is worth noting that an older R1b-M269 sample (I33307) from Kalmykia, dated to around 3700 BCE, had already been reported. However, its genetic profile is identical to Core Yamnaya, which raises the possibility that the radiocarbon date may be somewhat inaccurate. In Lazaridis et al., this sample was classified as part of the Russia_CaspianInland_EBA_Yamnaya group, which is why it is not included in the list of Steppe Eneolithic Y-DNA samples (4700–3000 BCE).
(See the map for the geographic area.)

Steppe Eneolithic Y-DNA Distribution (4700–3000 BCE)

• R1b-V1636 — 9 samples

• R1b-M269 — 2 samples

• R1a — 1 sample

• I2-L699 — 1 sample

• J2a — 1 sample

• J2b2a — 1 sample

Another possible early R1b-M269 case (around 4500 BCE) was discovered in a Varna culture burial in Bulgaria. Its autosomal profile clearly shows Steppe Eneolithic–related ancestry, indicating that it was not related to local Neolithic farmers but rather represents a migrant from the Caucasus–Lower Volga region.

The Varna culture itself was unusual, characterized by a highly hierarchical social structure. Its graves contained large quantities of gold artifacts, among the earliest known examples of gold metallurgy.

The Role of J2b2a-L283

Another important finding in the Steppe Eneolithic context is J2b2a-L283. Its autosomal profile shows a stronger Caucasus-related component, which is understandable. Nevertheless, it clearly belonged to the emerging Eneolithic kurgan populations, from which both the Yamnaya culture and the Corded Ware culture would develop several centuries later.

The Question of R1a-M417

So far, R1a-M417 has not yet been identified in the Steppe Eneolithic / CLV context. However, one of the oldest R1a-M198 samples (closely related to M417) was found in the Middle Volga region, suggesting that M417 may eventually be discovered within the CLV or Steppe Eneolithic populations as well. Currently, one of the oldest known R1a-M417 individuals comes from a Yamnaya layer in the Balkans.

Implications for Yamnaya Origins

Based on these findings, I remain skeptical of the hypothesis that Yamnaya originated directly from the Sredny Stog culture in Ukraine, as sometimes suggested in discussions.

The highest diversity of R1b-Z2103 lineages that are positive for Z2103 but negative for Z2106 is found in the Near East, suggesting that the region where Z2103 began its expansion was likely close to the Caucasus. Additional ancient DNA samples will hopefully clarify this question in the future.

Note

The Eneolithic Y-DNA list above does not include samples from Steppe Maykop, which have a different origin related to Central Asian ancestry.

In addition, one R1b-V1636 sample is dated to around 2800 BCE, slightly later than the 3000 BCE cutoff used here. However, its autosomal profile indicates that it belonged to the preceding Steppe Eneolithic population, rather than to Core Yamnaya.

See also

• Qpadm models about the Core Yamnaya origins.
• The Yamnaya culture and it's legacy.

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.
• 
  

Shulaveri-Aratashen-Shomutepe (SAS) culture. 7000/6200-5300BC.

 Shulaveri-Aratashen-Shomutepe (SAS) culture. 7000/6200-5300BC.

We have five good quality new samples from Shulaveri (SAS) culture in Georgia (Aruchlo). They had YDNA H2, J2a1a and R. This latter is from the R2 haplogroup according Genarchivist activists.

On the PCA three of five farmers plot close to related Neolithic samples from Armenia and Azerbaijan while modern people close them are the Armenians in G25. It's now obvious that this was the main genetic profile in SAS/Shulaveri culture. Those were the first farmers in South Caucasus and their ancestry was largely derived from central regions of Fertile Crescent hence the reason that occasionally we call them Central farmers. Ghalichi 2024 used also the term East Anatolian farmers. Given some archaeological data from Van region we can assume that most of historic Armenia (except probably the most western and southwestern regions) was inhabited by this type of farmers.

Besides this "Central"/"Armenian like" type there were also farmers with higher CHG ratio. First we have seen them in Aknashen from Armenia. Now we have another similar CHG shifted sample from Georgia plotting close to modern Georgians. It's not exactly identic to Aknashen but rather plots close to Darkveti-Meshoko ( labeled as Caucasus Eneolithic ) raising the possibility that Darkveti-Meshoko culture formed as a mixture of Shulaveri and CHG. The Darkveti culture is remarkable because genome wide it's genetic profile looks a good candidate for being Pre-Proto-Kartvelian. High CHG and very low Steppe. But the absence of G2a1a there and scant sampling from west Caucasus makes those suggestions still speculative.

Another sample from Aruchlo/Georgia plots close to CHG hunters. The ARO006 with YDNA R2. Making it a hunter who learned farming without having any significant admixture from those farmers. The presence of such hunter related genetic profile in Shulaveri culture means that there were at last two different languages in SAS. One derived from the first farmers and another derived from the hunters who learned farming. It's remarkable that archaeology supports this dualistic nature of Shulaveri culture. Two different potteries were made in Shulaveri. One of them was Chaff-tempered. The other one was Grit-tempered. Chaff-tempered was almost certainly made by the first farmers who came from southern regions of historic Armenia. While the Grit-tempered was made by groups derived from the local hunters.

It's interesting that both pottery traditions continued in ancient South Caucasus and historic Armenia after the Neolithic period. Grit-tempered was prominent in Sioni (also found in Adablur and Guinchi) culture which evolved in Early and Middle Chalcolithic (5300-4300BC). . We can conjecture that they were CHG shifted. Offcourse this is a just a prediction based on archaeology which can be wrong, given that currently there are no samples from this period. While Chaff-tempered pottery became prominent in Late Chalcolithic period (4300-3600BC). The Late Chalcolithic period DNA both from Armenia and Azerbaijan shows that they were mostly derived from the first Neolithic farmers having some extra new admixtures.

And finally we can now say with high degree of certitude that the CHG shifted genetic profile of Kura-Araxes culture (3600-2400BC) had local origins. When farmers settled all over Kur and Arax river valleys the forest-mountain zone between those two valleys also known as Lesser Caucasus became a sort of refugium where they preserved the initial hunter gatherer ancestry in higher proportion. This is the reason why the oldest radiocarbon dated Kura-Araxes sites are found in north Armenia (Gegharot) and south Georgia.

But this is not the whole story. Apparently Kura-Araxes also had two potteries and genetic profiles. Which could mean that for at last 4000 years two genetic profiles were competing in South Caucasus starting from the Neolithic period till the end of Early Bronze Age.

PS. There was in reality six samples from Aruchlo. But one of them has so little coverage that it was not included in the calculations.

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.