bicicleur 2
Regular Member
- Messages
- 6,373
- Reaction score
- 1,406
- Points
- 113
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.
check my post nr 296
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...Europea/page12?p=501346&viewfull=1#post501346
none of the 8 samples have teal admixture, except the Latvian corded ware
the comb ware (MN2) doesn't have teal but red (karitiana-like)
on the other hand, as I mentioned in earlier post, 1 of the Khvalynsk genomes has teal, but contrary to all other EHG in Estern Europe, no WHG-like admixture, which indicates he was a newcomer