into Anatolia after the Neolithic, separating the Proto-Anatolian
language from the rest of the Indo-European languages. Subsequent
migrations from the southern arc brought Proto-Indo-European to the
steppes.[note 16] According to Lazaridis et al., the spread of all other (non-
Anatolian) ancient Indo-European languages is associated with the
migrations of Yamnaya pastoralists or genetically-related populations.
The study argues that Anatolian languages cannot be linked to steppe
migrations due to the absence of EHG ancestry in ancient Anatolians,
despite what the study describes as extensive sampling, including
possible entry points into Anatolia by land or sea. The authors caution
that they cannot yet identify the ultimate sources of population
movements from the Southern Arc without further sampling of the
possible source populations.[92]
Bomhard's hybrid North Caspian/Caucasian hypothesis
Bomhard's Caucasian substrate hypothesis (2017, 2019) proposes an
origin ( Urheimat ) in a Central Asian or North Caspian region of the
steppe for Indo-Uralic (a proposed common ancestor of Indo-European
and Uralic).[93][94] Bomhard elaborates on Johanna Nichols "Sogdiana
hypothesis", and Kortlandt's ideas of an Indo-Uralic proto-language,
proposing an Urheimat north or east of the Caspian Sea, of a Eurasiatic
language which was imposed on a population which spoke a Northwest
Caucasian language, with this mixture producing proto-Indo-
European.[94][93][note 6][note 7]
Anthony: Steppe homeland with south Caspian CHG-influences
Indo-European specialist and anthropologist David Anthony (2019)
criticizes the Southern/Caucasian homeland hypothesis (including the
suggestions of those such as Reich, Kristiansen, and
Wang).[31][32] Instead, Anthony argues that the roots of the proto-Indo-
European language formed mainly from a base of languages spoken by