The Neolithic Transition in the Baltic Was Not Driven by Admixture with Early Europea

[berun]

I think CW people and the others are totally different people. CW R1a-M417 people is not related with even horse-riding, unlike the others. Moreover, CW people looks like modern Nordic people, the others archaic cromagnon type.
R1a-93 Srubna, sintashta and andronovo are culturally and anthropologically connected to Afanasievo-okunevo.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...o-European-history-they-are-just-paleo-people

IE is a family language that spread demicaly but also culturaly, so racial types are not more a track, but masculine haplos can display even little migrations that would set up a new elithe capable to change local language. Just take as example the expansion of Arab.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Does that mean that genomes of Latvians were publically released? Can we get them in GedMatch, please.

yes they are, but I don't have the URL
If you search the internet, you'll find them

 

[MarkoZ]

The divisions were never rigid. We always knew there was ANE was higher the further east you went and WHG higher the further west you went. They might basically be mixtures of the same two things but that doesn't mean we can't determine if a modern population has ancestry from one of them and not the other. The non-EEF and non-CHG ancestors of modern Europeans had more ANE than SHG, LatvianHG, and it seems UkrainianHG. That's what tests say.

Do you not see problem at all with modelling moderns with a single 24000 year old genome from a population that doesn't seem to have been very succesful? The issue must be either that you don't know how to interpret statistics f&d or that you have a certain narrative that you hold onto. Have you ever wondered why of all Eurasians, South Asians & Caucasian show the strongest affiniy to Mal'ta?

 

[berun]

Berun, stop obsessing with uniparental haplogroups. All it takes is one traveler to the tribe or one adopted child from another tribe to get new haplogroups. In smaller tribes of few hunter gatherers one haplogroup can become very dominant very quickly if bottleneck or founder effect happens. Imagine, there are 10 warriors in a tribe of many haplogroups. After a battle with other tribe only two warriors are alive, and it happened that they are brothers. When they "rebuild" the tribe all of the future males will have their haplogroup, and only this one haplogroup. Small tribes, under some circumstances, can change their dominant Y haplogroup in couple of generations. Keep it in mind.

Ancient cultures seem "monohaploid" and so define quite well migrations. For actual HG the Y DNA diversity is low, it is in the last millenia with new advances and increasing of population that there is more admixture and genetic mutations.

 

[Northener]

Alan, of course doesn't WHG contains EEF and CHG doesn't contains EEF and so on. But a PCA has only a certain number of PCs. In PCAs of West Eurasia which include ancient genomes there are three primary directions the samples go. These directions samples go are so precise they're comparable to components in ADMIXTURE tests.

These are the primary directions the samples go...
South: The more basal Eurasian the farther south a sample goes.
North: The least basal Eurasian a sample has the farther north it goes.
West: The more WHG and EEF a sample has the farther west it goes.
East: The more ANE; EHG and CHG, a sample has the farther east it goes.

EEF and WHG can cause samples to go one of the same directions. EEF and CHG can do the same. WHG and EHG can do the same. WHG, EEF, CHG, EHG are made up of the same "directions" aka components. Therefore a southern directional pull EEF ancestry gives a modern sample can be confused as CHG ancestry. I could give other examples of how EHG is confused as CHG, how CHG is confused as EEF, how WHG is confused as EHG.

The argument I made and still stand by is that ancestry proportions drawn from PCAs give less relaible WHG, EHG, EEF, EHG ancestry proportions than formal stats. This is because formal stats better differentiate between those four types of ancestry.

Sharp and thanks fire haired, makes my K7 very clear (N and W):

Ancient_North_Eurasian 16.58
Basal-rich 24.59
East_Eurasian 0
Oceanian 0
Southeast_Asian 0.1
Sub-Saharan 0
Villabruna-related 58.73

So the almost 60% Villabruna Hunter-Gatherer R1b = familiar to just published R1b HG in the Balticum? Or misinterpretation?

 

[Fire Haired14]

Do you not see problem at all with modelling moderns with a single 24000 year old genome from a population that doesn't seem to have been very succesful? The issue must be either that you don't know how to interpret statistics f&d or that you have a certain narrative that you hold onto. Have you ever wondered why of all Eurasians, South Asians & Caucasian show the strongest affiniy to Mal'ta?

Someone who lived 20,000 years ago can potentially be closely related to many modern people. His people could potentially be a creator of modern genetic diversity. That's what Mal'ta boy is. His people are a source of a lot of the genetic diversity in South Asia, Western Asia, Europe, and especially the Americas.

The label 20,000 years ago means nothing. Age's relation with genetics is relative. We don't know if modern population's genetic markers which distinguish them from other modern populations formed 5,000 or 40,000 years ago. A lot of modern human genetic diversity could have began to form 10,000s and 10,000s of years ago. Actually we know for a fact that a lot of genetic diversity in modern Europe is determined by different ancestry proportions from ancient populations who lived 10,000-15,000 years ago.

ANE could have survived in its pure form up until 2000 BC in Northern Asia. One of the Bronze age Srubnaya genomes probably has admixture from an almost pure ANE populations which continued to exist 20,000 years after Ma'lta boy died. She looks like a mixture of Srubnaya and Ma'lta. She has more ANE than EHG, less WHG than EHG, more CHG.

 

[MarkoZ]

Someone who lived 20,000 years ago can potentially be closely related to many modern people. His people could potentially be a creator of modern genetic diversity. That's what Mal'ta boy is. His people are a source of a lot of the genetic diversity in South Asia, Western Asia, Europe, and especially the Americas.

Weird then that his distinctly derived mtDNA and Y-DNA both became extinct. If I had to guess, the relatives of the poor boy probably didn't make it through the Last Glacial Maximum.

The label 20,000 years ago means nothing. Age's relation with genetics is relative. We don't know if modern population's genetic markers which distinguish them from other modern populations formed 5,000 or 40,000 years ago. A lot of modern human genetic diversity could have began to form 10,000s and 10,000s of years ago. Actually we know for a fact that a lot of genetic diversity in modern Europe is determined by different ancestry proportions from ancient populations who lived 10,000-15,000 years ago.

When talking about timeframes of 20,000 years, the relation becomes increasingly non-relative. That's why population geneticists were able to reconstruct human history without extant samples from each period.

ANE could have survived in its pure form up until 2000 BC in Northern Asia. One of the Bronze age Srubnaya genomes probably has admixture from an almost pure ANE populations which continued to exist 20,000 years after Ma'lta boy died. She looks like a mixture of Srubnaya and Ma'lta. She has more ANE than EHG, less WHG than EHG, more CHG.

I'm not sure what your source of information is, but 'ANE admixture' really isn't a thing. Just look at the ADMIXTURE analyses in every recent major publication. The WHG-SHG-EHG continuum has been predicted to have widely differing levels of admixture from Mal'ta, yet they always turn out to be at least 90% identical at even at >15 K. As for why this is so, the wife stealing crowd is probably not very interested in finding this out (especially if the answer doesn't fit the narrative). My guess would be that the non-West-Eurasian ancestry for which we haven't got a very good proxy just yet creates a greatly exaggerated pseudo-affinity to Mal'ta.

 

[Fire Haired14]

Weird then that his distinctly derived mtDNA and Y-DNA both became extinct. If I had to guess, the relatives of the poor boy probably didn't make it through the Last Glacial Maximum.

Technically speaking my great great great great great great great great grandmother's mtDNA is basically nonexstent. You'd have to sample millions of Germans to find someone who is apart of her mtDNA lineage. Most mtDNA lineages never become popular, most remain extremely rare, or become replaced by founder effects. The extinction of Mal'ta boy's mtDNA and Y DNA says almost nothing about the contribution his relatives or even his own tribe made to modern people.

It is true Mal'ta boy's mtDNA extnction and my greatx6 grandmother's mtDNA's rarity aren't directly comparable. He belonged to a U haplogroup which had accumulated many SNPs and certainly many subclades. There's probably no one alive today or very few are even a distant relative to his mtDNA. In contrast there are plenty of people today with U5b2a2b1. Nonetheless Mal'ta boy's mtDNA and Y DNA extinction aren't good evidence his relatives didn't contribute ancestry to many modern humans.

Afora Gora, 17,000 year old ANE individual, belonged to mtDNA haplogroup R1b1. It is not extinct. A Mesolithic Hungarian belonged to R1b1, two Bronze age individuals from Russia belonged to R1a, several individuals from Unetice belonged to R1, and R1 is found throughout Europe and Asia today. R1 today peaks in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus mountains, two locations with lots of ANE ancestry.

When talking about timeframes of 20,000 years, the relation becomes increasingly non-relative. That's why population geneticists were able to reconstruct human history without extant samples from each period.

Why does the relation become non-relative? Who are we to determine how far back in time is when ancient humans aren't closely related to any modern humans? Before science no one thought humans had been around for 10,000s of years. Time is relative. To one person 1,000 years ago is a very long time ago, to another person 20,000 years ago is long time ago. I don't see why someone who lived 24,000 years ago can't be ancestral to many modern humans.

I'm not sure what your source of information is, but 'ANE admixture' really isn't a thing. Just look at the ADMIXTURE analyses in every recent major publication. The WHG-SHG-EHG continuum has been predicted to have widely differing levels of admixture from Mal'ta, yet they always turn out to be at least 90% identical at even at >15 K. As for why this is so, the wife stealing crowd is probably not very interested in finding this out (especially if the answer doesn't fit the narrative). My guess would be that the non-West-Eurasian ancestry for which we haven't got a very good proxy just yet creates a greatly exaggerated pseudo-affinity to Mal'ta.

WHG-SHG-EHG form a ADMIXTURE component because they share shiz loads of ancestry. It doesn't mean they're genetic branch as opposed to Mal'ta. Formal stats say EHG is about as related to Mal'ta as to WHG.

My guess would be that the non-West-Eurasian ancestry for which we haven't got a very good proxy just yet creates a greatly exaggerated pseudo-affinity to Mal'ta.

The relation EHG, modern Europeans have to Mal'ta(and as a result Native Americans) is real. This relation was detected before Mal'ta boy's genome was sequenced. David Reich noticed modern Northern Europeans share common ancestry with Native Americans back in 2012; Native Americans and Northern Europeans more closely related than previously thought.

Intelligent geneticist like David Reich wouldn't make the mistake of fasley claiming Mal'ta boy's people are an ancestor Native Americans and Europeans share. They know what they're doing.

The relation EHG has to Mal'ta boy is extremely high, there's no way it is pseudo anything.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Technically speaking my great great great great great great great great grandmother's mtDNA is basically nonexstent. You'd have to sample millions of Germans to find someone who is apart of her mtDNA lineage. Most mtDNA lineages never become popular, most remain extremely rare, or become replaced by founder effects. The extinction of Mal'ta boy's mtDNA and Y DNA says almost nothing about the contribution his relatives or even his own tribe made to modern people.

It is true Mal'ta boy's mtDNA extnction and my greatx6 grandmother's mtDNA's rarity aren't directly comparable. He belonged to a U haplogroup which had accumulated many SNPs and certainly many subclades. There's probably no one alive today or very few are even a distant relative to his mtDNA. In contrast there are plenty of people today with U5b2a2b1. Nonetheless Mal'ta boy's mtDNA and Y DNA extinction aren't good evidence his relatives didn't contribute ancestry to many modern humans.

Afora Gora, 17,000 year old ANE individual, belonged to mtDNA haplogroup R1b1. It is not extinct. A Mesolithic Hungarian belonged to R1b1, two Bronze age individuals from Russia belonged to R1a, several individuals from Unetice belonged to R1, and R1 is found throughout Europe and Asia today. R1 today peaks in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus mountains, two locations with lots of ANE ancestry.





Why does the relation become non-relative? Who are we to determine how far back in time is when ancient humans aren't closely related to any modern humans? Before science no one thought humans had been around for 10,000s of years. Time is relative. To one person 1,000 years ago is a very long time ago, to another person 20,000 years ago is long time ago. I don't see why someone who lived 24,000 years ago can't be ancestral to many modern humans.





WHG-SHG-EHG form a ADMIXTURE component because they share shiz loads of ancestry. It doesn't mean they're genetic branch as opposed to Mal'ta. Formal stats say EHG is about as related to Mal'ta as to WHG.




The relation EHG, modern Europeans have to Mal'ta(and as a result Native Americans) is real. This relation was detected before Mal'ta boy's genome was sequenced. David Reich noticed modern Northern Europeans share common ancestry with Native Americans back in 2012; Native Americans and Northern Europeans more closely related than previously thought.

Intelligent geneticist like David Reich wouldn't make the mistake of fasley claiming Mal'ta boy's people are an ancestor Native Americans and Europeans share. They know what they're doing.

The relation EHG has to Mal'ta boy is extremely high, there's no way it is pseudo anything.

AF2 was Q-F746
https://www.yfull.com/tree/Q-L472/

Malta was R* and got extinct in Siberia.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R/

The oldest R1a/R1b/R2 have nothing Mongoloid.
They didn't appear in Siberia but in Eastern Europe and SW Asia.

I think Malta was a lost branch of R in a territory full of Q.
He was related to the 17 ka AF1 & AF2. He was admixed with Q.

The autosomal of AF and Malta is not ancestral to any Eurasian branch, it is ancestral to West-Siberian.
And right after LGM their DNA got admixed with HG tribes coming in from eastern Siberia.

To much modeling with autosomal happens without knowing the real context of the components.
Autosomal DNA is very unstable. Unless the tribe is isolated for a long time, autosomal DNA exist only local and for a small period of time.

 

[Tomenable]

Weird then that his distinctly derived mtDNA and Y-DNA both became extinct.

In every single generation:

- some men don't have children
- some men have only daughters
- some men have a lot of sons

If you go even just few thousand years back, only a relatively small fraction of men who lived at that time have modern Y-DNA descendants. This is why in ancient DNA we find a lot of rare basal paragroups intermixed with common modern subclades. Just because Malta Boy has no modern Y-DNA descendants, doesn't mean that we are not descended from that "tribe".

 

[Angela]

AF2 was Q-F746
https://www.yfull.com/tree/Q-L472/

Malta was R* and got extinct in Siberia.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R/

The oldest R1a/R1b/R2 have nothing Mongoloid.
They didn't appear in Siberia but in Eastern Europe and SW Asia.

I think Malta was a lost branch of R in a territory full of Q.
He was related to the 17 ka AF1 & AF2. He was admixed with Q.

The autosomal of AF and Malta is not ancestral to any Eurasian branch, it is ancestral to West-Siberian.
And right after LGM their DNA got admixed with HG tribes coming in from eastern Siberia.

To much modeling with autosomal happens without knowing the real context of the components.
Autosomal DNA is very unstable. Unless the tribe is isolated for a long time, autosomal DNA exist only local and for a small period of time.

I agree with your bolded comments. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that this means that none of that autosomal admixture is in modern West Eurasians or that it wasn't brought into Europe by people carrying R1 lineages. It just wasn't brought by that particular branch because it was stranded and went extinct.

 

[MarkoZ]

Afora Gora, 17,000 year old ANE individual, belonged to mtDNA haplogroup R1b1. It is not extinct. A Mesolithic Hungarian belonged to R1b1, two Bronze age individuals from Russia belonged to R1a, several individuals from Unetice belonged to R1, and R1 is found throughout Europe and Asia today. R1 today peaks in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus mountains, two locations with lots of ANE ancestry.

Let's first clear up the factual mistakes: there was no mtDNA R1b1 in Hungarian Mesolithic hunters. The KO1 individual had R3. Why you'd relate R1a and even R1 in general to R1b1 is a mystery to me. We already have mtDNA R in the Ust'Ishim specimen, so tying the whole macro-group to Mal'ta makes absolutely no sense. As it looks, Afontova Gora's mtDNA did indeed largely go extinct, though there's always the possibility that it might have survived in some corner of the world - who knows. Again the uniparental haplogroups don't look like those of a population who contributed to Eurasian diversity in a major way.

Why does the relation become non-relative? Who are we to determine how far back in time is when ancient humans aren't closely related to any modern humans? Before science no one thought humans had been around for 10,000s of years. Time is relative. To one person 1,000 years ago is a very long time ago, to another person 20,000 years ago is long time ago. I don't see why someone who lived 24,000 years ago can't be ancestral to many modern humans.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but 24,000 years constitute even by the most conservative estimates more than 1/5 of Homo Sapiens' history in Eurasia. It is a given that all humans are very closely related - but this reinforces my view that a gap like this shouldn't be ignored.

WHG-SHG-EHG form a ADMIXTURE component because they share shiz loads of ancestry. It doesn't mean they're genetic branch as opposed to Mal'ta. Formal stats say EHG is about as related to Mal'ta as to WHG.

If you didn't notice, I took issue with the claim that there are substantial levels of 'ANE admixture' in Mesolithic Europeans. Since the European hunters sprang from a common Epi-Gravettian or Magdalenian core, the exotic parts of Mal'ta boy's ancestry would surely show up in a subtantial way in those Mesolithic Karelians & Scandinavians. Affinity to Mal'ta is a different thing altogether, which might point to a mixed origin of the Mal'ta-Bouret population. In this context, consider the f2-, f3-, f4- analyses in Ex. Fig. 4. by Fu et al. (right click to enlarge):

In all three models the Mal'ta population constitute a divergent branch of a non-West-Eurasian population whose descendants would constitute the genetic backbone of the later Caucasus Hunter Gatherers. Why is Mal'ta divergent? Considering the archaeological context in which Mal'ta boy was found - which is very much Gravettian - I would say that a population from the west influenced those Siberians to a significant extent. We now know that this population wasn't strongly related to Dolní Věstonice, so it must have been something else. This is consistent with all three models shown above. I think that the Gravettian epicenter in Ukraine and Bulgaria will likely be very important in this regard.

As for why d-statistics reveal widely differing levels of relatedness to Mal'ta between WHG and EHG, I am convinced this has to do with the non-West-Eurasian ancestry in the latter. In ADMIXTURE analyses, the non-West-Eurasian ancestry is identified as Caucasus & American/Siberian. This is because the parent population of this non-West-Eurasian clade, which contributed more to the 'CHG' branch than to the 'Mal'ta' branch, is what made the latter distinctive.

The relation EHG, modern Europeans have to Mal'ta(and as a result Native Americans) is real. This relation was detected before Mal'ta boy's genome was sequenced. David Reich noticed modern Northern Europeans share common ancestry with Native Americans back in 2012; Native Americans and Northern Europeans more closely related than previously thought.

Intelligent geneticist like David Reich wouldn't make the mistake of fasley claiming Mal'ta boy's people are an ancestor Native Americans and Europeans share. They know what they're doing.

This is because at the time this was the best explanation for the American contribution to Europeans. However, in a wider context this doesn't really hold. See for example in Lazaridis ADMIXTURE analysis at K=6, Georgians who have a stronger affinity to ANE than any European population have almost none of the American admixture:

That's precisely because it wasn't the Mal'ta population that contributed to their ancestry.

 

[Angela]

I knew it was either the case that the title was misleading or that even the Pinhasi lab can get it wrong.

See:
http://popular-archaeology.com/issu...t-influence-of-migration-ancient-dna-suggests

Still the same mix-up because of the strange naming of hunter-gatherers as Neolithic when they only have ceramics, and no seeming understanding that the first "farmer" was a Corded Ware newcomer with different genetics, i.e. migration.

What a mess.

 

[Megalophias]

The KO1 individual had R3.

R3 is the old term for R1b. It was reclassified by Autosomal and uniparental portraits of the native populations of Sakha (Yakutia): implications for the peopling of Northeast Eurasia, which was followed by PhyloTree.

 

[LeBrok]

Sample	Site	Context	Burial	Aligned Reads	Aligned Reads (%)	MT Coverage	MT Contamination (c+md/c−md)	X Contamination (Test 1/Test 2)
Latvia_HG1	Zvejnieki	Mesolithic; Kunda culture	313	54,784,565	49.26	47.83	0.68/0.04	−
Latvia_HG2	Zvejnieki	Mesolithic; Narva culture	93	172,707,718	55.99	114.97	0.94/0.19	0.92 ± 0.08/0.88 ± 0.17
Latvia_HG3	Zvejnieki	Mesolithic/Early Neolithic	121	37,749,963	45.51	40.29	0.77/0.10	0.99 ± 0.26/0.72 ± 0.37
Latvia_MN1	Zvejnieki	Middle Neolithic	124	6,648,453	5.22	8.14	0.97/0.50	−
Latvia_MN2	Zvejnieki	Middle Neolithic; Comb Ware culture	221	59,800,396	37.51	48.54	0.69/0.10	−
Latvia_LN1	Zvejnieki	Late Neolithic; Corded Ware culture	137	9,222,060	7.48	9.58	1.09/0.00	−
Ukraine_HG1	Vasilyevka	Mesolithic	37	9,528,908	4.30	5.49	0.29/0.29	−
Ukraine_N1	Vovnigi	Neolithic; Dnieper-Donets culture	2	10,741,415	12.04	6.06	1.06 0.28	−

Do any of these numbers can tell us about samples' quality? Do anyone know when can we expect them in GedMatch?

 

[bicicleur 2]

I agree with your bolded comments. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that this means that none of that autosomal admixture is in modern West Eurasians or that it wasn't brought into Europe by people carrying R1 lineages. It just wasn't brought by that particular branch because it was stranded and went extinct.

Indeed, we don't know. Probably, as Q and R both descend from P, and both didn't get to much admixture from other tribes right after they split, Mal'ta and AF were a similar brother clade of the R which is ancestral to R1a/R1b/R2.
My point is that in analysing with autosomal DNA one can make many false conclusions.
Especially when there are several levels of admixture.
Ever since say 8 ka different levels of admixture followed very frequently in Eurasia and even in Northern Africa in ever smaller time intervals.

 

[MarkoZ]

R3 is the old term for R1b. It was reclassified by Autosomal and uniparental portraits of the native populations of Sakha (Yakutia): implications for the peopling of Northeast Eurasia, which was followed by PhyloTree.

I stand corrected. Weird, I had always considered R3/R1b to be West Asian specifically.

Edit: Heh, strange distribution of R1b1. I wonder if it's indigenous in Trinidad.

http://haplogroup.org/mtdna/rsrs/l123456/l23456/l2346/l346/l34/l3/n/r/r1/r1b/r1b1/

 

[LeBrok]

I knew it was either the case that the title was misleading or that even the Pinhasi lab can get it wrong.

See:
http://popular-archaeology.com/issu...t-influence-of-migration-ancient-dna-suggests

Still the same mix-up because of the strange naming of hunter-gatherers as Neolithic when they only have ceramics, and no seeming understanding that the "farmer" was a Corded Ware newcomer with different genetics, i.e. migration.

What a mess.

Either they want fame by archeological "showbiz" or they want to vindicate h-g of Europe. One of biggest crime in this paper is overemphasizing Kotias and diminishing Yamnaya heritage. Kotias genome in LN1 would need to be transmitted via contemporary, to LN1, groups. One of these, with strong dominant position in close proximity, is Yamnaya. However, if they modeled LN1 as part of Yamnaya then they would have suggested that LN1 contained farmer genes, either Yamnaya farmer or Iranian Neolithic/Copper. If they split Yamnaya into Kotias and Samara, then "farmer problem" goes away. They can proclaim LN1 as hunter gatherer only, and make their paper revolutionary and famous.
Following this way of reasoning, way we can "prove" that EEF was a hunter gatherer too. A mixture of Natufian HG, Anatolian HG and WHG.

 

[bicicleur 2]

I knew it was either the case that the title was misleading or that even the Pinhasi lab can get it wrong.

See:
http://popular-archaeology.com/issu...t-influence-of-migration-ancient-dna-suggests

Still the same mix-up because of the strange naming of hunter-gatherers as Neolithic when they only have ceramics, and no seeming understanding that the "farmer" was a Corded Ware newcomer with different genetics, i.e. migration.

What a mess.

they talk about nomadic HG while these HG were sedentary

furthermore there is doubt about when 'farming' started
they should talk about 'herders' and not 'farmers' and I think it is very dificult for archeology to discern herders from HG

 

[Angela]

Either they want fame by archeological "showbiz" or they want to vindicate h-g of Europe. One of biggest crime in this paper is overemphasizing Kotias and diminishing Yamnaya heritage. Kotias genome in LN1 would need to be transmitted via contemporary, to LN1, groups. One of these, with strong dominant position in close proximity, is Yamnaya. However, if they modeled LN1 as part of Yamnaya then they would have suggested that LN1 contained farmer genes, either Yamnaya farmer or Iranian Neolithic/Copper. If they split Yamnaya into Kotias and Samara, then "farmer problem" goes away. They can proclaim LN1 as hunter gatherer only, and make their paper revolutionary and famous.
Following this way of reasoning, way we can "prove" that EEF was a hunter gatherer too. A mixture of Natufian HG, Anatolian HG and WHG.

Exactly. I'm honestly shocked that a lab with the standing of Pinhasi's would be guilty of this kind of biased analysis, because it's either that or it's an equally shocking lack of logic and knowledge of the archaeology. I hold out some hope that the journalists just got it wrong.

Well, I guess I shouldn't be so surprised and shocked that it could happen, even if in this case it's journalists getting it wrong. Look at that appalling paper from China trying to re-arrange the mtDna phylogeny in order for China to be "the" source for modern humans. If it weren't so laughable it would be tragic.