Was the Maikop culture the PIE homeland?

new

Admin
Administrator

Posts: 81,357

Was the Maikop culture the PIE homeland? Feb 7, 2019 18:03:49 GMT

Quote

Post by Admin on Feb 7, 2019 18:03:49 GMT

Characterising the Steppe ancestry profile
Individuals from the North Caucasian steppe associated with the Yamnaya cultural formation (5300–4400 BP, 3300–2400 calBCE) appear genetically almost identical to previously reported Yamnaya individuals from Kalmykia19 immediately to the north, the middle Volga region18,22, Ukraine, and to other BA individuals from the Eurasian steppes who share the characteristic ‘steppe ancestry’ profile as a mixture of EHG and CHG-related ancestry9,13. These individuals form a tight cluster in PCA space (Fig. 2) and can be shown formally to be a mixture by significantly negative admixture f3-statistics of the form f3(EHG, CHG; target) (Supplementary Fig. 2). This cluster also involves individuals of the North Caucasus culture (4800–4500 BP, 2800–2500 calBCE) in the piedmont steppe, who share the steppe ancestry profile, as do individuals from the Catacomb culture in the Kuban, Caspian and piedmont steppes (4600–4200 BP, 2600–2200 calBCE), which succeeded the Yamnaya horizon.

The individuals of the MBA post-Catacomb horizon (4200–3700 BP, 2200–1700 calBCE) such as Late North Caucasus and Lola cultures represent both ancestry profiles common in the North Caucasus: individuals from the mountain site Kabardinka show a typical steppe ancestry profile, whereas individuals from the site Kudachurt 90 km to the west or our most recent individual from the western LBA Dolmen culture (3400–3200 BP, 1400–1200 calBCE) retain the ‘southern’ Caucasus profile. In contrast, one Lola culture individual resembles the ancestry profile of the Steppe Maykop individuals.

Admixture into the steppe zone from the south
Evidence for interaction between the Caucasus and the Steppe clusters is visible in our genetic data from individuals associated with the later Steppe Maykop phase around 5300–5100 years ago. These ‘outlier’ individuals were buried in the same mounds as those with steppe and in particular Steppe Maykop ancestry profiles but share a higher proportion of AF ancestry visible in the ADMIXTURE plot and are also shifted towards the Caucasus cluster in PC space (Fig. 2d). This observation is confirmed by formal D-statistics (Supplementary Fig. 3). By modelling Steppe Maykop outliers successfully as a two-way mixture of Steppe Maykop and representatives of the Caucasus cluster (Supplementary Table 3), we can show that these individuals received additional ‘Anatolian and Iranian Neolithic ancestry’, most likely from contemporaneous sources in the south. We used ALDER32 to estimate an average admixture time for the observed farmer-related ancestry in Steppe Maykop outliers of 20 generations or 560 years ago (Supplementary Note 5).

Anatolian farmer-related ancestry in steppe groups
Eneolithic Samara individuals form a cline in PC space running from EHG to CHG (Fig. 2d), which is continued by the newly reported Eneolithic steppe individuals. However, the trajectory of this cline changes in the subsequent centuries. Here we observe a cline from Eneolithic_steppe towards the Caucasus cluster. We can qualitatively explain this ‘tilting cline’ by developments south of the Caucasus, where Iranian and AF ancestries continue to mix, resulting in a blend that is also observed in the Caucasus cluster, from where it could have spread onto the steppe. The first appearance of ‘combined farmer-related ancestry’ in the steppe zone is evident in Steppe Maykop outliers. However, PCA results suggest that Yamnaya and later groups of the West Eurasian steppe carry also some farmer-related ancestry as they are slightly shifted towards ‘European Neolithic groups’ in PC2 (Fig. 2d) compared to the preceding Eneolithic steppe individuals. The ‘tilting cline’ is also confirmed by admixture f3-statistics, which provide statistically significant negative values for AG3 and any AF group as the two sources (Supplementary Table 11). Using f- and D-statistics we also observe an increase in farmer-related ancestry (both Anatolian and Iranian) in our Steppe cluster, distinguishing the Eneolithic steppe from later groups. In addition, we find the Caucasus cluster or Levant/AF groups to share more alleles with Steppe groups than with EHG or Samara_Eneolithic (Supplementary Figs. 4 and 5). MLBA groups such as Poltavka, Andronovo, Srubnaya, and Sintashta show a further increase of AF ancestry consistent with previous studies9,22, reflecting different processes not directly related to events in the Caucasus (Supplementary Fig. 6).

We then used qpWave and qpAdm to explore the number of ancestry sources for the AF component to evaluate whether geographically proximate groups contributed plausibly to the subtle shift of Eneolithic ancestry in the steppe towards Neolithic groups. Specifically, we tested whether any of the Eurasian steppe ancestry groups can be successfully modelled as a two-way admixture between Eneolithic steppe and a population X derived from Anatolian- or Iranian farmer-related ancestry, respectively. Surprisingly, we found that a minimum of four streams of ancestry is needed to explain all eight steppe ancestry groups tested (Fig. 2; Supplementary Table 12). Importantly, our results show a subtle contribution of both AF ancestry and WHG-related ancestry (Fig. 4; Supplementary Tables 13 and 14), likely brought in through MN/LN farming groups from adjacent regions in the West. A direct source of AF ancestry can be ruled out (Supplementary Table 15). At present, due to the limits of our resolution, we cannot identify a single best source population. However, geographically proximal and contemporaneous groups such as Globular Amphora and Eneolithic groups from the Black Sea area (Ukraine and Bulgaria), representing all four distal sources (CHG, EHG, WHG, and Anatolian_Neolithic), are among the best supported candidates (Fig. 4; Supplementary Table 16). Applying the same method to the subsequent North Caucasian Steppe groups such as Catacomb, (Late) North Caucasus confirms this pattern (Supplementary Table 16).

Using qpAdm with Globular Amphora as a proximate surrogate population, we estimated the contribution of AF ancestry into Yamnaya and other steppe groups. We find that Yamnaya Samara individuals have 13.2 ± 2.7% and Ukraine or Caucasus Yamnaya individuals 16.6 ± 2.9% AF ancestry (Fig. 4; Supplementary Table 17)—statistically indistinguishable proportions. Substituting Globular Amphora with Iberia Chalcolithic does not alter the results profoundly (Supplementary Table 18). This suggests that the source population was a mixture of AF ancestry and a minimum of 20% WHG ancestry, a genetic profile shared by many European MN/LN and Chalcolithic individuals of the 3rd millennium BCE analysed thus far.

To account for potentially un-modelled ancestry from the Caucasus groups, we added ‘Eneolithic Caucasus’ as an additional source to build a three-way model. We found that Yamnaya Caucasus, Yamnaya Ukraine Ozera, North Caucasus and Late North Caucasus had likely received additional ancestry (6–40%) from nearby Caucasus groups (Supplementary Table 19). This suggests a more complex and dynamic picture of steppe ancestry groups through time, including the formation of a local variant of steppe ancestry in the North Caucasian steppe from the local Eneolithic, a contribution of Steppe Maykop groups, and population continuity between the early Yamnaya period and the MBA (5300–3200 BP, 3300–2200 calBCE).

Insights from micro-transects through time
The availability of multiple individuals from one burial mounds allowed us to test genetic continuity on a micro-transect level. By focusing on two kurgans (Marinskaya 5 and Sharakhalsun 6) with four and five individuals, respectively, we observe that the genetic ancestry varied through time, alternating between the Steppe and Caucasus ancestries (Supplementary Fig. 7), suggesting a shifting genetic border between the two genetic clusters. We also detected various degrees of kinship between individuals buried in the same mound, which supports the view that particular mounds reflected genealogical lineages. Overall, we observe a balanced sex ratio within our sites across the individuals tested (Supplementary Note 4).

Admin
Administrator

Posts: 81,357

Was the Maikop culture the PIE homeland? Feb 8, 2019 1:02:27 GMT

Quote

Post by Admin on Feb 8, 2019 1:02:27 GMT

A joint model of ancient populations of the Caucasus region
Our fitted qpGraph model recapitulates the genetic separation between the Caucasus and Steppe groups with the Eneolithic steppe individuals deriving more than 60% of ancestry from EHG and the remainder from a CHG-related basal lineage, whereas the Maykop group received about 86.4% from CHG, 9.6% Anatolian farming related ancestry, and 4% from EHG. The Yamnaya individuals from the Caucasus derived the majority of their ancestry from Eneolithic steppe individuals, but also received about 16% from Globular Amphora-related farmers (Fig. 5, Supplementary Note 6).

Fig. 5

We show that the North Caucasus piedmont region was genetically connected to the south at the time of the eponymous grave mound of Maykop. Even without direct ancient DNA data from northern Mesopotamia, our results suggest an increased assimilation of Chalcolithic individuals from Iran, Anatolia, and Armenia and those of the Eneolithic Caucasus during 6000–4000 calBCE9, and thus likely also intensified cultural connections. It is possible that the cultural and genetic basis of Maykop were formed within this sphere of interaction (Fig. 4; Supplementary Table 10). In fact, the Maykop phenomenon was long understood as the terminus of expanding Mesopotamian civilisations5,7,36. It has been further suggested that along with these influences the key technological innovations in western Asia that had revolutionised the late 4th millennium BCE had ultimately also spread to Europe37. An earlier connection in the late 5th millennium BCE, however, allows speculations about an alternative archaeological scenario: was the cultural exchange mutual and did e.g. metal rich areas such as the Caucasus contribute substantially to the development and transfer of these innovations12,38?

Within the 3000-year interval covered in this study, we observe a degree of genetic continuity within each cluster, albeit occasionally interspersed by subtle gene-flow between the two clusters as well as from outside sources. Moreover, our data show that the northern flanks were consistently linked to the Near East and had received multiple streams of gene flow from the south during the Maykop, Kura-Araxes, and late phase of the North Caucasus culture. Interestingly, this renewed appearance of the southern genetic make-up in the foothills corresponds to a period of climatic deterioration (known as 4.2 ky event) in the steppe zone, that put a halt to the exploitation of the steppe zone for several hundred years39. Further insight arises from individuals that were buried in the same kurgan but in different time periods, as highlighted in the two kurgans Marinskaya 5 and Sharakhalsun 6. Here, we recognize that the distinction between Steppe and Caucasus (Fig. 1) is not strict but rather reflects a shifting border of genetic ancestry through time, possibly due to climatic/vegetation shifts and/or cultural factors linked to subsistence strategies or social exchange. Thus, the occurrence of Steppe ancestry in the northern foothills likely coincides with the range expansion of Yamnaya pastoralists. However, more time-stamped data from this region will be needed to provide details on the dynamics of this contact zone.

A surprising discovery was that Steppe Maykop individuals from the eastern desert steppes harboured a distinctive ancestry component that relates them to Upper Palaeolithic Siberians (AG3, MA1) and Native Americans. This is exemplified by the more commonly East Asian features such as the derived EDAR allele (Supplementary Note 7), which has also been observed in HG from Karelia and Scandinavia. The additional affinity to East Asians suggests that this ancestry is not derived directly from ANE but from a yet-to-be-identified ancestral population in north-central Eurasia with a wide distribution between the Caucasus, the Ural Mountains and the Pacific coast20, of which we have discovered the so far southwestern-most and also youngest genetic representatives.

The insight that the Caucasus mountains served as a corridor for the spread of CHG ancestry north but also for subtle later gene-flow from the south allows speculations on the postulated homelands of Proto-Indo-European (PIE) languages and documented gene-flows that could have carried a consecutive spread of both across West Eurasia15,49. This also opens up the possibility of a homeland of PIE south of the Caucasus, and could offer a parsimonious explanation for an early branching off of Anatolian languages, as shown on many PIE tree topologies50,51,52,53. Geographically conceivable are also Armenian and Greek, for which genetic data support an eastern influence from Anatolia or the southern Caucasus10,54, and an Indo-Iranian offshoot to the east. However, latest ancient DNA results from South Asia suggest an LMBA spread via the steppe belt20. Irrespective of the early branching pattern, the spread of some or all of the PIE branches would have been possible via the North Pontic/Caucasus region and from there, along with pastoralist expansions, to the heart of Europe. This scenario finds support from the well attested and widely documented ‘steppe ancestry’ in European populations and the postulate of increasingly patrilinear societies in the wake of these expansions48.

Nature Communications volume 10, Article number: 590 (2019)

Last Edit: Mar 5, 2020 22:07:59 GMT by Admin

Admin
Administrator

Posts: 81,357

Was the Maikop culture the PIE homeland? Apr 1, 2021 1:04:41 GMT

Quote

Post by Admin on Apr 1, 2021 1:04:41 GMT

Y chromosome haplogroup determination
For the male individuals, we determined Y-chromosome haplogroups by identifying the most
derived allele upstream and the most ancestral allele downstream in the phylogenetic tree in the
ISOGG version 11.89 (accessed March 31, 2016) (http://www.isogg.org/tree). If the most
derived Y chromosome SNP upstream was a C->T or G->A substitution (susceptible to ancient
DNA damage), we required as least two derived SNPs to assign it to the haplogroup (otherwise,
we assigned it to the upstream haplogroup).

Supplementary Table 23: Numbers of reads mapped on X chromosome or Y chromosome
versus the autosomes and Y-haplogroup typings.
Nseqs: the total number of reads mapped on the human reference genome.

ARM002.A0101 could be assigned as G2b based on Z8017: A->G, M3115: G->T, PF5721: G-
>A, and Z8020: C->T. This individual also has multiple upstream mutations for haplogroup
G2: F744: G->A, PF2787: C->T, Z3100: C->G, M3469: G->T, L89: C->T, M3480: T->A,
F1189: A->G, F1239: C->T, F1294: T->A, M3491: A->G, PF2912: T->G, Z6023: C->T,
CTS1868: G->A, CTS4413: T->C, CTS4703: C->T, CTS10089: G->A, M3579: A->G, F3198:
G->T, M3585: G->A, PF3119: G->T, F3536: C->T, Z6474: T->C.

ARM003.A0101 could be assigned as G2b based on Z8017: A->G and M3145: A->G. This
individual also has multiple upstream mutations for haplogroup G2: F744: G->A, PF2787: C-
>T, Z3060: G->C, PF2792: A->G, PF2797: C->T, M3480: T->A, F1189: A->G, F1239: C->T,
F1294: T->A, F1393: G->A, M3491: A->G, Z6023: C->T, CTS1900: T->A, CTS4136: G->A,
CTS4413: T->C, F2319: A->T, CTS6742: G->C, CTS7662: C->T, CTS10089: G->A, M3579:
A->G, F3198: G->T, M3585: G->A, P287: G->T, F3536: C->T, Z6474: T->C.
BU2001.A0101 could be assigned as R1b1a2a2 based on Z2105: C->A. This individual also
has three upstream mutations for haplogroup R1b1a2: PF6430: T->A, PF6432: C->A, PF6438:
C->T and three upstream mutations for haplogroup R1: P242: G->A, P238: G->A, P236: C-
>G.

GW1001.A0101 could be assigned as R1b1a2a2 based on the mutation Z2105: C->A. This
individual also has three upstream mutations for haplogroup R1b1a2: PF6399: C->T, PF6430:
T->A, PF6434: A->G, PF6438: C->T, L150.1: C->T, PF6475: C->A, PF6482: A->G, PF6509:
A->G, CTS11468: T->G.

KBD001 could be assigned as R1b1a2 based on the mutations: PF6399:C->T, M520:T->A,
L773:A->G, PF6430:T->A, L265:A->G, L483:C->T, PF6434:A->G, PF6438:C->T, L150.1:C-
>T, PF6475:C->A, CTS8728:C->T, L500:C->A, PF6482:A->G, PF6495:G->A, PF6497:C-
>G, PF6505:G->A, M269:T->C, CTS12478:G->A. We note that this individual also has a
downstream mutation L23: G->A determining haplogroup R1b1a2a, but this mutation might be
caused by ancient DNA damage.

KDC001.A0101 could be assigned as J2b based on the mutations: L282: C->T, M12: G->T,
M221: G->A, and M314: A->C. This individual also has multiple upstream mutations for
haplogroup J: CTS687:A->T, CTS852:G->A, PF4505:T->C, CTS1250:G->T, PF4513:C->T,
F1167:G->A, F1168:G->A, F1181:G->C, PF4519:C->G, PF4521:T->C, PF4524:G->A,
FGC1604:G->A, FGC3271:G->A, FGC1609:C->G, PF4530:C->T, F1744:G->A, F1826:G-
>A, CTS3872:G->A, CTS4204:G->A, CTS4349:G->A, F2114:G->A, CTS5628:C->G,
CTS5934:C->T, CTS7229:C->A, F2502:G->A, S19861:T->A, CTS7738:T->C, CTS7832:A-
>G, F2769:G->C, F2839:C->T, CTS9877:A->G, P209:T->C, F2973:C->T, CTS10446:G->C,
F3119:C->T, F4299:T->A, S22619:C->A, F4300:T->A, F3138:G->A, PF4591:C->A,
F3176:T->C, PF4594:C->A, PF4595:C->A, FGC1599:A->T, Z7829:G->C, F3347:C->T,
M304:A->C, CTS11291:G->T, L778:T->C, CTS11571:C->A, CTS11750:C->T,
CTS12047:A->G.

LYG001.A0101 could be assigned as haplogroup R1b1a2 based on the mutations PF6399:C-
>T, PF6430:T->A, L265:A->G, PF6434:A->G, PF6438:C->T, L150.1:C->T, PF6475:C->A,
CTS8728:C->T, PF6482:A->G, PF6494:G->A, PF6497:C->G, PF6505:G->A, PF6509:A->G.

MK5001 could be assigned as haplogroup L based on the mutations L878: A->G, M61: C->T,
and L855: C->T. This individual also has multiple upstream mutations for haplogroup LT:
CTS753: G->A, L298: T->C, PF5531: C->T, PF5536: C->A, CTS2888: A->G, CTS3648: C-
>T, CTS5175: A->G, and PF5566: G->T.

MK5004 could be assigned as haplogroup L based on the mutations L878: A->G, M185: C->T,
M61: C->T, and L855: C->T. This individual also has multiple upstream mutations for
haplogroup LT: CTS753: G->A, L298: T->C, PF5531: C->T, PF5536: C->A, CTS2888: A->G,
CTS3648: C->T, CTS4783: T->C, and CTS5175: A->G.

MK5009.A0101 could be assigned as R1b1a2 based on the mutations L773: A->G, L482: G-
>A, PF6432: C->A, PF6434: A->G, L150.1: C->T, PF6475: C->A, PF6494: G->A, PF6495:
G->A, and PF6509: A->G.

NV3001 could be assigned as Q1a2 based on the mutations M346: C->G, L56: G->A, and
CTS2656: C->T. This individual also has multiple upstream mutations for haplogroup Q1a:
F1426: C->T, FGC8413: A->T, FGC8415: G->T, CTS2006: C->T, CTS4793: C->G, and
CTS5301: G->A and haplogroup Q1: P36.2: G->T, L232: G->A, and L274: A->G.

OSS002.B0101 could be assigned as haplogroup J based on the mutations F1181: G->C,
CTS5934: C->T, and F3119: C->T.

PG2001 could be assigned as haplogroup R1b1 based on the mutation M415: C->A. This
individual also has one upstream mutation for haplogroup R1b: M343: C->A and multiple
upstream mutations for haplogroup R1: P294: G->C, P231: A->G, P225: G->T, P286: C->T,
and M306: C->A.

PG2004 could be assigned as haplogroup R1b1 based on the mutation L278: C->T (we note
that this mutation might be caused by ancient DNA damage). This individual also has one
upstream mutation for haplogroup R1b: M343: C->A and multiple upstream mutations for
haplogroup R1: P294: G->C, P242: G->A, P231: A->G, P286: C->T.

RK1001.C0101 could be assigned as haplogroup R1b1a2 based on the mutations L773: A->G,
PF6430: T->A, L265: A->G, PF6434: A->G, PF6438: C->T, L150.1: C->T, CTS3575: C->G,
PF6482: A->G, and PF6495: G->A.

RK4001.A0101 could be assigned as haplogroup R1b1a2 based on the mutations PF6434: A-
>G, PF6438: C->T, L150.1: C->T, PF6475: C->A, PF6482: A->G, PF6497: C->G, PF6505: G-
>A, and CTS12478: G->A.

RK4002.B0101 could be assigned as haplogroup R1b1a2 based on the mutations M520: T->A,
PF6430: T->A, L265: A->G, PF6434: A->G, PF6438: C->T, PF6475: C->A, CTS8728: C->T,
PF6482: A->G, PF6494: G->A, PF6495: G->A, PF6497: C->G
SA6003.B0101 could be assigned as haplogroup R1b1a2 based on the mutations L265: A->G,
PF6434: A->G, L150.1: C->T, PF6482: A->G, and PF6495: G->A.

SA6004 could be assigned as haplogroup Q1a2 based on the mutations M346: C->G, L56: G-
>A, and CTS2656: C->T. This individual also has one upstream mutation for haplogroup Q1a:
CTS97: T->A, F903: G->C, F1304: G->T, FGC8415: G->T, CTS1845: G->C, CTS2006: C-
>T, CTS4793: C->G, CTS5804: G->A, CTS7611: A->T, M1115: G->A, M1158: C->T,
M1168: G->A, M1169: G->A and haplogroup Q1: P36.2: G->T, L232: G->A.

SA6013.B0101 could be assigned as haplogroup R1 based on the mutations P294: G->C, P225:
G->T, P236: C->G, and M306: C->A.

SIJ002.A0101 could be assigned as haplogroup L based on the mutations L863: T->C, L878:
A->G, M11: A->G, M61: C->T, L855: C->T. This individual also has multiple upstream
mutations for haplogroup LT: CTS753: G->A, L298: T->C, PF5531: C->T, PF5536: C->A,
CTS2888: A->G, and CTS5175: A->G.

VEK007.A0101 could be assigned as haplogroup J based on the mutations CTS687: A->T,
PF4505: T->C, F1167: G->A, FGC3271: G->A, L60: C->T, CTS4204: G->A, F2116: C->G,
CTS5628: C->G, CTS6958: G->A, CTS7738: T->C, PF4575: A->G, F2839: C->T, P209: T-
>C, F2973: C->T, F3138: G->A, PF4595: C->A, YSC0000228: G->T, CTS10858: G->A,
CTS11291: G->T, and CTS11571: C->A.

VEK009.A0101 could be assigned as haplogroup J1 based on the mutation L255: A->C. This
individual also has multiple upstream mutations for haplogroup J: CTS852: G->A, CTS1250:
G->T, PF4513: C->T, CTS2769: T->A, CTS3732: A->G, CTS4349: G->A, CTS7229: C->A,
F2502: G->A, CTS7738: T->C, F4299: T->A, S22619: C->A, F4300: T->A, F3176: T->C, and
CTS11571: C->A.

I2055 could be assigned as haplogroup J based on the mutations PF4513: C->T, L60: C->T,
CTS2769: T->A, F2839: C->T, PF4595: C->A, L778: T->C, CTS11787: G->A, PF4513: C-
>T, L60: C->T, CTS2769: T->A, F2839: C->T, PF4595: C->A, L778: T->C, and CTS11787:
G->A.

I2056 could be assigned as haplogroup J2a based on the mutations L559: A->G and L152: C-
>T. This individual also has multiple upstream mutations for haplogroup J: CTS687: A->T,
CTS852: G->A, PF4505: T->C, CTS1250: G->T, PF4513: C->T, PF4515: G->A, F1167: G-
>A, F1168: G->A, PF4519: C->G, F1381: G->T, PF4521: T->C, PF4524: G->A, FGC3271:
G->A, PF4530: C->T, CTS2042: T->A, L60: C->T, F1826: G->A, CTS3732: A->G, CTS4204:
G->A, F2116: C->G, CTS5628: C->G, CTS5678: A->T, CTS7229: C->A, F2502: G->A,
CTS7832: A->G, PF4572: A->G, PF4575: A->G, F2769: G->C, CTS8974: A->G, F2817: C-
>T, F2839: C->T, CTS9533: C->A, P209: T->C, CTS10446: G->C, F3119: C->T, F4299: T-
>A, S22619: C->A, F4300: T->A, PF4591: C->A, PF4595: C->A, FGC1599: A->T, PF4598:
A->G, F3347: C->T, M304: A->C, CTS11571: C->A, CTS11750: C->T, CTS11787: G->A,
and CTS12047: A->G.

I2051 could be assigned as haplogroup J based on the mutations F1167:G->A, FGC1604:G-
>A, CTS4349:G->A, PF4567:A->C, F2746:G->A, F2769:G->C.

I6266 could be assigned as haplogroup J2a1 based on the mutations L26: T->C and F4326: A-
>G. This individual also has one upstream mutation M410:A->G defining haplogroup J2a and
mutiple upstream mutations for haplogroup J: PF4513:C->T, F1167:G->A, F1181:G->C,
PF4519:C->G, PF4521:T->C, PF4524:G->A, FGC1604:G->A, FGC3271:G->A, PF4530:C-
>T, F1744:G->A, CTS2769:T->A, CTS4204:G->A, F2114:G->A, F2116:C->G, CTS5628:C-
>G, CTS5934:C->T, CTS6958:G->A, CTS7028:T->C, CTS7229:C->A, CTS7483:T->A,
PF4567:A->C, CTS7738:T->C, PF4575:A->G, CTS8974:A->G, CTS9533:C->A, P209:T->C,
CTS10446:G->C, F3119:C->T, PF4591:C->A, F3176:T->C, PF4594:C->A, CTS10858:G->A,
CTS11291:G->T, CTS12047:A->G.

I6268 could be assigned as haplogroup J2a1 based on the mutation L26:T->C. This individual
also has mutiple upstream mutations for haplogroup J: CTS687:A->T, F1181:G->C, PF4519:C-
>G, PF4524:G->A, FGC3271:G->A, F1744:G->A, CTS2769:T->A, CTS3936:G->A,
CTS4204:G->A, CTS5678:A->T, CTS7028:T->C, F2502:G->A, CTS7832:A->G, F2839:C-
>T, CTS9533:C->A, F3119:C->T, CTS11291:G->T, CTS11765:A->T.

I6272 could be assigned as haplogroup G2a2a based on mutations PF3165: C->A and
PF3184:C->T. This individual also has mutiple upstream mutations for haplogroup G2a:
F4086:C->T, Z3240:A->G, F2301:G->A, F2529:A->G, CTS11463:G->A
We were not able to determine the haplogroups of the following samples due to low coverages:
IV3002.A0101, MK5007.B0101, MK5008.B0101, MK5012.A0101, SA6010.A0101,
VEK008.A0101, I1720, I1723, and I6270.

Last Edit: Apr 1, 2021 1:08:02 GMT by Admin

Admin
Administrator

Posts: 81,357

Was the Maikop culture the PIE homeland? Apr 1, 2021 20:09:38 GMT

Quote

Post by Admin on Apr 1, 2021 20:09:38 GMT

Supplementary Note 1
Ecological and archaeological background of the Caucasus region
Ecological background
The mountain ranges of the Greater Caucasus and the southern Lesser Caucasus form a bridge
linking the mountainous zones of the Near East to Eurasia. The South Caucasus river systems
are connected to the upper Euphrates and Tigris drainage, and the mountain passes of the Great
Caucasus offer a number of passages to the steppe landscapes to the north. However, the most
important ecological demarcation is the interface of mountain and steppe ecozones in the North
Caucasian foothills, a mid-altitude zone of hills and narrow plateaus and the slightly hilly
piedmont steppe3. Intermediate biospheres, known as ecotones, which are micro-environmental
patches between larger vegetation zones, are characterized by higher biodiversity and provide
fodder-rich landscapes ideal for pastoralism but also for basic agriculture4. This demarcation
and the correlated ecotones fluctuated considerably during the Bronze Age. For instance, the 6
to 5 ky rapid climate change event placed Maykop sites in a much more steppe-like environment
than it is today, while the 4.2 ky event put a halt to the exploitation of the steppe zone for several
hundred years due to severe aridisation5. The ecological division separates mountain- and
steppe-based economies despite the fact that both used biologically highly diverse
environments with rich pastures ideal for mobile and semi-sedentary pastoralists, but which are
traditionally shared by groups practising such economies. At a local level, the Caucasus is
therefore characterized by a large variety of specific economic and social adaptations. These
are reflected in a large degree of cultural and linguistic diversity, and complex networks of
interaction within and between the Caucasus and the adjacent regions.

Archaeological background
The geographical dichotomy of the mountain and steppe-based economies in the Caucasus is
also reflected in the high diversity of archaeological cultural phenomena6, 7, 8. Our study
includes representatives of all major Bronze Age groups in the North Caucasus. They reflect
affiliations with either mountain-associated cultural groups such as the Darkveti-Meshoko
Eneolithic (4700-3500 calBCE)9, the Maykop phenomenon (3900-2900 calBCE)7, communities of a
Northern variant of the Kura-Araxes culture (3600-2500 calBCE)10, the North Caucasian cultural formation or the mountain groups of the post-Catacomb grave horizon11, or to large-scale cultural phenomena of the steppe such as the Don-Kaspi Steppe Eneolithic (4300-4100 calBCE)12, the Yamnaya (3300-2600/2500 calBCE), the Catacomb cultural communities
(2800-2200 calBCE)5 and the post-Catacomb Lola formation (2200-1700 calBCE)13. To
represent the South Caucasus Kura-Araxes culture6 (3600-2500 calBCE), we also included
individuals from the Kaps site in present-day Armenia. Each of these formations is outlined by
particular sets of artefacts, settlement and burial practices, or adaptations to specific
environments. However, the chronological overlap of sites within the same territory, regional
variations in artefact spectra and a high frequency of elements crossing over blur the delineation
of clear cut ‘archaeological cultures’. Consequently, the applied terms must in their specific
time frames be understood as operational tools rather than social entities that represent uniform
and coherent peoples.

The significance of the Caucasus as a key study area is clearly visible in the current debate
about large-scale cultural interaction in the 4th and 3rd millennium BCE in Western Eurasia. The
impact of the archaeological cultures, which shaped this contact zone between the Near East
and Eurasia during the Bronze Age, on the widening of social networks that operated between
Mesopotamia, the Eurasian steppe and Europe is, however, still poorly understood14, 15.
Early Neolithic communities established a sedentary lifestyle with a Near Eastern set of
domesticates in the South Caucasus by 6000 calBCE16. They developed a sophisticated set of
settlements but kept to the floodplains of the major river drainages. Other Neolithic
communities in the West Caucasian lowlands and at the Black Sea coast or in the central
mountain valleys remained vague and might reflect local populations that selectively adopted
elements of the Neolithic package. Neolithic elements in the Lower Don area north of the
Caucasus and dating to the late 7th millennium BCE are disputed17 but might shed light on a
southern component in the development of cultural formations before the actual advent of the
Neolithic in the North Caucasus during the mid-5th millennium BCE.

The earliest attested evidence of the Neolithic lifestyle in the North Caucasus, including
domesticates and settlement architecture, datesto the mid-5th millennium BCE and is associated
with a cultural formation termed Darkveti-Meshoko Eneolithic9 or ‘pearl-ornamented ceramic’.
Sites associated with this phenomenon are situated on both flanks of the West Caucasian
Mountains and in all probability reflect groups advancing through the mountain passes from
the southern to the northern side of the mountains. This cultural phenomenon represents a rather
dispersed and flimsy settlement of the mountain zones. Some habitation sites were found under
rock shelters or in caves such as the site of Unakozovskaya, but large fortified settlements are
present as well. The settlers lived on agriculture, cattle herding and pig-rearing. Complementary
to the southern Eneolithic component, a northern component started to expand between 4300
and 4100 calBCE manifested in low burial mounds with inhumations densely packed in bright
red ochre. Burial sites of this type, like the investigated sites of Progress and Vonyuchka, are
found in the Don-Caspian steppe12, but they are related to a much larger supra-regional network
linking elites of the steppe zone between the Balkans and the Caspian Sea18. These groups
introduced the so-called kurgan, a specific type of burial monument, which soon spread across
the entire steppe zone.

The Maykop ‘culture’ or cultural formation is the first Early Bronze Age culture in the
Caucasus. This enigmatic phenomenon exhibits the first gigantic burial mounds with splendid
‘royal’ tombs6, 7 containing exquisite burial gifts in gold, silver and bronze that reveal an entire
spectrum of technological innovations in metallurgy (among others). Maykop plays a key role
in the transfer of technological innovations and social alterations to the West. An increase in
sites, the expansion of territories, the enlargement of burial mounds as well as large groupings
of mounds in cemeteries indicate a prospering culture and population growth. The economy
seems to have been based on an agro-pastoral to pastoral subsistence with a focus on cattle
herding, but detailed economic data are largely missing. Judging by the artefact spectrum, the
early phase of this phenomenon appears closely linked to northern Mesopotamia19. A specific
component of the Maykop phenomenon is found in sites located in the modern steppe zone. We
refer to them here as Steppe Maykop (cf. 5). These burials share elements of mortuary practices
and artefacts with piedmont Maykop groups but at the same time reveal Eneolithic and
autonomous components from the steppe. Both Maykop-related phenomena develop in parallel.
The Maykop individuals in the present study come from a variety of sites related to both Steppe
and piedmont and date to an earlier (3900-3500 calBCE) and later chronological phase (3500-
2900 calBCE), respectively. A more detailed chronology can be found in the cited literature.
Some sites in the steppe-zone might be affected by a radiocarbon reservoir effect20, but even a
correction of 100-150 would still render them contemporaneous to the groups in the piedmont
zone. The earlier individuals are labelled ‘Maykop’, ‘Steppe Maykop’ and come from sites like
Nogir, Klady and Marinskaya 5 in the piedmont and foothill zone, as well as individuals from
Aygursky 2 and Sharakhalsun 6 in the steppe zone. The later Maykop phase, labelled ‘Late
Maykop’ or ‘Maykop-Novosvobodnaya’, is represented by western sites such as Klady or
Sinyukha, Baksanyonok and Marinskaya 5 in the central piedmonts, and Ipatovo in the steppe
zone.

Afghanistan showcase the extensive range of the exchange-network the Maykop communities
participated in. With the exception of writing, the use of iconographic seals, or monumental
domestic architecture, the technical innovations of the 4th millennium BCE seen in the Near
East can also be found in the Caucasus.

Contemporaneous with the later Maykop phase, the first Yamnaya complexes are present in the
steppe zone shortly after 3300 calBCE. The two Yamnaya individuals from the Rasshevatskiy
1 site establish a framework of dates for the Yamnaya in our study area, while somewhat
younger dates have been reported from the Caspian steppe5. Yamnaya interments of the South
Russian and North Caucasus plain share specific burial practices with other regional variants
of this far-reaching supra-regional cultural network. They differ however in the quantity of
burial goods they use. Complete or dismantled wooden wagons are frequently found in
Yamnaya and related graves. Like those from the Volga region, the North Caucasian steppe
complexes belong to the earliest representatives of the Yamnaya phenomenon in the Eurasian
steppe. Stable isotope and palynological evidence argue for a mobile lifestyle based on
pastoralism for these groups, but with rather limited mobility radii.

The Velikent site at the coast of the Caspian Sea is a representative for a northern variant of the
Kura-Araxes culture, although it is considerably different from the primary variant, which
warrants its own Early Bronze Age designation (3300-2400/2200 calBCE). The site is over 30
ha in size and is comprised of several settlement and cemetery mounds10, 23. Velikent and related
sites are important for this study as they represent comprehensive agro-pastoral economies.
The Caucasian Middle Bronze Age is represented by the Catacomb grave formation (2800-
2200 calBCE) mostly found in the steppe and by the North Caucasian cultural groups (2800-
2400 calBCE) and Catacomb culture in the piedmont zone. Both represent economies that were
based on mobile pastoralism. The first is one of several variants of the supra-regional Catacomb
grave phenomenon, which split into even smaller regional components in the North Caucasus
and the Caspian steppe. With the Catacomb horizon, the number of mounds and burials
increases exponentially in the steppe. The North Caucasian formation in the piedmont and
mountain zone likewise witness a fragmentation into smaller regional units with a rather
heterogeneous artefact spectrum. However, the occupation of all ecological niches including
the various steppe zones as well as the high mountains indicates, like in the Catacomb area, a
considerable intensification of human activity. In particular, the mountain groups must have
intensified mining as well, since burials dating to this period frequently contain metal artefacts,
e.g. the complex of Lysogorskaya 6 in this study. After 2400 calBCE, Catacomb complexes
first overlap with those of the North Caucasian groups and then seem to replace them.

The climatic deterioration of the 4.2 ky event led to a dissolution of both the Catacomb and the
North Caucasian cultural formations, replacing them in the steppe and piedmont steppe by
cultures of the post-Catacomb horizon or Late Bronze Age 1 (2200-1700 calBCE)
13. The number of sites decreases rapidly. By 1700 calBCE the steppe including the zones directly at
the foothills of the mountains are abandoned. Interments like those of Rasshevatskiy 4 and
Nevinnomyskiy represent some of the late Bronze Age complexes. However, the mountain
communities reorganized themselves in a final stage of North Caucasian traditions, as seen in
complexes from Kabardinka or Kudachurt. These paved the way for a renewed intensification
of a semi-mobile pastoral economy at high altitudes, which peaked as a highly efficient
combined mountain agricultural system during the Late Bronze Age 2 (1700-1100/1000
calBCE).

Last Edit: Apr 1, 2021 20:12:44 GMT by Admin

Admin
Administrator

Posts: 81,357

Was the Maikop culture the PIE homeland? Apr 1, 2021 22:07:37 GMT

Quote

Post by Admin on Apr 1, 2021 22:07:37 GMT

Supplementary Note 2
Archaeological context of sites and newly reported individuals
Relative and absolute dates
We provide dates either as relative dates or in the form of absolute dates, i.e. radiocarbon-dated
samples. Relative dates are reported based on archaeological context in the form “5500-5000
BCE”. Radiocarbon dates are given in the format “95.4 % CI calibrated radiocarbon age (noncalibrated radiocarbon years, laboratory number). All dates were calibrated with OxCal 4.2.3 (ref) using IntCal13 as calibration curve. For this study we obtained and reported 49 new radiocarbon dates.

Sites and individuals (in alphabetical order)
After the general site descriptions, we provide short profiles of each ancient individual for
whom we produced ancient genome-wide data. Where possible, the attributed archaeological
culture is given in italics.

Aygurskiy 2, Russia
N 45.690°, E 43.262°
Excavation ‘Nasledie’ 2000, Stavropol, licence №2000-776 (V. A. Babenko)
The Aygurskiy burial mound cemetery 2 was situated on a promontory overlooking the small
river of Aygurki, about 22 km east of the city of Ipatovo. The area is a slightly hilly landscape,
today in a desert steppe environment3. However, as shown in the vicinity of the Ipatovo mound,
vegetation zones might have shifted here with changing climate conditions. The valley belongs
to the river Kalaus drainage system. All 37 burial mounds of the cemetery, of which mound 22
was the largest and placed slightly aside the others, were excavated by the local heritage
organization ‘Nasledie’ in 1998-2001. The mound itself was slightly oval, had a diameter of
38 m and a maximal height of 1.8 m. It comprised three major mound construction phases of
which the first was a complex stone construction dating to the Maykop epoch25. The sampled
individuals stem from this first mound phase. The first interments in the mound, grave 8 and
8a, were found in a massive stone box covered by a cairn-like stone package. It was surrounded
by a large circle of vertical stone slabs, some of which had collapsed to the interior. Graves 9,
15 and 16 were added inside the circle, and some were covered by collapsed stones of the stone
circle. The entire constructing was then filled with a layer of topsoil. It was covered by a stone
shell and an earthen mound-shell (shell 1). The remaining 12 graves date chiefly to the Middle
and Late Bronze Age and are associated with the North Caucasian cultural formation (graves
4, 10), the Catacomb cultural formation (graves 7, 12-12) and a late or post-Catacomb horizon
(graves 1, 3, 11, 12). Graves 2, 5 and 6 are uncertain in date. The Maykop individuals were part
of a paleoanthropological study26 and investigated with regards to their radiocarbon and stable
isotope composition27. Paired radiocarbon dates on human and animal bones, chiefly
herbivores, revealed radiocarbon off-sets for some bones (see comments below), but confirm a
mid to late Maykop date for all graves. The particularities of inventories and grave construction
together with the location of the site in the grass-steppe zone associate these complexes with
our Steppe-Maykop cultural formation. Two sampled individuals from the Maykop complexes
produced genome-wide data.

• AY2003.A0101.TF1 (BZNK-289/1), kurgan 22, grave 9, was the burial of a 1.5-yearold child in an oval burial pit covered by stones and associated with two ceramic vessels, a flint flake and an astragalus25. Dating: human bone 3634-3377 calBCE (4726±31 BP,
OxA-16147), animal bone 3638-3531 calBCE (4798±33 BP, OxA-16201), showing no
radiocarbon offset in diet27.

• AY2001.A0101.TF1 (BZNK-290/1), kurgan 22, grave 15 of an 55-65-year-old female
in a long-oval pit with entrance shaft, partly covered by stones and associated with a
ceramic vessel. Dating: human bone 3359-3013 calBCE (4480±50 BP, GIN-11811),
3630-3372 calBCE (4698±32 BP, OxA-16182), animal bone 3619-3378 cal BCE
(4608±31 BP, OxA-16183), indicating a reservoir offset of -157 to -97 years. We would
suggest that the age of the human is more likely to date to the period indicated by the
animal bone dated27.

Baksanyonok, Russia
N 43.695°, E 43.644°
Excavation ‘Institute of Archaeology of the Caucasus’, Nalchik
The mound belongs to a number of mid-size and larger mounds in the vicinity of the village of
Baksanyonok. These were excavated over the course of several years in various rescue
archaeology projects.

One individual produced genome-wide data:
• I1720, kurgan 2, grave 5, a Maykop burial from a mid-size burial mound. No further
information is available.

Beliy Ugol 2, Russia
N 44.023°, E 42.818°
Excavation ‘Nasledie’ 2003, Stavropol, licence №2003-95 (V.A. Babenko).
The site of Beliy Ugol 2 is a burial mound cemetery situated in the North Caucasian foothills
near the city of Essentuki, directly at the opening of a narrow gorge into the mountain valleys.
The site is situated in a forest steppe to forest environment, which belongs to the Caucasian
mountain vegetation zones3. The largest mound, mound 1, was excavated during rescue
excavations, and parts of the burials had been seriously damaged. Before destruction, the mound
had a diameter of approximately 40 m and a height of 3.7 m. In the barrow, 37 burials were
excavated. 31 of the burials date to the North Caucasian cultural formation, but the complex
stratigraphy suggests at least three major building phases that can be subdivided further. Grave
11 is the central grave of the fourth mound-shell, yet probably not the earliest interment in this
phase. Genome-wide data was recovered from the individual buried in grave 11. Mound-shell
4 represents the final stage of the first construction phase. The second and third construction
phases (mound-shell 5-7) likewise date to the North Caucasian epoch, yet three interments were
catacomb graves. Mound-shells 2, 5 and 6 were surrounded by stone circles built with mid- and
large-sized river pebbles. Three later graves were Sarmatian (Late Iron Age) and Medieval and
several others could not be securely dated.

One individual from the earlier North Caucasian construction produced genome-wide data:
• BU2001.A0101.TF1 (BZNK-305/1), kurgan 1, grave 11 was a poorly preserved
inhumation in a wooden chamber inside of a classical North Caucasus grave pit. The
grave inventory included a bronze weapon, bronze pins and ornaments as well as a
collection of stone beads. The head of a large animal was excavated from the stone
package on top of the grave. Dating: 2867-2581 calBCE (4125±19 BP, HD-29619).

Goryachevodskiy 2, Russia
N 44.031°, E 43.129°

Excavation ‘Institute of Archaeology of the Caucasus’, Nalchik 1999, licence № 1999 (B.M.
Batchaev)
The site of Goryachkevodsky 2 near the city of Pyatigorsk is situated in the North Caucasian
foothills neighboring a hilly landscape formed by volcanic activity. The Konstantinov plateau
where the site is situated is well known for dense clusters of burial mounds, which are chiefly
found at the watersheds between smaller creeks. The vegetation zone is forest steppe
environment3. The location of the site is at the right side of the Podkumok river, approximately
25 km downstream from Beliy Ugol 2. The site consisted of at least five mounds, severely
affected by agricultural activities. Mound 3 was excavated in 1999 prior to road construction
by the Institute of Archaeology of the Caucasus28. It was severely damaged but formerly had a
diameter of at least 45 m and was still 1.7 m high. This mound was one of the smaller features
of this cemetery. The first construction in the mound consisted of three late Maykop burials
(graves 4, 5, 6), which were placed in the centre in parallel rectangular pits and covered by a
long, rectangular stone package. Graves 4 and 5 were dug into the ground after grave 6, which
was situated on the former ground level. Grave 5 is one of the few dendrochronologically dated
complexes in the North Caucasus. It is 2 years younger than grave 12 from Marinskaya 529. The
late Maykop grave 3 was placed directly on top of the central grave 6. Graves 8 and possibly 7
also belong to the late Maykop phase. The Maykop mound was bordered by a stone circle. A
series of interments (graves 2, 9, 10) attributed to the North Caucasus formation were inserted
into this circle, partly destroying the Maykop construction. The last construction on this mound
was a series of four or five graves of the post-Catacomb horizon. Several graves from this site
were subjected to analyses of isotope composition and radiocarbon reservoir effects27. The
paired samples from grave 5 (grave 9 in27) produced reproducible dates suggesting no reservoir
offset27.

Two individuals produced genome-wide data:
• I1723, kurgan 3, grave 9 [or 5], which is a standard North Caucasus grave in a wooden
construction covered with stones, cutting the Maykop stone circle. No objects were
found in the grave but remains of a cattle skull were on top of the grave cover. Dating:
human bone 2877-2627 calBCE (4150±31BP, OxA-16190), animal bone 4158±30 BP,
OxA-16191). There is no reservoir offset between the two dated bones.
• GW1001.A0101.TF1 (BZNK-287/1), kurgan 3, grave 10, a likewise standard North
Caucasus grave pit covered by stones, cutting the Maykop stone circle. The grave
contained no objects. Dating: 2881-2671 calBCE (4174±24BP, MAMS-29807)

Ipatovo 3, Russia
N 45.685°, E 42.921°
Excavation ‘Nasledie’, Stavropol 1998-1999, licence №1998-177 (A. B. Belinskiy)
The big mound of Ipatovo (Ipatovo 3, mound 2) was part of a series of linear alignments of
mounds that run west-east crossing the system of the Kalaus river. Today the slightly hilly zone
around the site is part of the North Caucasian herb and grass-steppe zone, while the Kalaus
valley itself is part of the desert-steppe3. However, the vegetation likely shifted between desert
and grass steppe in prehistory. During the construction of the mound, the climate was generally
warmer and more humid than it is today and the landscape was more forested.
Mound 2 was the largest in a group of at least eleven mounds visible from aerial images. It was
excavated due to construction work and yielded a total number of 195 burials in 11 construction
phases30. 151 of the interments were part of a Nogay cemetery dating to the 18th century. One
grave held the burial of a splendidly furnished Sarmatian woman31. The mound construction
and 34 graves were assigned to a Bronze Age date and published in a monograph. Several of
the Catacomb epoch interments were accompanied by wooden wagons32. The first three mound-
shells are associated with graves that belong to an Eneolithic or Steppe-Maykop tradition. Grave
187, which is part of this study and has produced genome-wide data, is the founding grave of
the entire mound. It was attributed to a local Eneolithic tradition in the monograph30. After reevaluation of the data, we would now rather group it with the Steppe Maykop complexes.

This individual produced genome-wide data:
• IV3002.A0101.TF1 (BZNK-293/1), kurgan 2, grave 187, 35-45-year-old male in an
oval pit covered by stone slabs. No inventory was discovered. Dating: 3628-3127

Kabardinka, Russia
N 43.826°, E 42.716°
Excavation ‘Nasledie’, Stavropol and Eurasia-Department DAI, Berlin 2011, licence №2011-
50 (A.B. Belinskiy)
The cemetery of Kabardinka is the only site in this study which is situated in the mountain part
of the North Caucasus. The site is located in a mid-height mountain environment at the edge of
a plateau overlooking the mineral spa of Kislovodsk. The excavation of one of the burial
mounds and a stone circle in 2011 was part of a long-term archaeological investigation in the
nearby settlement Kabardinka 2 and related sites24. The mound was constructed by communities
of the North Caucasian tradition, but a later phase can be associated with a local group of the
post-Catacomb/Late Bronze Age 1 horizon. The burial in the centre of the neighbouring large
stone circle and the associated burial of a child in a small stone circle also date to the later phase
of the cemetery. Both revealed no indications for a mound embankment. The graves predate
the neighbouring Late Bronze Age 2 settlement and the shift from sedentary pastoralism to
combined mountain agriculture associated with this epoch. Two Late Bronze Age 1 individuals
of the site produced genome-wide data:
• KBD001.A0101+B0101(BZNK-123/2+4), kurgan 2, grave 1b. Deep burial covered and
pit lined by stones and surrounded by a massive stone circle. The grave had no
inventory. Dating: 2196-1977 calBCE (3690±30BP, UGAMS-13455)
• KBD002.A0101 (BZNK-124/4), kurgan 2, grave 2, child in an oval pit. The skeleton
was equipped with a few ornaments from shell and a ceramic vessel. Dating: 2188-2026
calBCE (3695±20BP, MAMS-19727)

Kaps, Armenia
N 40.866667°, E 43.716667°
L. Petrosyan (Institute for Archaeology and Ethnology in Yerevan), L. Yeganyan & H.
Khachatryan (Museum Sirak)
Expedition of the National Academy of Sciences of Armenia (rescue excavation, L. Petrosyan).
The tombs of Kaps are located on the southern and eastern slopes of a ridge on the left bank of
the Akhuryan River. Out of four stone-chamber tombs found only one (2 x 2 x 1m) with a
double-burial had remained untouched. The entrance of the chamber was located in the eastern
wall. There are three synchronous burials in this chamber. Two human skeletons lying on their
right side were found directly beside the western wall, whereas the third burial was documented
behind the immobile entrance stone. The head of the latter skeleton was oriented towards to the
east. Early Bronze Age Red-Black-ceramic vessels and bronze objects were found in these
chambers. A synchronous settlement was documented near the burial ground, including
portable fire-installations and ceramics. However, the settlement had been damaged during
construction works. The archaeological site of Kaps is dated to the second stage of the Early
Bronze Age (EBA; 4th-3rd millennium). The core area of the EBA Kura-Araxes culture is in
Mesopotamia between the Kura and Araxes rivers. EBA cultural remains dating from the end
of the 4th millennium to 3rd millennium BCE have been documented in the south-western
regions of the highlands, in the north-western part of the Iranian plateau, and in the North
Caucasus (intermediate zone). The peripheral zone of the Kura-Araxes culture extends to
northern Syria and the Levant. Chronologically, Kura-Araxes extends to the last quarter of the
3rd millennium BCE. The Kura-Araxes culture represents a period in which complex societies
were formed in the South Caucasus, which was later succeeded by a period of early statehood,
which represents a new archaeological culture. Two individuals produced genome-wide data:
• ARM001.A0101.TF1: 3501-3128 calBCE (4595±30BP), 3631-3369 calBCE
(4695±40BP, KIA44691)
• ARM002.A0101.TF1: 3338-3030 calBCE (4475±30BP, KIA44692), 3341-3030
calBCE (4480±30BP) 3366-3106 calBCE (4545±25BP, KIA44693)

Last Edit: Apr 1, 2021 22:08:43 GMT by Admin