Angela
Elite member
- Messages
- 21,823
- Reaction score
- 12,327
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
I don't save the results of all the formal stats analyses being done. Perhaps I should save some, but I don't. I've been figuring once we have the long awaited paper everything may change anyway, at least slightly. My recollection, however, is that one of the "CHG" samples, Satsurblia, perhaps, can be modeled as mostly Iran Neolithic with some EHG.
The CHG samples are very old. I'm a bit skeptical that some pure "CHG" population survived and was moving into western Anatolia at these late dates. For some analysts I think using the ancient sample is a convenient way to track the ancestry, not that some "pure" population remained. The CHG would be mixed with some other ancestry, I believe. I do also think, however, that some experimenters would prefer to think this is some pure northern Caucasus/quasi European ancestry, rather than something related to Iranian Neolithic.
If I'm remembering this incorrectly, someone can correct the record.
There's a mistake in post 37. Anatolia Neolithic moved east and northeast in the Near East.
The CHG samples are very old. I'm a bit skeptical that some pure "CHG" population survived and was moving into western Anatolia at these late dates. For some analysts I think using the ancient sample is a convenient way to track the ancestry, not that some "pure" population remained. The CHG would be mixed with some other ancestry, I believe. I do also think, however, that some experimenters would prefer to think this is some pure northern Caucasus/quasi European ancestry, rather than something related to Iranian Neolithic.
If I'm remembering this incorrectly, someone can correct the record.
There's a mistake in post 37. Anatolia Neolithic moved east and northeast in the Near East.