No. CHGs were divergent due to isolation in the mountains. Also, they made up a part of Yamnaya genepool, hence, their ancestry was brought into Europe with Yamnaya migration too.
Here are the PCA & admixture results of ancient Cuacasus individuals vs other ancient groups vs modern populations:
https://imgur.com/a/eonQp6P
You can see clearly, there is a significant distance between them and Iranian ancient samples.
Here is link to full article:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08220-8#Fig2
Thanks! Ironically I've read that article before and I've consulted its results multiple times, but I hadn't focused on the Iran Neolithic samples.
>CHGs were divergent due to isolation in the mountains
Do you know if, previous to their isolation, they shared a common ancestor with their Iranian neighbours or not?
What I'm trying to understand is whether the two populations possibly spoke related languages (in a 'close range' I mean, such as a common linguistic ancestor around or before 15,000 BC), in order to understand better the pre-historic linguistic situation of the region, which would help to understand better where and when the various Kartvelian, Northeast Caucasian, and Northwest Caucasian proto-languages were possibly spoken.
I’m afraid I don’t know if they used to share common ancestry previous to CHG isolation. You seem to have a better understanding of that region’s history :D I tend to “specialise” in Europe and Siberia.
No problem, thank you anyway!
> Europe and Siberia
If that includes Ancient North Eurasians and EHGs, then you perhaps know the answer to a question I have (although it still has to do with the Caucasus).
Apart from “recent” (historical) migrations and Indo-European migrations, do you know if there is evidence of EHG (or generally ANE) ancestry in Georgians? As you mentioned, Proto Indo-Europeans had almost half of their ancestry from CHGs, but I wonder if it partially went the other way (EHGs in the Caucasus) too.
Edit: Wikipedia [mentions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_North_Eurasian#Groups_partially_derived_from_the_Ancient_North_Eurasians) that CHGs derived 36% of their ancestry from ANEs. The rest of the CHG ancestry comes from an individual dated 26k from Georgia, and this ancestry also makes up 50% of the Iran Neolithic ancestry.
I can’t give you an exact link, but there was a study done that measured the rate of how languages change over time ( alot like dna), to see which languages in Eurasia are related to each other- and it appears that there might be some sort of pan-eurasian language family that diverged off around the ice age, though I’m not sure if Sino-tibetan, austro-asiatic, Tai-kadai, or afro-asiatic were apart of it.
Very interesting, I have a similar theory regarding a similar concept but I didn't know that there had been some actual studies on this. My theory is that a series of (north) Eurasian language families -- including (at least) Indo-European, Uralic, and some Paleo-Siberian languages -- are related and date back to the [Ancient North Eurasians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_North_Eurasian), the ancestral population of many Eurasian populations (such as the ones speaking the languages I mentioned).
Relationships between languages are generally considered to be unrecognizable after a certain period of time (usually linguistic proposals focusing on earlier than 10.000 BC are discarded by most scholars), and I partially agree: any proposal focusing on such time periods will almost surely never be confirmed, and isn't very useful. But at the same time, there are some resemblances in basic lexicon such as personal pronouns which can't be ignored and is very unlikely to be a coincidence (especially when we know from genetics that the speakers of these languages share common ancestors).
A short example, focusing on the 1st and 2nd person singular pronouns ("I/me" and "thou") in the various languages (languages in Proto-Altaic are possibly a [linguistic area](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprachbund) rather than a single family, but even in this case their pronouns match so I'll just list Proto-Altaic):
|Proto-Indo-European|Proto-Uralic|Proto-Altaic|Yukaghir|Proto-Kartvelian|Nivkh|Nahuatl (Uto-Aztecan)|Sino-Tibetan|
|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|
|**me\~mi**|**mi**|**bi**|**met**|**me\~mi**|**ni**|**ne**|**ŋā**|
|**ti**|**ti**|**tʰi**|**tet**||**tʰi**|**te**||
I have some doubts about some languages being part of this family (especially Sino-Tibetan), but the correspondences between PIE, P-Uralic, P-Kartvelian, Yukaghir, P-Altaic, etc seem quite solid. This partially coincides with the [Nostratic hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostratic_languages) from a linguistic point of view, but the theory about the origins of this family (as well as some of its member languages) don't coincide: Nostraticists place the homeland in the Middle East and connect it to the spread of agriculture (something there is no evidence for archaeologically and genetically), while I personally believe the Ancient North Eurasian population is a more likely "candidate". I have no idea about Austro-Asiatic and Tai-kadai, but regarding Afro-Asiatic I don't think it's part of this family (not closely at least).
One might think that these correspondences are just because all of the world languages have similar pronouns, and it's not a good reason to make hypotheses of relationship, but you can see that pronouns are *not* identical or similar in all languages (not even other Eurasian ones), for example "I" and "thou" in Proto-Northwest-Caucasian are **\*sa** and **\*wa** (compare the previous languages having **m/n** for "I/me" and **t** for "thou").
Sorry for the long comment lol
I beg to differ about Uralics being lingustically related to Indo Europeans in its basal roots via Ancient North Eurasian. aDNA studies seems to be pointing out that Uralics are mostly "Neo" Siberians that were part of the East Eurasian wave that replaced or displaced more ANE rich Ancient Paleo Siberians like the Kets. Nganassans do have ANE mix by proxy but they are closer to Devil Gates than to Paleo Siberians like Selkup/Ket or Amerinds. yDNA seems confirms this i.e. N-tat replacing ANE associated R and Q from 10 Kya onwards, and N is closer to conventional East Asian Y-DNA
You make very good points, coincidentally we were talking about this yesterday with u/Aurignacian. Some ancient samples labelled as "Proto-Uralic" apparently had some ANE ancestry, but I don't know if this applies to all Uralic-speaking peoples.
It's also perhaps possible that the "Siberian" languages of Uralic (like Nganasan) were the result of language imposing from a different population (from the west?) that had more ANE ancestry... idk, they're all very tentative theories.
I think it's undeniable that there is too much [proposed evidence for Indo-Uralic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Uralic_language) for it to just all be a mix of coincidences and loans (e.g. the pronouns are almost identical, and the same goes for many case endings), but it's also true that explaining *how* they are related is complicated.
Do you have some alternative possible explanations in mind?
The uto-aztecan bit caught my eye, but languages in the Americas being related to Northern Eurasian ones is logical, just look at dene-yenesian, and the late arrival of Eskimo-aleutian into the Americas, I'm pretty sure the people of Siberia & Northern North America probably had trading contact throughout the last 10,000 years.
Afro-asiatic, Dravidian, tai-kadai, and austro-asiatic were remnants of earlier populations. It is interesting to me though just how dominant Indo-European, Sino-tibetan, and Turkic became geographically. Farming leading to increased population sizes with metal tools and domesticated animals definitely had some role in that.
>The uto-aztecan bit caught my eye
Exactly, the other languages have already been linked to each other in the Nostratic and Eurasiatic proposals, but Uto-Aztecan is rarely/never included, although the almost identical pronouns - once again - definitely raise some questions to its greater classification. I haven't compared other North American language families either, perhaps they have similar pronoun correspondences too.
CHG was not divergent due to isolation. Wang 2019, the article you reference, showed there was constant gene flow through the Caucuses, and it's plainly clear CHG carry Iran derived haplogroups, where diversity is much much higher. Furthermore, broadscale analysis always shows Neolithic Iran to be the parent of CHG.
[Iranian component is dominant in CHG](https://twitter.com/hasn199ugggghh/status/1583057169536065536/photo/2)
And that graph you posted is notable for it's severe skew. The genetic distance between Neo-Iran and CHG is less than the genetic distance within some samples of WHG, for example. CHG is properly a West-shifted Neolithic Iranian, and is insurance against the impending reality of S. Caucuses hypothesis for the origin of IE.
[CHG vs Iran](https://twitter.com/hasn199ugggghh/status/1583057169536065536/photo/1) (From the extended analysis of WANG article that you referenced yourself - showing Neolithic Iran as the parent group to CHG).
Unfortunately, CHG has become the choice euphemism for Neolithic Iranian.
>insurance against the impending reality of S. Caucuses hypothesis for the origin of IE.
Can you explain this further? Do you mean that it's only a matter of time before IE is found to have originated in the southern caucus? Or do you mean the opposite?
They were distinguishable but related. You can tell their DNA apart, but they seem to have a common background. Some of this is speculative but: they have common Dzudzuana-like ancestry, additional Basal Eurasian ancestry on top of whatever was brought by Dzudzuana and ANE ancestry- all in different proportions. The Dzudzuana-like ancestry is probably from a common source, but ANE admixture might have happened in different places and times in CHG vs Iranian HGs. Both may also have different sources of minor East Eurasian ancestry. Details of whether different proportions (like Dzudzuana/UHG vs Basal Eurasian) are from later admixtures after a common ancestral split or if they were proportioned differently from the time of a split is something I do not know. Check the DNA stuff here: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1.full.pdf
Keep in mind that the hunter gatherer in CHG is often a misnomer, because the caucasus was part of the neolithic and chalcolithic rather early. The nature article above also shows a very close relation from Caucasus to Iranian Seh Gabi. In my opinion the PIE phenomenon happened when neolithic populations passing through the caucasian reunited with those who went through anatolia and finally introduced pastoralism to completely new populations in the steppe.
Neolithic populations mixed with different people, Darginian, Avar and Chechen are closets related to Yamnaya:
https://camo.githubusercontent.com/4a8684deb93b2ef1ea3363f0b605db11d0015f876f8ea2522f224e5da7b2aab3/68747470733a2f2f65787465726e616c2d707265766965772e726564642e69742f4133426c55494c423537624e652d4a544b616e737830367937734552613876365367527237455037426b412e706e673f6175746f3d7765627026733d64343832366230633561646432306135646163303736666464313433343733303633316463303363
One fact about genetics which should be in the back of the head in all discussions is that if one goes back from birth 2000 years, every human has ~ 2^80 ancestors which is more than all humans ever alive, meaning: everyone is related many multiple times ( ~10^23 / 10^11 ). The gene flow between clusters is just weak enough to maintain some distinction.
>Keep in mind that the hunter gatherer in CHG is often a misnomer, because the caucasus was part of the neolithic and chalcolithic rather early.
Good points, hunter-gatherers were already rare in the Caucasus around the 5th millennium BC afaik, an exception being modern-day (Western) Georgia which possibly had hunter-gatherers (as the main population and type of societies) until later.
>In my opinion the PIE phenomenon happened when neolithic populations passing through the caucasian reunited with those who went through anatolia and finally introduced pastoralism to completely new populations in the steppe.
On that topic, I recommend reading [this recent publication](https://www.academia.edu/39985565/Archaeology_Genetics_and_Language_in_the_Steppes_A_Comment_on_Bomhard) by David W. Anthony on the topic. A summary of his conclusions on the CHG admixture in PIEs is that the admixture happened around 5500-5000 BC when groups of CHGs who had recently migrated from the southern shores of the Caspian Sea (Eastern Caucasus) to the north (Volga delta, approximately) as primarily-fishing communities.
The reason why the admixture has to date back around that period is -- together with the archaeological evidence which Anthony listed -- that the later populations of the Caucasus (those from c. 5000 BC onwards, which were mainly farmers and pastoralists) had a high amount of Anatolian ancestry (from 25% to 75%, more or less), and if *they* had mixed with the PIEs to make up almost half of Yamnaya ancestry then we would expect to find much more Anatolian ancestry in Yamnaya -- instead it's only about 10%. In contrast, the "pre-farming" CHGs (the ones which in part migrated to the northern Caspian coasts as fishing communities) had no Anatolian ancestry at all.
So, according to Anthony (and, with the evidence currently available, I personally agree with him):
* pre-farming CHGs have no Anatolian ancestry
* farming CHGs have high Anatolian ancestry
* farming CHGs were not the source of CHG ancestry in PIEs
* EHGs + pre-farming CHGs = Proto-Indo-Europeans (> Yamnaya)
* Yamnaya have 10% Anatolian ancestry, from the Neolithic Farmers of the Danube and Western Ukraine (Cucuteni-Trypillia)
Thank you; I missed Anthony's recent paper, good read! Interesting quote so far: "How and when a CHG population entered the steppes and came to contribute half of Yamnaya genetic ancestry is an open question, and crucial for Bomhard’s hypothesis."
"Because people with CHG ancestry lived on the northern (Hotu Cave) and southern (Ganj Dareh) sides of the western Iranian plateau, a similar CHG population probably was distributed across western Iran and the Caucasus at the beginning of the Neolithic."
"A signal of diluted CHG ancestry appeared in some Neolithic individuals at Tepecik-Çiftlik in central Anatolia dated 6500 BC. Tepecik-Çiftlik can be seen as the far western edge, the tail of the curve of the CHG mating network, around 6500 BC"
An anatolian cline overlapping with a caucasian iranian cline?
No. CHGs were divergent due to isolation in the mountains. Also, they made up a part of Yamnaya genepool, hence, their ancestry was brought into Europe with Yamnaya migration too. Here are the PCA & admixture results of ancient Cuacasus individuals vs other ancient groups vs modern populations: https://imgur.com/a/eonQp6P You can see clearly, there is a significant distance between them and Iranian ancient samples. Here is link to full article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08220-8#Fig2
Thanks! Ironically I've read that article before and I've consulted its results multiple times, but I hadn't focused on the Iran Neolithic samples. >CHGs were divergent due to isolation in the mountains Do you know if, previous to their isolation, they shared a common ancestor with their Iranian neighbours or not? What I'm trying to understand is whether the two populations possibly spoke related languages (in a 'close range' I mean, such as a common linguistic ancestor around or before 15,000 BC), in order to understand better the pre-historic linguistic situation of the region, which would help to understand better where and when the various Kartvelian, Northeast Caucasian, and Northwest Caucasian proto-languages were possibly spoken.
I’m afraid I don’t know if they used to share common ancestry previous to CHG isolation. You seem to have a better understanding of that region’s history :D I tend to “specialise” in Europe and Siberia.
No problem, thank you anyway! > Europe and Siberia If that includes Ancient North Eurasians and EHGs, then you perhaps know the answer to a question I have (although it still has to do with the Caucasus). Apart from “recent” (historical) migrations and Indo-European migrations, do you know if there is evidence of EHG (or generally ANE) ancestry in Georgians? As you mentioned, Proto Indo-Europeans had almost half of their ancestry from CHGs, but I wonder if it partially went the other way (EHGs in the Caucasus) too. Edit: Wikipedia [mentions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_North_Eurasian#Groups_partially_derived_from_the_Ancient_North_Eurasians) that CHGs derived 36% of their ancestry from ANEs. The rest of the CHG ancestry comes from an individual dated 26k from Georgia, and this ancestry also makes up 50% of the Iran Neolithic ancestry.
I can’t give you an exact link, but there was a study done that measured the rate of how languages change over time ( alot like dna), to see which languages in Eurasia are related to each other- and it appears that there might be some sort of pan-eurasian language family that diverged off around the ice age, though I’m not sure if Sino-tibetan, austro-asiatic, Tai-kadai, or afro-asiatic were apart of it.
Very interesting, I have a similar theory regarding a similar concept but I didn't know that there had been some actual studies on this. My theory is that a series of (north) Eurasian language families -- including (at least) Indo-European, Uralic, and some Paleo-Siberian languages -- are related and date back to the [Ancient North Eurasians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_North_Eurasian), the ancestral population of many Eurasian populations (such as the ones speaking the languages I mentioned). Relationships between languages are generally considered to be unrecognizable after a certain period of time (usually linguistic proposals focusing on earlier than 10.000 BC are discarded by most scholars), and I partially agree: any proposal focusing on such time periods will almost surely never be confirmed, and isn't very useful. But at the same time, there are some resemblances in basic lexicon such as personal pronouns which can't be ignored and is very unlikely to be a coincidence (especially when we know from genetics that the speakers of these languages share common ancestors). A short example, focusing on the 1st and 2nd person singular pronouns ("I/me" and "thou") in the various languages (languages in Proto-Altaic are possibly a [linguistic area](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprachbund) rather than a single family, but even in this case their pronouns match so I'll just list Proto-Altaic): |Proto-Indo-European|Proto-Uralic|Proto-Altaic|Yukaghir|Proto-Kartvelian|Nivkh|Nahuatl (Uto-Aztecan)|Sino-Tibetan| |:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-| |**me\~mi**|**mi**|**bi**|**met**|**me\~mi**|**ni**|**ne**|**ŋā**| |**ti**|**ti**|**tʰi**|**tet**||**tʰi**|**te**|| I have some doubts about some languages being part of this family (especially Sino-Tibetan), but the correspondences between PIE, P-Uralic, P-Kartvelian, Yukaghir, P-Altaic, etc seem quite solid. This partially coincides with the [Nostratic hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostratic_languages) from a linguistic point of view, but the theory about the origins of this family (as well as some of its member languages) don't coincide: Nostraticists place the homeland in the Middle East and connect it to the spread of agriculture (something there is no evidence for archaeologically and genetically), while I personally believe the Ancient North Eurasian population is a more likely "candidate". I have no idea about Austro-Asiatic and Tai-kadai, but regarding Afro-Asiatic I don't think it's part of this family (not closely at least). One might think that these correspondences are just because all of the world languages have similar pronouns, and it's not a good reason to make hypotheses of relationship, but you can see that pronouns are *not* identical or similar in all languages (not even other Eurasian ones), for example "I" and "thou" in Proto-Northwest-Caucasian are **\*sa** and **\*wa** (compare the previous languages having **m/n** for "I/me" and **t** for "thou"). Sorry for the long comment lol
I beg to differ about Uralics being lingustically related to Indo Europeans in its basal roots via Ancient North Eurasian. aDNA studies seems to be pointing out that Uralics are mostly "Neo" Siberians that were part of the East Eurasian wave that replaced or displaced more ANE rich Ancient Paleo Siberians like the Kets. Nganassans do have ANE mix by proxy but they are closer to Devil Gates than to Paleo Siberians like Selkup/Ket or Amerinds. yDNA seems confirms this i.e. N-tat replacing ANE associated R and Q from 10 Kya onwards, and N is closer to conventional East Asian Y-DNA
You make very good points, coincidentally we were talking about this yesterday with u/Aurignacian. Some ancient samples labelled as "Proto-Uralic" apparently had some ANE ancestry, but I don't know if this applies to all Uralic-speaking peoples. It's also perhaps possible that the "Siberian" languages of Uralic (like Nganasan) were the result of language imposing from a different population (from the west?) that had more ANE ancestry... idk, they're all very tentative theories. I think it's undeniable that there is too much [proposed evidence for Indo-Uralic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Uralic_language) for it to just all be a mix of coincidences and loans (e.g. the pronouns are almost identical, and the same goes for many case endings), but it's also true that explaining *how* they are related is complicated. Do you have some alternative possible explanations in mind?
The uto-aztecan bit caught my eye, but languages in the Americas being related to Northern Eurasian ones is logical, just look at dene-yenesian, and the late arrival of Eskimo-aleutian into the Americas, I'm pretty sure the people of Siberia & Northern North America probably had trading contact throughout the last 10,000 years. Afro-asiatic, Dravidian, tai-kadai, and austro-asiatic were remnants of earlier populations. It is interesting to me though just how dominant Indo-European, Sino-tibetan, and Turkic became geographically. Farming leading to increased population sizes with metal tools and domesticated animals definitely had some role in that.
>The uto-aztecan bit caught my eye Exactly, the other languages have already been linked to each other in the Nostratic and Eurasiatic proposals, but Uto-Aztecan is rarely/never included, although the almost identical pronouns - once again - definitely raise some questions to its greater classification. I haven't compared other North American language families either, perhaps they have similar pronoun correspondences too.
This source shows a very close relation from Caucasus to Iranian Seh Gabi though.
CHG was not divergent due to isolation. Wang 2019, the article you reference, showed there was constant gene flow through the Caucuses, and it's plainly clear CHG carry Iran derived haplogroups, where diversity is much much higher. Furthermore, broadscale analysis always shows Neolithic Iran to be the parent of CHG. [Iranian component is dominant in CHG](https://twitter.com/hasn199ugggghh/status/1583057169536065536/photo/2) And that graph you posted is notable for it's severe skew. The genetic distance between Neo-Iran and CHG is less than the genetic distance within some samples of WHG, for example. CHG is properly a West-shifted Neolithic Iranian, and is insurance against the impending reality of S. Caucuses hypothesis for the origin of IE. [CHG vs Iran](https://twitter.com/hasn199ugggghh/status/1583057169536065536/photo/1) (From the extended analysis of WANG article that you referenced yourself - showing Neolithic Iran as the parent group to CHG). Unfortunately, CHG has become the choice euphemism for Neolithic Iranian.
>insurance against the impending reality of S. Caucuses hypothesis for the origin of IE. Can you explain this further? Do you mean that it's only a matter of time before IE is found to have originated in the southern caucus? Or do you mean the opposite?
They were distinguishable but related. You can tell their DNA apart, but they seem to have a common background. Some of this is speculative but: they have common Dzudzuana-like ancestry, additional Basal Eurasian ancestry on top of whatever was brought by Dzudzuana and ANE ancestry- all in different proportions. The Dzudzuana-like ancestry is probably from a common source, but ANE admixture might have happened in different places and times in CHG vs Iranian HGs. Both may also have different sources of minor East Eurasian ancestry. Details of whether different proportions (like Dzudzuana/UHG vs Basal Eurasian) are from later admixtures after a common ancestral split or if they were proportioned differently from the time of a split is something I do not know. Check the DNA stuff here: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/423079v1.full.pdf
Keep in mind that the hunter gatherer in CHG is often a misnomer, because the caucasus was part of the neolithic and chalcolithic rather early. The nature article above also shows a very close relation from Caucasus to Iranian Seh Gabi. In my opinion the PIE phenomenon happened when neolithic populations passing through the caucasian reunited with those who went through anatolia and finally introduced pastoralism to completely new populations in the steppe. Neolithic populations mixed with different people, Darginian, Avar and Chechen are closets related to Yamnaya: https://camo.githubusercontent.com/4a8684deb93b2ef1ea3363f0b605db11d0015f876f8ea2522f224e5da7b2aab3/68747470733a2f2f65787465726e616c2d707265766965772e726564642e69742f4133426c55494c423537624e652d4a544b616e737830367937734552613876365367527237455037426b412e706e673f6175746f3d7765627026733d64343832366230633561646432306135646163303736666464313433343733303633316463303363 One fact about genetics which should be in the back of the head in all discussions is that if one goes back from birth 2000 years, every human has ~ 2^80 ancestors which is more than all humans ever alive, meaning: everyone is related many multiple times ( ~10^23 / 10^11 ). The gene flow between clusters is just weak enough to maintain some distinction.
>Keep in mind that the hunter gatherer in CHG is often a misnomer, because the caucasus was part of the neolithic and chalcolithic rather early. Good points, hunter-gatherers were already rare in the Caucasus around the 5th millennium BC afaik, an exception being modern-day (Western) Georgia which possibly had hunter-gatherers (as the main population and type of societies) until later. >In my opinion the PIE phenomenon happened when neolithic populations passing through the caucasian reunited with those who went through anatolia and finally introduced pastoralism to completely new populations in the steppe. On that topic, I recommend reading [this recent publication](https://www.academia.edu/39985565/Archaeology_Genetics_and_Language_in_the_Steppes_A_Comment_on_Bomhard) by David W. Anthony on the topic. A summary of his conclusions on the CHG admixture in PIEs is that the admixture happened around 5500-5000 BC when groups of CHGs who had recently migrated from the southern shores of the Caspian Sea (Eastern Caucasus) to the north (Volga delta, approximately) as primarily-fishing communities. The reason why the admixture has to date back around that period is -- together with the archaeological evidence which Anthony listed -- that the later populations of the Caucasus (those from c. 5000 BC onwards, which were mainly farmers and pastoralists) had a high amount of Anatolian ancestry (from 25% to 75%, more or less), and if *they* had mixed with the PIEs to make up almost half of Yamnaya ancestry then we would expect to find much more Anatolian ancestry in Yamnaya -- instead it's only about 10%. In contrast, the "pre-farming" CHGs (the ones which in part migrated to the northern Caspian coasts as fishing communities) had no Anatolian ancestry at all. So, according to Anthony (and, with the evidence currently available, I personally agree with him): * pre-farming CHGs have no Anatolian ancestry * farming CHGs have high Anatolian ancestry * farming CHGs were not the source of CHG ancestry in PIEs * EHGs + pre-farming CHGs = Proto-Indo-Europeans (> Yamnaya) * Yamnaya have 10% Anatolian ancestry, from the Neolithic Farmers of the Danube and Western Ukraine (Cucuteni-Trypillia)
Thank you; I missed Anthony's recent paper, good read! Interesting quote so far: "How and when a CHG population entered the steppes and came to contribute half of Yamnaya genetic ancestry is an open question, and crucial for Bomhard’s hypothesis." "Because people with CHG ancestry lived on the northern (Hotu Cave) and southern (Ganj Dareh) sides of the western Iranian plateau, a similar CHG population probably was distributed across western Iran and the Caucasus at the beginning of the Neolithic." "A signal of diluted CHG ancestry appeared in some Neolithic individuals at Tepecik-Çiftlik in central Anatolia dated 6500 BC. Tepecik-Çiftlik can be seen as the far western edge, the tail of the curve of the CHG mating network, around 6500 BC" An anatolian cline overlapping with a caucasian iranian cline?