Shadows of the Armenian Late Bronze

Across the high valleys and rocky promontories of central and eastern Armenia, the Late Bronze Age unfolds as a chiaroscuro of continuity and contact. Archaeological sites sampled for Armenia_LBA—Karashamb Cemetery, Lori Berd cemetery, Nerkin Getashen, Tekhut, Keti, Noratus, Sarukhan, Kapan and the Pidjut/Znganek monument—provide funerary and material traces dated between 1439 and 805 BCE. These contexts record fortified settlements, bronze metallurgy, and grave assemblages that suggest sustained local traditions intertwined with long-distance exchange with Anatolia and the Near East.

Archaeological data indicates household continuity from earlier Bronze Age assemblages alongside new burial rites and imported goods. The genomic dataset of 47 individuals offers a genetic lens on this cultural tapestry: maternal lineages (notably U, T, K, J, N) appear recurrent, hinting at substantial local matrilineal continuity. Male-line markers are few—single counts of I, R and J—suggesting either limited paternal sampling, social patterns that skew Y-chromosome visibility in the burial record, or specific episodes of male-mediated gene flow.

Limited evidence suggests a population shaped by internal resilience and selective incorporation of outsiders. While archaeology presents the physical gestures of identity—fortresses, pottery styles, bronze hoards—ancient DNA reveals the threads of ancestry that wove these gestures into the living communities of Late Bronze Age Armenia.

The Armenia_LBA collection comprises 47 dated individuals (1439–805 BCE) from multiple cemeteries across Armenia. Mitochondrial DNA is relatively diverse: U (8), T (5), K (4), J (4), and N (3) are the most frequent maternal haplogroups recorded. These mtDNA lineages are consistent with a mixture of deep local Caucasus and Near Eastern maternal ancestries—haplogroup U often links to longstanding European and Caucasian threads, while T, K and J are widespread in the Near East and Anatolia.

Y-chromosome resolution in this dataset is limited: single counts of haplogroups I, R, and J were observed. Such low counts caution against strong conclusions about paternal structure—this could reflect preservation and sampling bias, the burial practices that preferentially include or exclude certain males, or genuine low Y-chromosome diversity in these communities. Therefore, claims about male-mediated migration or elite-line introductions must remain tentative.

Archaeogenetic interpretation benefits most from genome-wide data; where available, it can disentangle contributions from steppe-related, Anatolian, and indigenous Caucasus ancestries. For Armenia_LBA, the mtDNA pattern points toward substantial maternal continuity within the region, while the sparse Y-DNA signal suggests episodes of male-line inputs or reproductive asymmetry. Given the sample size (moderate at 47) and uneven locus recovery, these patterns should be treated as a working model that will be refined with additional genomes and complementary isotopic and archaeological analyses.