The administrative division of Achaemenid Persia is still a matter of debates.

The administrative division of Achaemenid Persia is still a matter of debate.

Most scholars agree that the satrapic system was hierarchical. There were main and minor satrapies, with the latter ruled by the former. In the Bisitun inscription, 23 lands are mentioned, which are usually assumed to represent the main satrapies during the reign of Darius. Herodotus’ list of 20 satrapies is an incomplete account of both main and minor satrapies, with a clear bias toward the western regions of the empire, while the eastern regions are very poorly represented.

Khorikyan discusses these questions, and based on his papers, I made a map of the main satrapy of Armenia mentioned in Bisitun and other sub-satrapies mentioned in Herodotus.

Saspeirs, Saspirs, or Sapirs, according to Herodotus, were located between Colchis and Media. For this reason, they have been placed in modern Armenia. However, if modern Azerbaijan was part of the main Median satrapy (map 3), then a location in eastern Georgia is also possible. Locating the Saspeirs in modern Armenia has no solid arguments. Neither in the Urartian period nor in the later Armenian period is there a single toponym that can be linked to Saspeir in modern Armenia. Meanwhile, such a toponym exists in Georgia: Iberia. Some scholars have proposed the theory that “sa-” is a Georgian prefix for land, as in Sakartvelo, and that the true root in Saspeirs/Sapirs is *speir or *pir, which may be the proto-form of Greek Iberia and Latin Hiberia.

From a genetic point of view, we know that Iberian-related ancestry had already formed in eastern Georgia in early antiquity. Therefore, some early Georgian polity must have existed there during the Achaemenid period. The Saspeirs could be the precursor of Iberia.

Matiene is another obscure tribe mentioned alongside the Saspeirs. Matiene existed in several places: in Anatolia and northwestern Iran. Khorikyan cites at least one Greek source in which Matiene is mentioned in a Caucasian context, and based on this, he places it in the headwaters of the Kura River.

From a genetic point of view, the presence of R1a and Q2 in the ancient Samtskhe region is remarkable. It could be related to Persian rule there, but it may also reflect a different influence from the Iranian plateau, with the Matiene being a plausible candidate.

Not much is known about the Alarodi—only two sentences mention them—so their localization will remain speculative.

In sum, Khorikyan proposes that the 18th satrapy was located north of Armenia rather than in eastern Armenia.

Finally, the Pactyuce mentioned alongside the Armenians is most likely a corrupted form of Patuka, a Luwian or Hittite term derived from peda, meaning “land,” from which Katpatuka is derived, meaning “lower land.” A village named Patuk is attested near Kharberd (Elazığ).

The third map shows the main satrapies according to Jacobs, while the second map shows the temporal expansion of the empire according to Mladiov.

There are some chances that Kaskean from North Anatolia will not be anymore considered as unrecorded language.

There is a possibility that the Kaska people of northern Anatolia will no longer be considered speakers of an unrecorded language.

Sasseville published a paper this year in which he examines some Hittite cuneiform texts containing an unknown language and suggests that these unknown words may be Kaska lexemes. The paper is behind a paywall, but a brief discussion with ChatGPT gave me the impression that Sasseville is inclined toward the theory that the Kaska language had some connection with Hattic.

The currently limited archaeogenetic data from northern Anatolia also support this theory. Rasuloğlu Höyük, which is linked to Hattic culture, yielded G2-M406 and T1a2a. The same haplotypes were found in more northern locations where the Kaska people were attested.

This year has also been remarkable for Kaska archaeology. A site explicitly linked to the Kaska people was discovered, and a settlement near Samsun has been proposed as the famous city of Nerik.

All links are provided below.

https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document

About Rasuloglu aDNA

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DWaYca1Rf/

About ppssible connection with Nerik

Traces of Indigenous Kaška People Discovered in Sacred Hittite City of Nerik | OMÜ | Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi

A new site

First archaeological evidence of the Kaskas, the Hittites' fierce enemies, discovered - Anatolian Archaeology

A remarkable linguistic review from Yediay et al. 2024 written by Kroonen, Thorso and Wigman.

 A remarkable linguistic review from Yediay et al. 2024, written by Kroonen, Thorsø, and Wigman.

It is in the supplements. Hrach Martirosyan’s paper is also referenced. The link is in the comments.

---

Armenian is currently spoken in the Republic of Armenia and by a worldwide diaspora, but it has historically formed a patchwork of dialects across large parts of Anatolia and the South Caucasus. Its first substantial attestation is Classical Armenian literature, appearing from the 5th century CE. Traditionally, it is considered an independent branch of the Indo-European family tree, but it is frequently placed in a higher-order subgroup with Greek.

As previously mentioned, our new IBD analyses show that Bronze Age individuals from both Greece and Armenia are best modeled as having shared ancestry derived from a population closely related to previously unpublished Middle Bronze Age samples from Moldova, associated with the Late Yamnaya culture. This contrasts with, for example, individuals associated with Italic languages, who derive their Steppe ancestry via Corded Ware and Bell Beaker individuals. These results are consistent with the assumption of a primordial Graeco-Armenian subgroup that started diverging by the middle of the 3rd millennium BCE at the latest. The rather sudden replacement of the previously widespread Transcaucasian Kura-Araxes culture by the Trialeti culture by the end of the 3rd millennium BCE, with certain similarities to early Mycenaean culture, probably represents the first tangible sign in the region of an Indo-European element ancestral to the Armenian branch.

From the Iron Age, samples with Urartian and pre-Urartian contexts show a similar proportion of ancestry associated with the western Steppe, which is consistent with the existing view that the Urartian population was multiethnic and multilingual, and it supports the hypothesis that it may have contained an Armenian-speaking component. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, Steppe ancestry emerges in the South Caucasus already in the Middle Bronze Age, with no significant later input, and it is only a marginal ancestry component in Central Anatolia. This makes the traditional hypothesis of a migration of Armenian speakers across Anatolia after 1200 BCE increasingly doubtful.

Many scholars have assumed a particularly close relationship between (Thraco-)Phrygian and Armenian, even closer than that of Greek and Phrygian. However, more recent study of Phrygian has revealed a scarcity of exclusively shared features with Armenian, making such a hypothesis difficult to support. Likewise, our IBD results yield no support for assuming a common migration of Armenians and Phrygians through Anatolia, but rather suggest that the shared innovations of Greek, Phrygian, and Armenian are attributable to a higher-order subgroup (or linguistic area) connected with the Late Yamnaya culture of the 3rd millennium BCE.

Complex interaction over Caucasian range.

Complex interaction over the Caucasian range

We now have sufficient DNA from both the south and north of the Caucasus to outline the migratory events that shaped the pre-Bronze Age history of the Caucasian range. Here is a summary of these events.

Skipping the Paleolithic and Mesolithic periods, the key events are as follows:

Around 5500–5000 BC, farmers from the Kura-Araxes basin, almost certainly related to the Shulaveri culture, crossed the Caucasus and moved north. Although still contested by some, I have little doubt that zoological data will support the idea that pastoralism appeared in Eastern Europe due to this event. It spread rapidly north toward the Volga and slightly later toward Ukraine. These are the earliest kurganic cultures in Eastern Europe that can be linked to Indo-European populations.

However, the two most frequent haplotypes associated with pastoralism in Eastern Europe are R1b-V1636 and I2-L699, of local origin (EHG and UHG). Occasionally, J2 and J1 are observed. Notably, J2b2b from Eneolithic Moldova belongs to the same branch as Shulaveri Y-DNA from Mentesh Tepe in Azerbaijan. The J2b2a1-L283 haplotype, which later expanded with Yamnaya, might also trace back to Shulaveri. The lack of a similar change in Y-DNA, despite important autosomal shifts in Eastern Europe, is beyond the scope of this summary.

Around 4300 BC, a migration occurred from north to south. Little was known about this movement before ancient DNA evidence, but the appearance of R1b-V1636 in the south, alongside kurganic burials mixed with local jar burials, indicates that northern pastoralist groups ventured south. Their migration appears to have been limited in scale and peaceful, integrating into the so-called Chaff-Faced Ware groups present across the Highlands and South Caucasus. Steppe ancestry in Areni during the Chalcolithic period is strong evidence of this migration.

Around 3900–3800 BC, a new group moved north, likely via Daghestan, playing a role in the formation of the Maykop culture. The suggestion of a Daghestan route comes from the absence in ancient Georgia of haplotypes found in Maykop, including L2, T1a3, and J2-P81. A mass migration of Chaff-Faced Ware people via Georgia would have caused significant dilution of CHG ancestry, which is not observed, particularly in western Georgia. Maykop was complex, with contributions from Central Asia introducing haplogroup Q1. Although Maykop likely influenced Yamnaya culturally, it is not directly ancestral. Maykop Novosvobodnaya individuals had G2a2a, possibly resulting from a distinct migration via the central Caucasus, though data are still insufficient for firm conclusions.

Around 3600 BC, another migration occurred from south to north. These were Kura-Araxes culture people associated with haplotype J1-Z1842, likely moving via central Caucasus regions such as modern Mtskheta-Mtianeti or Kakheti. This event likely disrupted Maykop interests. The widespread presence of J1-Z1842 in the North Caucasus strongly associates it with Nakh-Daghestani speakers. Meanwhile, near the Azov Sea, a Proto-Yamnaya group associated with R1b-Z2103 was preparing to expand around 3500 BC. This group did not move south immediately, only after 2500 BC, later creating an offshoot in the North Caucasus known as the North Caucasian or Kubano-Tersk culture.

The map illustrates the two-way interactions between north and south over the eastern passes. The genetic history of the western passes in the Caucasus is different: it was more isolated and had less impact.

Grooved ware (ակոսավոր խեցեղեն), the missing piece of puzzle.

 Grooved Ware (ակոսավոր խեցեղեն), the missing piece of the puzzle

We have had many discussions in this group about the modern genetic profile of Armenians—how, where, and when it formed. Nareg Asatrian has frequently posted genetic qpAdm models showing the modern Armenian profile as a mixture of two populations. Similar models have been reproduced by other commentators and have started to appear in academic papers as well, most notably Hovhannisyan et al. 2025.

Although these models are statistically feasible and useful as rapid abstractions, the real historical events behind the formation of the modern genetic profile were more complex. Two key events are usually emphasized: the Middle Bronze Age migration from the Steppe and the Urartu expansion (840–600 BCE) with its policies of relocations. More than 1,500 years separate these two events, and it would be unusual if nothing remarkable occurred between them. In reality, a significant demographic event affected historic Armenia around 1200 BCE, known as the spread of Grooved Ware, also called Nairi Ware.

Based on the comprehensive study by Guido Guarducci, the oldest forms of Grooved Ware, which he calls Proto-Nairi, appear in the South Caucasus, mostly in Lchashen culture sites, and in northwestern Iran (1400–1300 BCE). The attached map is from Guarducci’s book. The red areas represent Proto-Nairi. The color coding can be misleading, as western Georgia is included even though it did not have Grooved Ware. The best way to interpret the map is to focus on the archaeological sites (dots) rather than the colors.

Around 1200 BCE, all the regions colored green suddenly witness the appearance of this new type of grooved pottery. Some scholars believe this event was associated with large migrations. However, there is considerable debate about the geographic origin of the migrants. Summarizing the opinions, they can be grouped into three categories:

1. Grooved Ware in the green zone came from the South Caucasus.

2. Grooved Ware in the green zone expanded from the Van basin.

3. The origins of Grooved Ware in the green zone were in the upper Euphrates, where a large number of sites with this type of pottery are found.

The pottery found in the red and green zones is not completely identical but shares important features. It is clear that the initial impulse came from the South Caucasus. However, a direct migration of Lchashen people into all the green lands would imply that modern Armenians should have higher Steppe ancestry than they do today. Another possibility is that the initial impulse from the South Caucasus affected groups living in the Van basin or upper Euphrates, who later expanded independently, spreading a genetic profile different from that of Lchashen. Such a scenario aligns better with the modern Armenian genetic profile.

Of course, later Urartian activities were also important in shaping the modern Armenian genetic profile. However, the Grooved Ware period is crucial for understanding the genetic history of the Highlands prior to the formation of Urartu. Unfortunately, the currently available ancient DNA is insufficient to favor any of the aforementioned theories, and, as usual, we will have to wait for new data.

If the aceramic nature of this site is confirmed then this will be the oldest Neolithic site in South Caucasus and probably in a wider region.

If the aceramic nature of this site is confirmed, it will be the oldest Neolithic site in the South Caucasus and probably in the wider region. Following the Lernagog 1 discovery, dated to the 7th millennium BCE, this would be the next major Neolithic site—most likely even more important than Lernagog 1.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DBu1jBTtj/

The possibility that Sumerians originated from north Mesopotamia raise the probability that Proto-Sumerians had the occasion to contact the Fertile Crescent farmers who moved to South Caucasus and further north of Caucasus.

 The possibility that the Sumerians originated from northern Mesopotamia increases the likelihood that Proto-Sumerians had contact with Fertile Crescent farmers who moved into the South Caucasus and beyond. This could mean that some lexical parallels between Sumerian and Proto-Indo-European (PIE) are genuine. Aleksi Sahala from the Helsinki Institute summarized proposed parallels. Not all cases are of high quality, but some have strong chances of being real cognates.

Here are some examples:

Sum. gud, gu4 ‘ox, bull; cattle’ ~ PIE *gwou(s)- ‘cow; ox’; Hitt. *kuṷāu-;
Sanskrit: go; Greek: bous (βοῦς); Tocharian B: keŭ; Old Norse: *kú; Armenian: kov.
Cattle were domesticated in the core Fertile Crescent region of West Asia and spread to the South and North Caucasus. It is plausible that the term used by pastoralists in the Pontic and Caspian steppe came from northern Mesopotamia, as it did for the Sumerians. The Egyptian words ka ‘ox’ and kaut ‘cow’ may share this origin. Notably, ancient Egyptian farmers carried T1a1a and H2 haplotypes, which were also present among historic Armenian and South Caucasus farmers.

Sum. šáḫ(a) ‘pig; boar’ → Akkadian šaḫû ‘pig’; Ugaritic šeḫû ‘pig’ ~ PIE *suh₁- ‘swine’; Sanskrit: sūkara (सुक्र); Tocharian B: suwo; Latin: sūs; Gothic: swein.
Variants include šaḫ, šúḫ (ŠUBUR). The reading with is widely accepted and supported by Akkadian. Similar words are found in Kartvelian languages, e.g., GZ ešw- ‘wild boar, pig’. These likely share a prehistoric etymology. The Armenian xoz is not directly derived from PIE but may be related to the same areal term or borrowed from Parthian.

Sum. sí-sí ‘horse’ ↔? Akkadian sisium ‘horse’ ← Hurrian issi(a) ‘horse’ ~ PIE *h₁ekwos ‘horse’; Hittite: aśuwas; C. Luwian: a-aš-šu; Sanskrit: áśva (अश); PIE Anatolian: *aĉwa-; Latin: equus; Albanian: sasë; Armenian: eš.
The trajectory of this word is likely from PIE to Sumerian. The author conjectures Indo-Iranian mediation, but the Armenian eš / išoy, formerly meaning ‘horse’, is the best source for the Hurrian form (Petrosyan 2002). The Armenian term later underwent a semantic shift (Martirosyan 2009). Sumerians and Akkadians likely received the word from Hurrians. Most Sumerian attestations are from the Ur III period, after the Akkadian period.

Sum. urud(a) ‘copper’ → Akkadian erû ‘copper’ ~ PIE *h₁reudh-ó- ‘red’; Sanskrit: rudhira; Avestan: raoðita; Tocharian A: rtär; Greek: eruthros (ἐρυθρός); Lithuanian: raudonas; Gaulish: roudos; Old Norse: rjóðr.
This is another notable example. The semantic shift is probably from a color term to a metal, similar to argentum ‘silver’. This word is attested in Sumerian from the 4th millennium BCE. Copper use predates Mesopotamia in the Highlands. If the word for ‘red’ was originally an Indo-European term, the most likely period is the Chaff-Faced Ware culture (Late Chalcolithic, 4200–3500 BCE), a mixed population almost certainly including IE speakers.

For other linguistic parallels, see the link in the comments. Also relevant are studies on PIE–Semitic lexical parallels.