A. Papadimitriou
Regular Member
- Messages
- 617
- Reaction score
- 188
- Points
- 43
What they call 'Iran-related' is probably CHG and they are talking about predominately EEF groups with CHG admixture similar to the 'Minoans'
and what they call 'Steppe-related' is just 'Steppe-like' and partially so.
They could have used labels like 'Aegean-related' and 'Central-Europe-related'. They would have been less wrong.
I don't know who downvoted me but they are wrong.
By the way, the Dzudzuana paper showed that ANE-like ('Siberian HG and Eastern non-African') populations had affected Caucasus and Iran more than 10000 years ago.
The difference is there seems to be a minor Onge affinity in Iran N and a Tianyuan affinity in CHG.
But there is no reason to call CHG 'Iran related', if it came to existence as a result of the admixture of a 'Basal' group with an ANE-rich one inside the Caucasus.
*Anatolian Neolithic like groups existed in 'Near East' ca 26ky ago they say
They write:
"Finally, we can model CHG and samples from Neolithic Iran (Iran_N) as deriving their ancestry largely (~58-64% using qpAdm and ~45-62% using qpGraph) from a Dzudzuana-like population, but with ancestry from both ‘Deep’ and ANE sources, thus proving that ANE ancestry had reached Western Eurasia long before the Bronze Age Eurasian steppe migrations that carried further westward into mainland Europe."