J2b2-L283 (proto-illyrian)

[Archetype0ne]

It is exactly what I said, you just failed to adress the geographical J-L283 diversity structure.
See, you just didn't adressed the J-Z622 --> J-Z585 diversity levels.

For some reasons, you want to make them arrives in Sardinia ~1800 BCE or later (I noticed that you are mentionning EBA now ... you are making some progress, but cultural contacts are going up to LCA to be exact).

Here you explain nothing.
How do you create this specific diversity spot ?

I help you about what would be the requirement for a logical demonstration :
-If you want to claim that the Tyrrhenian cluster is the result of a later migration carrying very old diversity, you need to provide a proof that such diversity existed at some point in time at the location you chose as an origin.
-If you can't provide such a proof, you need a least a mecanism to erase the traces of this diversity cluster during later/modern times.
-Yet, you claim that the Tyrrhenian cluster is the results of many migrations, from region that didn't contains diversity at this level (this is non-sens, it is like claiming that you would follow F migration patern using C, because they both descend from CF).


More problematic is that the Tyrrhenian cluster have structured diversity ... which didn't fits with a significantly late repartition of the clades (or you need to have a different path for each ... which is even worst on aa statistical perspective).
Nothing work in what you proposed ...



I do have a model that explains all those samples ... With cultural contacts that can be backuped by published papers.
If you want to contest the concerned cultural connections, feel free to try to publish a paper (I'll gladly read your ideas on archeology once peer-reviewed).
there is nothing outdated here, I can explain all aspects of the data ... whereas you can't, because you will always fail to explain the Tyrrhenian cluster with your late Yamanyan belief.

There is no L283 samples in Tuscany Eneolitic ?
Do you know why ?
Because we didn't have coverage of the area (and J-L283 arrived as a small group of migrants that wasn't a significant part of the population).

I know you are anoyed that the Yamnayan model is failing in many aspects:
--> Diversity ? Fails
--> Ancient samples ? Fails, not a single derived sample down the J-Z622 line in the Steppe, only remants in the Maykopian sphere of influence at J-283 level (therefore matching my version rather than yours. Your version that should have many samples in the steppe derived across the J-L283 --> J-Z597 line).




Did you read me ?
J-Z597 is a clade that got absorbed by BBs ... not originating from BBs ... This is the whole concept of "being absorbed" or "being influenced".
Here again, Cetina being a syncretic culture involving BBs is not an idea of mine, but is coming from serious published papers.

Where exactly J-Z597 got absorbed ? This is a potentially interesting question, ~South-eastern Alps is the more likely to me (but there is some open space about the exact location, because J-Z597 didn't have any compact diversity signal).

Interestingly, the male to female small bias you speak about comes in the context of a later expansion that concerns Y15058 (not J-Z597) ...
You have no samples that are old enough to probe the moment at which J-Z597 entered expansion and under what exact circumstances.
Sounds to me like someone trying to study Charlemagne times using ancient DNA from Louis XIV times.
If you consider that "obvious knowledge", then you have serious methodological issues.
No, post-2000 BCE DNA samples are not informing you about the circumstances under which J-Z597 expanded ~2400 BCE (in particular when speaking of sex-admixture-bias, that have a very limited depth in time).



Not that much (this place appear to be relevant for the discussion) ... I'm interested about the gigantic diversity spot that exists from J-Z622 to J-Z585 around Tyrrhenian sea (involving Sardinia, Tuscany, Sicilia ... Islands and mountaineous regions are very good to preserve old isolated lineages).
After, we even have something more crazy stuff than this modern diversity spot about Sardinia : the Nuragic Sardinians, with J-Z585 and J-YP91 on the same site at a time when there is almost no L283 on the Island ...

I'll try to explain you the reasoning (again),
--> We know J-L283 originate from the Caucasus
--> We know J-Z622-->J-Z585 have a gigantic diversity spot (~3500 BCE) around Tyrrhenian sea (6 lineages over 8 that can be rooted there, with 3/4 among them being exclusive to this location)
--> We know that cultural contacts existed around that time between these two regions (you know the ref by now if read me).

I have two spatial points, and an archeological connection at the right time (with respect to the phylogeny) ... of course I will root for that (that's what any unbiased person would do).

On the other side, you are totally unable to explain the Tyrrhenian clades by anything alse than


Whereas in fact it is what kills your idea ...
If you diversify them in the steppe, you would spread J-L283-->J-Z615 clades on the Steppic footprint (like what happen to R-Z2103) ...
It is not what we observe, what we observe is J-L283 level clades spreaded over what is a Maykopian-influence footprint (see C. Jeunesse 2020).

Explains me how you source Tyrrhenian shores with Z622+/Z615- samples using a source population that up to now unfolded purely Z615+(and even purely Z597+) ?
Where is this magical cluster of Z622+ that you want to use to source Tyrrhenian shores ? More and more you wait in time since Z622 diversification, less and less likely it is dooable without a big geographical area containing such lineages (but then less and less likely it is to have structed patern at the destination place).

Why trying so hard to make them wait ? Especially considering that we have no identified location that could serve as a hub ... when in fact we already have a cultural connection around 3500 BCE ?
Why going for a very complexe an unlikely migration over thousands of years ... rather than going for a natural and logical solution ?

Do you know why ? Because you have a mandatory requirement in your reasoning, you want to pass by late-Yamnayan.
I don't have ideological requirement, thus I root for the most likely solution, that didn't require magical migration process during thousands of years.



That's debatable, you aren't forced to use Caucasus Eneolitic as a source (but it indeed works).
You can instead use "HajjiFiruz_C" as a source for exemple (I let you find the combination that works).
Is that your claim that having a J-L283 amond LSE_o around ~3800 BCE make it totally impossible for it to be inside Maykopian sphere of influence by ~3600 BCE ? That's a strong claim, with little to nothing to support it.

I also think you mis-read the paper ... they didn't claim that the Caucasus eneolitic components that sources Maykop and LSE_o splitted ~5000-4500 BCE ... they are just showing that Caucasus eneolitic sourced these two populations (in their model).

Thus, we don't know by how many centuries is this sample separated from J-L283 main lineage.
We also don't know when the LSE_o mixture formed (this is not what they tested with "dates").
Therefore, you can't be sure that J-L283 is not a recent arrival from the Caucasus (i.e., ~few generations) ...


You are using a lot of assumptions here.

If assumptions are fine when you try to bluid a model, and indeed, there is space for J-L283 to have passed by the Caucasus Eneolitic component ... your hypothesis are pointless to oppose any alternative model.
And spoilers, regarding the potential modalities by which ZO1002 ended where it ended are legions ... thats why on this topic I wouldn't be categoric, we need more samples.

We know that starting ~3500 BCE J-L283 was a vector of metallurgical progress.
But was he before that, or did he started to be ~3500 BCE ?
Under the assumption that he was, we can make some educated guesses about the way he integrated north-Caucasus ... but this an unsafe hypothesis ... and without it we are blind.

Qpadm and/or PCA are mostly "blind" about mixtures in this area and time period ... because many models can fit.
Here, you are entering what is called overfitting, this is the same issue that the one we are facing inside modern European ancestry with shitty PCA or qpadm-like based diagnostics (I don't know if you are familiar with that).

Let see how it will unfold once Eneolitic Tuscany will receive good coverage ... I have personnaly little to no doubts, the statistical level for this conclusion is even higher than my claim about Hallstatt presence of for J-Z597 during IA.
That's why I'm forced to stick with ~Tuscany by ~3500-3100 BCE ... because that's what my statistical estimators are calling.
And I'm that kind of dude, I follow the data ... if the data were saying Yamnaya, I would root for Yamnaya, yet it isn't the case.

Too much wrong on that post to address. PCA and qpADM are two very, very different tools. You see, qpADM, unlike PCA or your "cross-clade-correlation" has mechanisms to falsify a hypothesis, hence epistemic value. Coming from your world I know you know what I am talking about.

As for your refutation of the most obvious model, I think you really misunderstand. Z597 PR Z622 or whatever could have arrived in the EBA, and not later into that region. That is where our theories coincide. But them being a local development from some pre-EBA period or some local EEFs, no. Ultimately, the source coming from the North Caucasus steppe, can no longer be denied. And again, please tell me what and what can not be deduced from cross clade correlation or diversification? The lemon is sour because its yellow? Cause one deals with temporal branching events, from which you are claiming you can extract past origin and location information, based of off... modern diversity? (*hint when responding to this remember the yfull correspondence between L283 admins and Yfull staff which I shared with you around a year ago).

But I welcome your attempt to put some criteria to your hypothesis. I just hope, if we do not find 3500-3100BCE Tuscan L283, then you hang your hat and face the music. Unlike when Steppe Ancestry in western Eurasia and the spread of the Germanic Languages was published. Or the many L283 samples we have gotten since.

Take care

 

[Archetype0ne]

Some of those models fail, more importantly R-PF7562 model fails. When one needs working models, I'm your huckleberry. First thing first, geography lesson.

The oldest R-PF7562 in the Balkans are Cinamak and Romania-Bulgaria-Serbia border region. The Romanian samples is older by 150 years, the distribution strongly suggests this branch of Yamanya forming the Bubanj-Hum culture complex(and it's sibling Armenchori). None of these EBA cultures have been suggested as the forerunners of Illyrians, it's not even in discussion in archeology.

The Cinamak sample is likely a first generation born in the area, which means his neolithic source would likely be from southern Serbia or Kosovo, which sadly we have no samples of.

2nd point: An actual passing model for R-PF7562 EBA Cinamak.

These R-PF7562/3 population, are the only samples that model successfully with Albanian neolithic, something that does not work with Illyrian samples.
Refer to older work here: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/south-albania-tumulus-dna-samples.44180/page-11


Need some BA Illyrian models? I got you dog.

As was noted by your friend, Illyrians got Beakerized, they went on a rampage seizing BA Italian women.

Not sure why you are acting like that. Since you know very well half those models I have posted already in genarchvisit as well as here in earlier posts, I mean you were interacting with them. I would understand if you were acting original with a third party, but with me? Just lol.

Either way not sure if you are following the discussion, but you are proving my point? The whole movement was a steppe one.

As for Beakerized Illyrians rampaging BA Italian women, that's such a weird thing to say.

 

[PaleoRevenge]

Not sure why you are acting like that. Since you know very well half those models I have posted already in genarchvisit as well as here in earlier posts, I mean you were interacting with them. I would understand if you were acting original with a third party, but with me? Just lol.

Either way not sure if you are following the discussion, but you are proving my point? The whole movement was a steppe one.

As for Beakerized Illyrians rampaging BA Italian women, that's such a weird thing to say.

I'm setting things straight, if you want to claim other ethnic groups as Illyrians, prove it this is after all DNA themed forum, if you can't back it up with DNA evidence, you can run away and pretend we interacted, somewhere in your imagination.

Either way not sure if you are following the discussion, but you are proving my point? The whole movement was a steppe one.

That's not what I called into question. Now you're confusing monsieur Ghutier with me.

 

[Polska]

It is exactly what I said, you just failed to adress the geographical J-L283 diversity structure.
See, you just didn't adressed the J-Z622 --> J-Z585 diversity levels.

For some reasons, you want to make them arrives in Sardinia ~1800 BCE or later (I noticed that you are mentionning EBA now ... you are making some progress, but cultural contacts are going up to LCA to be exact).

Here you explain nothing.
How do you create this specific diversity spot ?

I help you about what would be the requirement for a logical demonstration :
-If you want to claim that the Tyrrhenian cluster is the result of a later migration carrying very old diversity, you need to provide a proof that such diversity existed at some point in time at the location you chose as an origin.
-If you can't provide such a proof, you need a least a mecanism to erase the traces of this diversity cluster during later/modern times.
-Yet, you claim that the Tyrrhenian cluster is the results of many migrations, from region that didn't contains diversity at this level (this is non-sens, it is like claiming that you would follow F migration patern using C, because they both descend from CF).


More problematic is that the Tyrrhenian cluster have structured diversity ... which didn't fits with a significantly late repartition of the clades (or you need to have a different path for each ... which is even worst on aa statistical perspective).
Nothing work in what you proposed ...



I do have a model that explains all those samples ... With cultural contacts that can be backuped by published papers.
If you want to contest the concerned cultural connections, feel free to try to publish a paper (I'll gladly read your ideas on archeology once peer-reviewed).
there is nothing outdated here, I can explain all aspects of the data ... whereas you can't, because you will always fail to explain the Tyrrhenian cluster with your late Yamanyan belief.

There is no L283 samples in Tuscany Eneolitic ?
Do you know why ?
Because we didn't have coverage of the area (and J-L283 arrived as a small group of migrants that wasn't a significant part of the population).

I know you are anoyed that the Yamnayan model is failing in many aspects:
--> Diversity ? Fails
--> Ancient samples ? Fails, not a single derived sample down the J-Z622 line in the Steppe, only remants in the Maykopian sphere of influence at J-283 level (therefore matching my version rather than yours. Your version that should have many samples in the steppe derived across the J-L283 --> J-Z597 line).




Did you read me ?
J-Z597 is a clade that got absorbed by BBs ... not originating from BBs ... This is the whole concept of "being absorbed" or "being influenced".
Here again, Cetina being a syncretic culture involving BBs is not an idea of mine, but is coming from serious published papers.

Where exactly J-Z597 got absorbed ? This is a potentially interesting question, ~South-eastern Alps is the more likely to me (but there is some open space about the exact location, because J-Z597 didn't have any compact diversity signal).

Interestingly, the male to female small bias you speak about comes in the context of a later expansion that concerns Y15058 (not J-Z597) ...
You have no samples that are old enough to probe the moment at which J-Z597 entered expansion and under what exact circumstances.
Sounds to me like someone trying to study Charlemagne times using ancient DNA from Louis XIV times.
If you consider that "obvious knowledge", then you have serious methodological issues.
No, post-2000 BCE DNA samples are not informing you about the circumstances under which J-Z597 expanded ~2400 BCE (in particular when speaking of sex-admixture-bias, that have a very limited depth in time).



Not that much (this place appear to be relevant for the discussion) ... I'm interested about the gigantic diversity spot that exists from J-Z622 to J-Z585 around Tyrrhenian sea (involving Sardinia, Tuscany, Sicilia ... Islands and mountaineous regions are very good to preserve old isolated lineages).
After, we even have something more crazy stuff than this modern diversity spot about Sardinia : the Nuragic Sardinians, with J-Z585 and J-YP91 on the same site at a time when there is almost no L283 on the Island ...

I'll try to explain you the reasoning (again),
--> We know J-L283 originate from the Caucasus
--> We know J-Z622-->J-Z585 have a gigantic diversity spot (~3500 BCE) around Tyrrhenian sea (6 lineages over 8 that can be rooted there, with 3/4 among them being exclusive to this location)
--> We know that cultural contacts existed around that time between these two regions (you know the ref by now if read me).

I have two spatial points, and an archeological connection at the right time (with respect to the phylogeny) ... of course I will root for that (that's what any unbiased person would do).

On the other side, you are totally unable to explain the Tyrrhenian clades by anything alse than


Whereas in fact it is what kills your idea ...
If you diversify them in the steppe, you would spread J-L283-->J-Z615 clades on the Steppic footprint (like what happen to R-Z2103) ...
It is not what we observe, what we observe is J-L283 level clades spreaded over what is a Maykopian-influence footprint (see C. Jeunesse 2020).

Explains me how you source Tyrrhenian shores with Z622+/Z615- samples using a source population that up to now unfolded purely Z615+(and even purely Z597+) ?
Where is this magical cluster of Z622+ that you want to use to source Tyrrhenian shores ? More and more you wait in time since Z622 diversification, less and less likely it is dooable without a big geographical area containing such lineages (but then less and less likely it is to have structed patern at the destination place).

Why trying so hard to make them wait ? Especially considering that we have no identified location that could serve as a hub ... when in fact we already have a cultural connection around 3500 BCE ?
Why going for a very complexe an unlikely migration over thousands of years ... rather than going for a natural and logical solution ?

Do you know why ? Because you have a mandatory requirement in your reasoning, you want to pass by late-Yamnayan.
I don't have ideological requirement, thus I root for the most likely solution, that didn't require magical migration process during thousands of years.



That's debatable, you aren't forced to use Caucasus Eneolitic as a source (but it indeed works).
You can instead use "HajjiFiruz_C" as a source for exemple (I let you find the combination that works).
Is that your claim that having a J-L283 amond LSE_o around ~3800 BCE make it totally impossible for it to be inside Maykopian sphere of influence by ~3600 BCE ? That's a strong claim, with little to nothing to support it.

I also think you mis-read the paper ... they didn't claim that the Caucasus eneolitic components that sources Maykop and LSE_o splitted ~5000-4500 BCE ... they are just showing that Caucasus eneolitic sourced these two populations (in their model).

Thus, we don't know by how many centuries is this sample separated from J-L283 main lineage.
We also don't know when the LSE_o mixture formed (this is not what they tested with "dates").
Therefore, you can't be sure that J-L283 is not a recent arrival from the Caucasus (i.e., ~few generations) ...


You are using a lot of assumptions here.

If assumptions are fine when you try to bluid a model, and indeed, there is space for J-L283 to have passed by the Caucasus Eneolitic component ... your hypothesis are pointless to oppose any alternative model.
And spoilers, regarding the potential modalities by which ZO1002 ended where it ended are legions ... thats why on this topic I wouldn't be categoric, we need more samples.

We know that starting ~3500 BCE J-L283 was a vector of metallurgical progress.
But was he before that, or did he started to be ~3500 BCE ?
Under the assumption that he was, we can make some educated guesses about the way he integrated north-Caucasus ... but this an unsafe hypothesis ... and without it we are blind.

Qpadm and/or PCA are mostly "blind" about mixtures in this area and time period ... because many models can fit.
Here, you are entering what is called overfitting, this is the same issue that the one we are facing inside modern European ancestry with shitty PCA or qpadm-like based diagnostics (I don't know if you are familiar with that).

Let see how it will unfold once Eneolitic Tuscany will receive good coverage ... I have personnaly little to no doubts, the statistical level for this conclusion is even higher than my claim about Hallstatt presence of for J-Z597 during IA.
That's why I'm forced to stick with ~Tuscany by ~3500-3100 BCE ... because that's what my statistical estimators are calling.
And I'm that kind of dude, I follow the data ... if the data were saying Yamnaya, I would root for Yamnaya, yet it isn't the case.

Ancient J2b L283 samples:

-Early/Pre Yamnaya (4000 BCE)
-Core Yamnaya (3000 BCE)
-Nal’chik (2000 BCE)
-Maros Culture (2000 BCE)
-Cetina Culture (2300-1600 BCE)
-Mycenaeans (1600 BCE)
-Lchashen Metsamor Culture (1200 BCE)
-Nuragic Culture (1200 BCE)
-Illyrians (Too many to list here…1100-200 BCE)
-Western Hallstatt/La Tene (600 BCE)
-Etruscans (1200 BCE)

As I’ve pointed out to you several times, long distance CLV cline migrations across the Black Sea steppe into the Balkans and beyond, failed. Csongrad, Giurgiulesti, Bursuceni, etc., the list goes on. The lineages that were reproductively successful were those who stopped in between the Don and Dnipro Rivers and diversified as part of the Core Yamnaya founder event. It’s right there in the J2b L283 early Yamnaya and Core Yamnaya (IBD sharing) steppe samples. It’s a slam dunk.

By the way, the Zolotarevka J2b L283 early/pre Yamnaya sample included a whetstone (sharpening blades) and a sulphur orb of some sort, a likely byproduct of metal smelting. So there’s your metal smithing moving out on to the steppe with nomadic J2b L283 pastoralists around 4000 BCE. Well before Maykop. IE Proto Indo Anatolians. This is obvious in terms of the archaeological survey of ZO1002 (Kurgan 26, solitary burial, grave 4…pre/early Yamnaya) and autosomal composition which was much more steppe shifted than any sort of Maykop (chronologically too early, too). Without Zolotarevka, there is no Core Yamnaya. The qpadm runs from ArchetypeOne, looking at Areni, Ovaoren, Kalehoyuk, Ikizitepe, and Crihana Veche seal the deal. This is also backed up by the previous slides I included upthread detailing the formation and expansion of Core Yamnaya in the Origins of IE preprint.

I think Hunter Provyn has a better explanation for Sardinia and Italy, more grounded in reality and ancient DNA samples, where there is an earlier group (3100 BCE) being displaced by a somewhat later wave (Z615). This is synchronous with known Yamnaya movements into the western Balkans, where we had Yamnaya in Montenegro, Croatia, and Slovenia as early as 3100 BCE. I think your better line of attack would be to try to research groups that may have migrated from the western Balkans to Italy during the mid 3rd millennium. Laterza Culture could be an interesting candidate (2900-2300 BCE). But even that’s pushing it. Perhaps there were connections between early Cetina and Laterza (2500 BCE).

Refugees, Forerunners or Simply Uncommon? – J2b-L283 Paraclades in Sardinia and Tuscany – Mygrations

phylogeographer.com

 

[Ghurier]

PCA and qpADM are two very, very different tools. You see, qpADM, unlike PCA or your "cross-clade-correlation" has mechanisms to be falsifiable, hence epistemic value. Coming from your world I know you know what I am talking about.

Not that much when you know how it works ... PCA is just reducing dimentionality of the problem, whereas QPadm technically conserves the whole genetic distances.
But a tailored PCA is as efficient as a QPadm approach (if the problem is concerning a sufficiently small geographical region, time-period, and enough dimensions for the PCA).

After, I'm not surprised to see that your casual "expertise" on statistics is "sufficient" to try teach me ... despite my significant peer-reviewed publication record on data analysis.
You reminds me some students ... that while failing to get their Licence, were believing to be able to prove that General Relativity was mathematically wrong.

You are right to have self confidense ... but before entering a ring, maybe do a bit of training.

As for your refutation of the most obvious model

I refuted nothing per-se.
I say that up to now you failed to provide an explanation of the Tyrrhenian cluster.
Thus, I have no model to refute, because you haven't provided a model ... you just made a statement (which isn't a model).

A model would consists of set of geographical locations (with timings) and attested/suspected cultural contacts to move from a location to another.
While you give a great attention to J-Z615, you are completely ignoring the other 7 surviging modern lineages spawning from J-Z622 to J-Z585.
Which by definition makes your claim very weak, as it is based on the study of ~12.5% of the lineages spawned around ~3500-3100 BCE.
Whereas, my model is consistent with all lineages, motivated by 75% of the lineages, and strongly implied by 50% of the lineages.

Build a model (for the J-Z622-->J-Z615 stages), and then I will tell you if it pass minimal statistical tests.
But, I can alredy tell you that anything with a migration significantly post-3100 BCE will hardly faills.

To put more words on this claim of mine :
It involves too many lines to make migrate toward a place that barely received external influences from an area that you can't even localize ...
Without mentioning that you would need to make them migrate with a patern following a deep ancestry history ... whereas the source population have to be dispersed enough to have avoided a refresh of its diversity horizon.

Up to now, your claim is to say that samples at J-Z622-->J-Z585 clustered luckily around the Tyrrhenian sea, being injected by Cetina (whereas Cetina have no such old diversity ???).
You can believe that of course ... I find it very unconvincing (as would anyone looking at the phylogeny carefully).

Z597 PR Z622 or whatever could have arrived in the EBA, and not later into that region. That is where our theories coincide.

Provides dates instead of generic labels ...
My models speak about an arrival in Tuscany ~3500 BCE ... this is not EBA, this is LCA.

While such contacts between Caucasus and Eneolitic tuscany are attested by published papers around ~3500 BCE, you seem to consider a passage of J-L283 at this date "impossible". This is very disturbing to me (it is almost like you have an ideological bias on the topic).
You know that trying to weaken my model won't strengthen your claims ... to strengthen your claims you should find a statistically likely migration model on your own (starting from Yamnayan ? Good luck).

Also, while you try hard to push a deep discussion of MOK15 admixture as some sort of ultimate proof of J-Z615 origin ... We just have nearby some G2a samples around the same time that have even more WSH dna than this sample (double standards are rarely a good sign about a methodology).
Thus your argument here falls flat, whereas my proposal about an absorbtion/interaction as a BB-peripheries aligns again perfectly with archeological knowledge regarding Mokrin.

But them being a local development from some pre-EBA period or some local EEFs, no.

Too vague and unclear ...
Most-likely J-Z622 spent most of the 3500-2500 timeframe in a heavily EEF-dominated population.
Because J-L283 travelled as small infiltration groups

Ultimately, the source coming from the North Caucasus steppe, can no longer be denied.

The presence in north caucasus steppe can't be denied ...
The source however ? There is a lot to say about it ... we don't even know when LSE_o got formed, and we are not sure of the component (the paper poorly explored it).

To recall a bit the long story :

"Around the Black-sea" origin have been a given for years (since before I joined the game online).
The hoax spread by few (I think I remember you being among them) about a "Moldovan 4000 BCE sample" (that was simply ~2700 BCE) mislead me a bit in rightly identifying Maykopian sphere of influence as the good origin.

For some reasons, you antogonised me, because I mentioned the strong Tyrrhenian cluster.
While I acknowledged that the lineage could have originated anywhere around the black sea ... you just started to make non-sense about "French-Neolithic".
Likely because you weren't aware of deep-cultural contacts as high as the first half of the 4th millenium BCE between the Caucasus and Italy (that's strange because that's kind of old knowledge).

Once the Moldovan sample aired, it settled the question, the Maykopian-shere of influence was the fitting model.
Then ZO1002 aired, confirming this view with a sample clearly linked with the Caucasus Copper Age.

And again, please tell me what and what can not be deduced from cross clade correlation or diversification?

Seriously ? Are we going down that path again ?
The whole point is to study the cross-correlation between the spatial distribution of subclades across-time.
When you have a migration/expansion concerning two regions ... you have a drop in spatial cross-correlation (I provided many graphic of this probe on multiple forum, strange that you failed to saw any of them).

ALL attested population movement are clearly showing up with this probe, you can't dodge it.
For massive population movements, you can have some old diversity carriage, but that never exceeds few centuries.
While under some circumstancies you can emulate a fake signal (there is ways to test that) ... a migration not producing signal ? I have yet to see it ! Only modern history migrations are not really visible, but only because the sampling depth is not good enough.

Thus, clade-spatial-cross-correlation is bascially a methodology to test biological separation-time between two sub-populations that sourced two different regiond of the world.
It allows to detects multiple movements, even when you have pile-up signal induced by recurrent migrations.

For J-L283, around the black-sea you have J-L283-level clades ... and nothing derived down the J-Z622 line ... for which sub-lineages are concentrated around the Tyrrhenian-sea (that have an attested cultural connection with the caucasus at the right time).
Then following the path of J-Z615 is fairly easy, considering that this clade appears among BB-peripheries.

This topic is so settled, except your deep desire to be a Yamnayan prevents you to see it.

The lemon is sour because its yellow? Cause one deals with temporal branching events, from which you are claiming you can extract past origin and location information, based of off... modern diversity?

Modern diversity can be a misleading probe.
What matters the most are two criteria :
--> The number of concerned lines (more independant lines allows less noise on diversity etimator ... that's why Hunter's diversity estimator is garbage, because he let the fine structure of the phylogeny produce too much noise without a relevant temporal smoothing).
--> The success of concerned lines (less diffusive lines are statistically less mobile than highly diffusive ones ... because mobility generate diversity, whereas immobility prevent diveristy creation due to lineages screaning each-other)

Once you have that in mind, you can assess how significant is a diversity cluster.
The Tyrrhenian diversity cluster is a monster considering the epoch and the level of diffusion of J-Z622.
What also makes the Tyrrhenian cluster very robust is that he is itself structured with a TMRCA of ~3500-3100 BCE.

This cluster is that good because it has to be preserved by Islands and mountaineous regions of Italy (we have many lines that got "buried" since diversification and that never re-entered expansion ... this is gold for diversity proxy).

But I welcome your attempt to put some criteria to your hypothesis. I just hope, if we do not find 3500-3100BCE Tuscan L283, then you hang your hat and face the music. Unlike when Steppe Ancestry in western Eurasia and the spread of the Germanic Languages was published. Or the many L283 samples we have gotten since.

Claim by lack of sample is something very hard to achieve ... Remember J-Z597 among Hallstatt populations, for you the Czechian samples were settling the question ... Look how it unfolded !
You couldn't say that I told you about this other significant diversity cluster ! Probably you want to believe this is "luck" ? But no, this is just tailored statistical proxies (calibrated on known lineages).

Science can look like magics to the one not having the knowledge ... Considering that, I'm probably one of the most powerfull wizard in the world.

If you want to kill my model, it won't be by probing Tuscany LCA, that could eventually validate my model, but won't kill it anyway.
What could kill my model, would be to find derived samples on the J-Z615-->J-Z597 line around the black sea during EBA (that would be killer).

PS: I don't see why you quoted this paper ? Why do you think it proves ? Please share with us !
Do you expected J-L283 among scandinavian IA ? I could have tols you that there were none (or if any, maybe one lonely lost guy).
J-L283 during IA north of the Alps was mostly restricted to the Danubian corridor (with probably few dudes getting lost as far as Spain).

 

[Archetype0ne]

Not that much when you know how it works ... PCA is just reducing dimentionality of the problem, whereas QPadm technically conserves the whole genetic distances.
But a tailored PCA is as efficient as a QPadm approach (if the problem is concerning a sufficiently small geographical region, time-period, and enough dimensions for the PCA).

After, I'm not surprised to see that your casual "expertise" on statistics is "sufficient" to try teach me ... despite my significant peer-reviewed publication record on data analysis.
You reminds me some students ... that while failing to get their Licence, were believing to be able to prove that General Relativity was mathematically wrong.

You are right to have self confidense ... but before entering a ring, maybe do a bit of training.



I refuted nothing per-se.
I say that up to now you failed to provide an explanation of the Tyrrhenian cluster.
Thus, I have no model to refute, because you haven't provided a model ... you just made a statement (which isn't a model).

A model would consists of set of geographical locations (with timings) and attested/suspected cultural contacts to move from a location to another.
While you give a great attention to J-Z615, you are completely ignoring the other 7 surviging modern lineages spawning from J-Z622 to J-Z585.
Which by definition makes your claim very weak, as it is based on the study of ~12.5% of the lineages spawned around ~3500-3100 BCE.
Whereas, my model is consistent with all lineages, motivated by 75% of the lineages, and strongly implied by 50% of the lineages.

Build a model (for the J-Z622-->J-Z615 stages), and then I will tell you if it pass minimal statistical tests.
But, I can alredy tell you that anything with a migration significantly post-3100 BCE will hardly faills.

To put more words on this claim of mine :
It involves too many lines to make migrate toward a place that barely received external influences from an area that you can't even localize ...
Without mentioning that you would need to make them migrate with a patern following a deep ancestry history ... whereas the source population have to be dispersed enough to have avoided a refresh of its diversity horizon.

Up to now, your claim is to say that samples at J-Z622-->J-Z585 clustered luckily around the Tyrrhenian sea, being injected by Cetina (whereas Cetina have no such old diversity ???).
You can believe that of course ... I find it very unconvincing (as would anyone looking at the phylogeny carefully).


Provides dates instead of generic labels ...
My models speak about an arrival in Tuscany ~3500 BCE ... this is not EBA, this is LCA.

While such contacts between Caucasus and Eneolitic tuscany are attested by published papers around ~3500 BCE, you seem to consider a passage of J-L283 at this date "impossible". This is very disturbing to me (it is almost like you have an ideological bias on the topic).
You know that trying to weaken my model won't strengthen your claims ... to strengthen your claims you should find a statistically likely migration model on your own (starting from Yamnayan ? Good luck).

Also, while you try hard to push a deep discussion of MOK15 admixture as some sort of ultimate proof of J-Z615 origin ... We just have nearby some G2a samples around the same time that have even more WSH dna than this sample (double standards are rarely a good sign about a methodology).
Thus your argument here falls flat, whereas my proposal about an absorbtion/interaction as a BB-peripheries aligns again perfectly with archeological knowledge regarding Mokrin.



Too vague and unclear ...
Most-likely J-Z622 spent most of the 3500-2500 timeframe in a heavily EEF-dominated population.
Because J-L283 travelled as small infiltration groups


The presence in north caucasus steppe can't be denied ...
The source however ? There is a lot to say about it ... we don't even know when LSE_o got formed, and we are not sure of the component (the paper poorly explored it).

To recall a bit the long story :

"Around the Black-sea" origin have been a given for years (since before I joined the game online).
The hoax spread by few (I think I remember you being among them) about a "Moldovan 4000 BCE sample" (that was simply ~2700 BCE) mislead me a bit in rightly identifying Maykopian sphere of influence as the good origin.

For some reasons, you antogonised me, because I mentioned the strong Tyrrhenian cluster.
While I acknowledged that the lineage could have originated anywhere around the black sea ... you just started to make non-sense about "French-Neolithic".
Likely because you weren't aware of deep-cultural contacts as high as the first half of the 4th millenium BCE between the Caucasus and Italy (that's strange because that's kind of old knowledge).

Once the Moldovan sample aired, it settled the question, the Maykopian-shere of influence was the fitting model.
Then ZO1002 aired, confirming this view with a sample clearly linked with the Caucasus Copper Age.



Seriously ? Are we going down that path again ?
The whole point is to study the cross-correlation between the spatial distribution of subclades across-time.
When you have a migration/expansion concerning two regions ... you have a drop in spatial cross-correlation (I provided many graphic of this probe on multiple forum, strange that you failed to saw any of them).

ALL attested population movement are clearly showing up with this probe, you can't dodge it.
For massive population movements, you can have some old diversity carriage, but that never exceeds few centuries.
While under some circumstancies you can emulate a fake signal (there is ways to test that) ... a migration not producing signal ? I have yet to see it ! Only modern history migrations are not really visible, but only because the sampling depth is not good enough.

Thus, clade-spatial-cross-correlation is bascially a methodology to test biological separation-time between two sub-populations that sourced two different regiond of the world.
It allows to detects multiple movements, even when you have pile-up signal induced by recurrent migrations.

For J-L283, around the black-sea you have J-L283-level clades ... and nothing derived down the J-Z622 line ... for which sub-lineages are concentrated around the Tyrrhenian-sea (that have an attested cultural connection with the caucasus at the right time).
Then following the path of J-Z615 is fairly easy, considering that this clade appears among BB-peripheries.

This topic is so settled, except your deep desire to be a Yamnayan prevents you to see it.


Modern diversity can be a misleading probe.
What matters the most are two criteria :
--> The number of concerned lines (more independant lines allows less noise on diversity etimator ... that's why Hunter's diversity estimator is garbage, because he let the fine structure of the phylogeny produce too much noise without a relevant temporal smoothing).
--> The success of concerned lines (less diffusive lines are statistically less mobile than highly diffusive ones ... because mobility generate diversity, whereas immobility prevent diveristy creation due to lineages screaning each-other)

Once you have that in mind, you can assess how significant is a diversity cluster.
The Tyrrhenian diversity cluster is a monster considering the epoch and the level of diffusion of J-Z622.
What also makes the Tyrrhenian cluster very robust is that he is itself structured with a TMRCA of ~3500-3100 BCE.

This cluster is that good because it has to be preserved by Islands and mountaineous regions of Italy (we have many lines that got "buried" since diversification and that never re-entered expansion ... this is gold for diversity proxy).



Claim by lack of sample is something very hard to achieve ... Remember J-Z597 among Hallstatt populations, for you the Czechian samples were settling the question ... Look how it unfolded !
You couldn't say that I told you about this other significant diversity cluster ! Probably you want to believe this is "luck" ? But no, this is just tailored statistical proxies (calibrated on known lineages).

Science can look like magics to the one not having the knowledge ... Considering that, I'm probably one of the most powerfull wizard in the world.

If you want to kill my model, it won't be by probing Tuscany LCA, that could eventually validate my model, but won't kill it anyway.
What could kill my model, would be to find derived samples on the J-Z615-->J-Z597 line around the black sea during EBA (that would be killer).

PS: I don't see why you quoted this paper ? Why do you think it proves ? Please share with us !
Do you expected J-L283 among scandinavian IA ? I could have tols you that there were none (or if any, maybe one lonely lost guy).
J-L283 during IA north of the Alps was mostly restricted to the Danubian corridor (with probably few dudes getting lost as far as Spain).

Guess I must be Harry Potter, lol.

On a serious note, so that I understand your hypothesis correctly.

Are you claiming some Z622 developed in situ around the Tyrrhenian and diversified there? Would require L283* having arrived there quite early.
Or are you claiming Z622 developed in the Caucasus-Steppe then moved into the Tyrrhenian and diversified there?

At least you seem to agree, that even if your hypothesis is true, no matter how unlikely, ultimately it arose around the Caucasus-Steppe region? But it seems to me in your world-view it it skipped coreYamnaya/Remontoye admixture altogether? It seems your main qualm is with that incorporation of L283* through Caucasus Neolithic into Remontoye by admixing into Steppe Neolithic.

Right?

 

[PaleoRevenge]

The four LBA J2bs Sardinians, treated as one entity.

 

[Ghurier]

It’s right there in the J2b L283 early Yamnaya and Core Yamnaya (IBD sharing) steppe samples. It’s a slam dunk.

Not really, it is not because one lineage of J-L283 ended in the Yamnayan that all lineages ended there.

Bascially, Iran-N influenced India and Europe.
For J-M241, you have two clades that have taken separated road.
Here, you are just facing the same situation, one ended in Usatovo and later Yamnaya, one ended in Tuscany, and another stayed in the Caucasus.

What you call a "slam dunk", is a big assumption of yours. With one big flaw, it fails completely to explains J-Z622-->J-Z585 levels.
Which makes it a very weak claim.

Well before Maykop.

The impulse that gave rise to Maykop is basically around ~4000 BCE (probably even around ~4100 BCE). And the sample is not ~4000 BCE, but ~3850 BCE.
You are aware that Maykop proper starts ~3900 BCE, right ?

I think Hunter Provyn has a better explanation for Sardinia and Italy, more grounded in reality and ancient DNA samples, where there is an earlier group (3100 BCE) being displaced by a somewhat later wave (Z615). This is synchronous with known Yamnaya movements into the western Balkans, where we had Yamnaya in Montenegro, Croatia, and Slovenia as early as 3100 BCE. I think your better line of attack would be to try to research groups that may have migrated from the western Balkans to Italy during the mid 3rd millennium. Laterza Culture could be an interesting candidate (2900-2300 BCE). But even that’s pushing it. Perhaps there were connections between early Cetina and Laterza (2500 BCE).

Good, finally an attempt at proposing something.
But basically thats a lot of "if" ... without clear cultural connexion proposal.
This is start as a proto-model.

The main problems remaining are :
--> No diversity-horizon refreshing and no expansion around "pushing" phase (that's unlikely).
--> Retreat inducing a structed patern around Tyrrhenian sea (that's also unlikely).

So that looks like an unconvincing attempt at saving a Z615 among Yamnayan ... while making the other migrate super-early (you see, you start to conceide this early western migration).

Is this needed/motivated by the data ?
Not really, J-Z615 resurfaced in MOK15, a BB-periphery influenced by Eastern-Alps-BBs.
So, indeed, this attempt seems to be built to save a narrative, and thus appears to be ideologically motivated.

I'm far from convinced, particularly considering the flaws I noticed about the movements and the lack of impact on the phylogeny.
Creating a chaotic migration during ~1000 years without subsequent diversifications, and having isolated line entering "sleep" in a structured patern following a ~1000 years old diversification structure ... honestly, that's not very compelling.

 

[Ghurier]

Are you claiming some Z622 developed in situ around the Tyrrhenian and diversified there? Would require L283* having arrived there quite early.
Or are you claiming Z622 developed in the Caucasus-Steppe then moved into the Tyrrhenian and diversified there?

That's a big question about timing and how many "lineages" could be carried successfully by a small infiltration group.
Probably, the easiest version is to have J-Z622 being a lonely injector, and then diversifying in-situ around Tuscany.

Still, a movement injecting multiple lineage is not out of the picture. J-Z585 sounds too-late for me (because we have to successfully inject many lineages considering the "failing ones").
I guess that a derivation down to J-Z2509 around Caucasus is acceptable. Which would mean the injection of 3 lineages around Tuscany/North-Italy.

At least you seem to agree, that even if your hypothesis is true, no matter how unlikely

The wording you use is interesting !
Why unlikely ?
Are you denying the existence of the ~3500 BCE cultural influence of North Caucasus on Eneolitic Tuscany ?
Because if you acknowledge this cultural connection, I can't see how the passage of a Y-lineage would be seen as unlikely ?
If I was proposing the passage of a legion of Y-DNA, that would be a problem, but a very limited amount of Y-lineages, its no big deal.

ultimately it arose around the Caucasus-Steppe region?

When ?
As of today, I consider that J-L283 integrated the North-side of Caucasus at some point between 6000 BCE and 4000 BCE.
ZO1002 can be explained as a tail of a southern influence (that why he is so Caucasus-shifted compared to the rest of the Steppe ... he is even more Caucasus shifted than the other LSE_o sample).
This would related to the cultural boost that gave rise to Maykop (~4000 BCE).
That's why I think J-L283 can derive either from HajjiFiruz_C or Caucasus-Eneolithic populations.

Where exactly was J-L283 mainline ? It is a big question.
For my diffusion model, it has to be inside Maykopian influence sphere by ~3600 BCE (how and from where it entered this sphere of influence ... is per-se no big deal. We have no data-constraints on that.).

I think I will never say it enough ... but J-L283 mainline didn't have to pass by all ancient samples ...
What we find in ancient samples are most of the time cousins, not direct paternal ancestors.
And a key element is how close those cousins are ? By how many generations/centuries are they separated from the main-line ?

It seems your main qualm is with that incorporation of L283* through Caucasus Neolithic into Remontoye by admixing into Steppe Neolithic.

Caucasus Neolithic ? Not sure it was already there.
It could have waited as late as ~4000 BCE to pass to the north.
But indeed, it could also have passed earlier.

We have no way to know. Any attempt at following some cultural traits will rely on hypothesis about the cultural traits linked to pre-J-L283. If post-3600 BCE J-L283 can be securely linked to Arsenical Copper metalurgy diffusion, before that we don't know.
Only finding some other samples with good depth could help settle the question.

What is tempting is to link J-L283 injection in the Caucasus with the populations that will give rise to the circumpontic metallurgical province of the 4th millenium BCE. Basically the HajjiFiruz-C-like influence.
But on the other hand, it could have been already on site and simply been absorbed by the new culture arriving north of the Caucasus.

Considering where ended the borther of J-L283 (toward India), J-M241 was already in a neolithic area.
Thus, I would "remove" CHG as a possible origin.
Making J-L283 being among Anatolian neolitic is an issue (but it is probably the way if we want an Early injection in the Caucasus), because there have yet not a single related lineage found with the J2a that went westward early (not impossible, but we have no indications).
The "easiest" deep origin for me is therefore HajjiFiruz_C (and therefore yes, I desagree with the admixture proposed in Galichi et al. 2024 ... but for this area and time, we can make many model pass).

 

[Archetype0ne]

Not really, it is not because one lineage of J-L283 ended in the Yamnayan that all lineages ended there.

Bascially, Iran-N influenced India and Europe.
For J-M241, you have two clades that have taken separated road.
Here, you are just facing the same situation, one ended in Usatovo and later Yamnaya, one ended in Tuscany, and another stayed in the Caucasus.

What you call a "slam dunk", is a big assumption of yours. With one big flaw, it fails completely to explains J-Z622-->J-Z585 levels.
Which makes it a very weak claim.



The impulse that gave rise to Maykop is basically around ~4000 BCE (probably even around ~4100 BCE). And the sample is not ~4000 BCE, but ~3850 BCE.
You are aware that Maykop proper starts ~3900 BCE, right ?



Good, finally an attempt at proposing something.
But basically thats a lot of "if" ... without clear cultural connexion proposal.
This is start as a proto-model.

The main problems remaining are :
--> No diversity-horizon refreshing and no expansion around "pushing" phase (that's unlikely).
--> Retreat inducing a structed patern around Tyrrhenian sea (that's also unlikely).

So that looks like an unconvincing attempt at saving a Z615 among Yamnayan ... while making the other migrate super-early (you see, you start to conceide this early western migration).

Is this needed/motivated by the data ?
Not really, J-Z615 resurfaced in MOK15, a BB-periphery influenced by Eastern-Alps-BBs.
So, indeed, this attempt seems to be built to save a narrative, and thus appears to be ideologically motivated.

I'm far from convinced, particularly considering the flaws I noticed about the movements and the lack of impact on the phylogeny.
Creating a chaotic migration during ~1000 years without subsequent diversifications, and having isolated line entering "sleep" in a structured patern following a ~1000 years old diversification structure ... honestly, that's not very compelling.

You mean this Z615, in 2000BC Maros can not explain the Nuragic L283's in 1300BC Sardinia?
Or that Maros_Z615 is not derived from a core Yamnaya_L283 population mixing into Local Neolithic population sample, but from some Bell Beaker population?

 

[Archetype0ne]

That's a big question about timing and how many "lineages" could be carried successfully by a small infiltration group.
Probably, the easiest version is to have J-Z622 being a lonely injector, and then diversifying in-situ around Tuscany.

Still, a movement injecting multiple lineage is not out of the picture. J-Z585 sounds too-late for me (because we have to successfully inject many lineages considering the "failing ones").
I guess that a derivation down to J-Z2509 around Caucasus is acceptable. Which would mean the injection of 3 lineages around Tuscany/North-Italy.



The wording you use is interesting !
Why unlikely ?
Are you denying the existence of the ~3500 BCE cultural influence of North Caucasus on Eneolitic Tuscany ?
Because if you acknowledge this cultural connection, I can't see how the passage of a Y-lineage would be seen as unlikely ?
If I was proposing the passage of a legion of Y-DNA, that would be a problem, but a very limited amount of Y-lineages, its no big deal.



When ?
As of today, I consider that J-L283 integrated the North-side of Caucasus at some point between 6000 BCE and 4000 BCE.
ZO1002 can be explained as a tail of a southern influence (that why he is so Caucasus-shifted compared to the rest of the Steppe ... he is even more Caucasus shifted than the other LSE_o sample).
This would related to the cultural boost that gave rise to Maykop (~4000 BCE).
That's why I think J-L283 can derive either from HajjiFiruz_C or Caucasus-Eneolithic populations.

Where exactly was J-L283 mainline ? It is a big question.
For my diffusion model, it has to be inside Maykopian influence sphere by ~3600 BCE (how and from where it entered this sphere of influence ... is per-se no big deal. We have no data-constraints on that.).

I think I will never say it enough ... but J-L283 mainline didn't have to pass by all ancient samples ...
What we find in ancient samples are most of the time cousins, not direct paternal ancestors.
And a key element is how close those cousins are ? By how many generations/centuries are they separated from the main-line ?



Caucasus Neolithic ? Not sure it was already there.
It could have waited as late as ~4000 BCE to pass to the north.
But indeed, it could also have passed earlier.

We have no way to know. Any attempt at following some cultural traits will rely on hypothesis about the cultural traits linked to pre-J-L283. If post-3600 BCE J-L283 can be securely linked to Arsenical Copper metalurgy diffusion, before that we don't know.
Only finding some other samples with good depth could help settle the question.

What is tempting is to link J-L283 injection in the Caucasus with the populations that will give rise to the circumpontic metallurgical province of the 4th millenium BCE. Basically the HajjiFiruz-C-like influence.
But on the other hand, it could have been already on site and simply been absorbed by the new culture arriving north of the Caucasus.

Considering where ended the borther of J-L283 (toward India), J-M241 was already in a neolithic area.
Thus, I would "remove" CHG as a possible origin.
Making J-L283 being among Anatolian neolitic is an issue (but it is probably the way if we want an Early injection in the Caucasus), because there have yet not a single related lineage found with the J2a that went westward early (not impossible, but we have no indications).
The "easiest" deep origin for me is therefore HajjiFiruz_C (and therefore yes, I desagree with the admixture proposed in Galichi et al. 2024 ... but for this area and time, we can make many model pass).

You keep outdoing yourself.

In what world HajiFiruz_C has anything to do with any of this?
Aknashen gave rise to Maykop (90% of the admixture),
Aknashen (Caucasus Neolithic) + Steppe Neolithic gave rise to literally the oldest L283 we have.
Aknashen is PPN + CHG + TTK if I recall.

Also, check out DATES, and how they determined the admixture dates for this:

Cause statements like this:

Caucasus Neolithic ? Not sure it was already there.

Make you sound very ignorant.

I am out of this discussion, I lose neurons just trying to empathize with your logic here.

 

[Ghurier]

You mean this Z615, in 2000BC Maros can not explain the Nuragic L283's in 1300BC Sardinia?
Or that Maros_Z615 is not derived from a core Yamnaya_L283 population mixing into Local Neolithic population sample, but from some Bell Beaker population?

J-Z615 in Mokrin is ~1100 years appart from its TMRCA with the lineages who ended in Sardinia.
While you have no issue to morph Nuragic samples in ~few centuries ... I think you can easily understand why the consideration you bring here are irrelevant.
You are just trying to solve a case ~1000 years to late.

MOK15 is just found in typically local population that is expected around that time.
Most likely as a lineage who fell under-BB-influence end ended forming BB-peripheries.
As said before, nearby at the same time, you can find G2a with more WSH dna ... is that a proof that G2a comes from the steppe ?

Double standard are smelling bad.
Most likely during the 3500 BCE - 2500 BCE timegap J-Z622 was hosted by a mostly EEF-admixed population.

 

[Ghurier]

In what world HajiFiruz_C has anything to do with any of this?
Aknashen gave rise to Maykop (90% of the admixture),
Aknashen (Caucasus Neolithic) + Steppe Neolithic gave rise to literally the oldest L283 we have.
Aknashen is PPN + CHG + TTK if I recall.

Also, check out DATES, and how they determined the admixture dates for this:

HajjiFiruz_C ? Look at the graph you posted, you may find the connection.

You can make it work with Aknashen if you want ... you can make work nearly anything in that part of the world at this time.
You have 4 deeply divergent components merging together in various fraction ... but no peculier drift.

You are just making a naïve admixture inversion (I would give your results as much credence as I give to FTDNA == absolutely meaningless).
Already in a two-ways model there is multiple solutions ... in a three-way model, it is just open bar in this case.

You may want to check there "dates" results ... indeed. But I'm not sure you read them correctly (in particular they fitted single admixture times ... that's quite important).
Also, keep in mind admixture is not Y-DNA ... after few generations, admixture can completely be washed if the injector is in strong minority insite the population.

You are really a case for a confirmation bias exemple.

Make you sound very ignorant.

And as usual, after playing the nice guy for 1/2 posts, you turn "insulting" to heat a debate that you are loosing.

Good luck kid ... don't be too disapointed when Tuscan samples will air.
How many Hallstatt-gate will it take for you to understand ?
When will you start to learn ?

After, I understand your reaction, I'm challenging a narrative that you deeply desire ... This is hard to face.
I'm happy that you are full of certitudes ... me I stick to the facts (they never failed me).

 

[Ghurier]

Because I'm nice, and you likely failed to find this results :

 

[𐔋𐔀𐔏𐔖𐔠𐔀]

HajjiFiruz_C ? Look at the graph you posted, you may find the connection.

The graph he posted clearly shows ZO1002 (Early or Pre Yamnaya) modeled as halfway Caucasus Eneolithic and Steppe Eneolithic not one pinch of Iran_HajjiFiruz_C ancestry, neither is MOK15 evidence of some mysterious Maykopian Tyrrhenian fantasy population of EEFs but a Post-Yamnayan culture.

me I stick to the facts (they never failed me).

You're not really sticking to the facts but "talking out of your ass" as one would say.

 

[Ghurier]

The graph he posted clearly shows ZO1002 (Early or Pre Yamnaya) modeled as halfway Caucasus Eneolithic and Steppe Eneolithic not one pinch of Iran_HajjiFiruz_C ancestry, neither is MOK15 evidence of some mysterious Maykopian Tyrrhenian fantasy population of EEF but Yamnaya

Still ZO1002 with HajjiFiruz_C-like population pass as an alternative model.

The connection between Caucasus and Tuscany Eneolitic around 3500 BCE is published-work in peer-reviewed journals.
Feel free to publish your results and analysis in peer-reviewed journals, I will gladly read what you have to say once your "interpretations" will have passed peer-review.

Yamnaya fails in many ways a diffusion vector for J-Z622.
Feel free to propose a version, I will review it gladly. Just as I did for the previous non-sens about multiple waves.
Of course not finding anything derived on the line of J-Z622 --> J-Z597 in the steppe is definitely are hard failure for the Yamnayan-proponents.
Particularly considering the deep coverage.

You're not really sticking to the facts but "talking out of your ass" as one would say.

I know, this hard to handle ... facing a working model that destroys the narratives you deeply desire.
No need to be that agressive, it won't change the reality that J-Z622 expanded from Tuscany.

 

[Archetype0ne]

*Origins of IE supplement
And as the other poster mentioned, Steppe_Eneolithic_Outlier (ZO1002) has little to do with either Firuz or Maikop for that matter.

But seriously imagine unironically saying:

"Caucasus Neolithic ? Not sure it was already there.
It could have waited as late as ~4000 BCE to pass to the north.
---
Thus, I would "remove" CHG as a possible origin."

And that result Mr. Nice Guy, puts the admixture of Caucasus Eneolithic at 7kBC?
Whats the carbon dating of Haj Firuz? 5-4kBC
Whats the carbon dating of Aknashen? 6kBC

*Southern Arc supplement

"Caucasus Neolithic ? Not sure it was already there.
...
Thus, I would "remove" CHG as a possible origin."

 

[Ghurier]

I am out of this discussion, I lose neurons just trying to empathize with your logic here.

Already back ?

And as the other poster mentioned, Steppe_Eneolithic_Outlier (ZO1002) has little to do with either Firuz or Maikop for that matter.

You are aware that Hajji-Firuz is just a little bit further on the same cline you are looking at ?
LSE_o work very well with Maykop-like as source too.

I will repeat it, in this area of the world, around that time ... you can nearly make pass anything.
There is just no peculiar drift to separate things clearly. Two-ways model have already many options, let not speak about three-ways models !

You had time to look at Dates results ? Not really what you sought isn't it ?


Sadly,
--> We still don't know how J-Z622 managed to cluster around Tyrrhenian see in a Yamnayan model (the only attempt that have been was rather weak)
--> We still don't know why J-L283 couldn't have passed by the cultural connection between Caucasus and Eneolitic Tuscany
--> We still don't know how is MOK15 relevant for the study of events happening 1500 years before him.
--> We still don't know why is J-Z615 relevant but not the other 7 lineages spawn from J-Z622 to J-Z585.
--> But we know that some peoples really want to be Yamnayan, and are very defensive about it .

 

[Archetype0ne]

Already back ?

Have to lose a couple more neurons before I finally understand your genius.
Just some friendly banter, don't take it to heart.
Looking forward to future samples, as always.

 

[Ghurier]

Looking forward to future samples, as always.

Ready for another Hallstatt-gate ?
Would you accept Tuscan-eneolitic samples when they will pop-up ?
Because last time, you tried very weird stuff, I still didn't got your reasoning about the lack of sample in France that would make samples in Germany disapear ???
That's clearly next-level reasoning !

Whats the carbon dating of Haj Firuz? 5-4kBC

You are aware that when someone speak about "Hajji-Firuz_C" he speak about the genetic profile of the sampled population (and therefore other associated population) ... not about those specific dudes at this specific point in time ?
Seriously, you don't even understand that ?

Also remember, that DATES can not properly handle recurrent migrations from the same source ... particularly when only fitting for a single admixture time.
I have a deep feeling feeling that you don't understand at all the tools we are speaking of.