I think you're letting your biases against what Anthony thinks obscure your judgement, because it seems pretty clear to me that the children were kept in the tell towns and lived and died there obviously does not mean that the children died still in their infancy in those tell towns, but that they lived - i.e. were raised, grew up and resided - there and eventually, as adults, died in those tell towns, not spreading much and leaving a gtrong long-term genetic impact.
Absolutely not, because I broadly agree with what Anthony thinks. It's his slanted and misleading way of writing that I do not like much.
Why refer to them only as "children", if not to hint (without any evidence) that they did not reach reproductive maturity, and by implication must have died out without leaving any descendants?
And of course, every person buried in the tell towns died in the tell towns, whether they had steppic DNA or not.
And there is no evidence that the people there with steppic DNA did not spread much or leave a strong long-term genetic impact. In fact, on the contrary, such people fit very well as contributors to a variety of subsequent populations.
Sounds like a conspiracy theory.
A pejorative expression, only ever wheeled out to discredit by association.
Outliers definitely exist, especially in lands without any major geographic barriers isolating the population. Population genetics is always a matter of probabilities: if all the samples from a certain region, having lived in different timeframes, have a certain genetic makeup, and only one or another deviate clearly from the rest, we're probably dealing with outliers that left little genetic impact on the local population after some generations, otherwise we wouldn't expect that definite genetic structure to remain broadly the same for several generations without major changes.
Yes, outliers do indeed exist, and they indicate something that people who term them "outliers" generally wish to ignore.
Poltavka has an outlier sample that a few centuries later mirrored the general population in the same area.
Sredny Stog has an outlier sample that a thousand years or so later mirrored the general population hundreds of miles to its West.
Most so-called outliers that I have seen identified as such have similar genetic traces in subsequent populations.
Well, many people have been doing exactly that on their own, and they still disagree with your hypothesis. It's not like it's that simple, and you're the only sensible and knowledgeable person to be able to see the truth.
What "hypothesis" is this that I'm supposed to have? And what is this "truth" that you suggest I think only I am able to see? I am merely posting data, and don't have any overarching hypothesis for people to disagree with.
In fact, I've spent most of my time cautioning people on this forum that it is
not simple, and that many models presented (including by Reich and Anthony) are misleading by virtue of their over-simplicity.