J2b-L283

[Ushta]

A description of the earliest southwestern-most detected Yamnaya steppe mounds, found in EBA Çinamak (Northern Albania), was given in the conference The Transformation of Europe in the Third Millennium BC - Day 1, 7:54:50.

Lazaridis et al. 2022 (Supplementary Materials for The genetic history of the Southern Arc) state:

EHG ancestry becomes ubiquitous after this time and reaches up to 35±3% in an outlier individual (I14689) from Çinamak; such high levels of EHG ancestry are of course not unheard of in mainland Europe as they were found in individuals of the Corded Ware culture(8). This individual, the earliest known one with EHG ancestry from the western Balkans dates to the same period (2831-2480 calBCE). This suggests a parallel appearance of steppe ancestry in Central Europe and in the western Balkans, well beyond the geographical limits of the steppe itself. The bulk of the individuals from Çinamak are from the 1st millennium BCE and have a lower 16±2% EHG ancestry on average.

Is it possible that those steppe people also brought J2b-L283 in Northern Albania? Or is it more likely that J2b-L283 firstly reached another area of the western Balkans?

[Polska]

Here’s a link to the original archaeological survey of the Movila Gologan kurgan from Crihana Veche that produced sample I10206, the first J2b L283 Yamnaya sample to date.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication...16_si_2017

Plan view:

   

   

Here is a photo of the burial and a brief textual description (note arrowhead diagram in lower right corner of photo):


  IMG_0723.jpeg (Size: 66.28 KB / Downloads: 237)

   

Because it was originally thought the burial could belong to Cernavoda I, this explains the original speculative age of 3500-4500 BCE.  Cernavoda I is estimated typically around 3650 BCE.  They utilized kurgan burials initially before transitioning to flat graves.  Genetic sequencing of the sample determined it is a CoreYam sample mixed with 2 populations: Core Yamnaya and “Yunasite” ancestry, which could also be Trypillian ancestry.  This combination essentially defines western Yamnaya: The core is moving west and admixing.  Hence its designation as EBA Yamnaya.

As noted, this burial contained an arrowhead.  This is somewhat unusual amongst Yamnaya graves, which seldom contained weapons.  Only about 5% of Yamnaya burials contain weapons of some sort.  See this interesting slide from Dr. Denis Topal, who had a nice presentation at a conference recently held in Budapest, Hungary:

   

So about 5% of Yamnaya graves contain weapons and about 22% of that 5% are arrowheads.  The second most popular weapon behind daggers, just ahead of axe heads in the #3 spot.  Arrowheads in kurgans tend to peak in the Donetsk area of Ukraine amongst Yamnaya burials, as well as further to the east in the Volga/Ural zone (outside of the predefined core).

Last but not least, here are some interesting slides from Dr. Topal’s presentation highlighting just how many barrows or kurgans they have throughout Moldova, along with the average density of graves found amongst various kurgans delineated by region of Moldova:

   

   

[Vigan18]

Do you have information about Y22894

Most-likely road since J-L283 :
J-L283 : Maykop-culture (Caucasus), 1 basal sample found from ~2000 BCE in the Caucasus with typically Maykop/Kura-Araxes admixture.
J-Z585 : Rhinaldone-Culture (Italy, Tyrrhenian-sea), arrived there with Maykop influences and Arsenical Copper metallurgy diffusion (See e.g., C. Jeunesse 2020 for the diffusion mechanism). Diversity of modern and ancient samples points toward a Tyrrhenian homeland at this stage.
J-Z597 : Bell-Beaker peripheries (Cetina), J-Z615 got influenced by Bell-Beakers around Eastern Alps (see e.g., V. Heyd 2007 for the relation between Cetina Culture and Bell Beakers).
J-Z631/Z1043 : Eastern Hallstatt (Eastern Alps, Cremating populations), the clade was not significantly mobile between J-Z615 (3100 BCE) and J-Z1043 (800 BCE) stages. The analyses of diversity shows that J-Z1043 diffused in northern Alps Danubian Bassin and in the Balkans during EIA.
J-Y22894 : Ended in Balkans by ~1000 CE, might have been displaced during the Bizantine conquest of the Bulgarian Empire. Thus, it was either among Bizantine population or the Bulgarian population (I would say Bizantine seems more likely to me). How it ended there ? There is many solutions : EIA-movements, Romans, Slavs, Celts, Germans, ... pick your favorite one. Without finding new modern or ancient samples, the ~2000 years gap we have for diversity, particularly between 800 BCE and 1000 CE, makes it hard to refine the diagnostic.

Y22894 from What place  came

[Vigan18]

Do you have information about Y22894

As elflock wrote, Y22894 is a descendant subclade of Z1043, which has been found so far predominantly in the Balkans where the oldest samples have located in the western Balkans during the early Roman era.

Y22894 in particular seems to have spread with medieval Albanians. This is an (incomplete) list of Albanians tested as Y22894+ so far:

Kukës Kukës Shqipëri J2b-L283>Z638>Z1297>Z1295>Z631>Z1043>Y22894
Gostivar Pollog Maqedoni J2b-L283>Z638>Z1297>Z1295>Z631>Z1043>Y22894
Dibër Dibër Shqipëri J2b-L283>Z638>Z1297>Z1295>Z631>Z1043>Y22894
Dibër Dibër Shqipëri J2b-L283>Z638>Z1297>Z1295>Z631>Z1043>Y22894
Dibër Dibër Shqipëri J2b-L283>Z638>Z1297>Z1295>Z631>Z1043>Y22894
Bulqizë Dibër Shqipëri J2b-L283>Z638>Z1297>Z1295>Z631>Z1043>Y22894
Bulqizë Dibër Shqipëri J2b-L283>Z638>Z1297>Z1295>Z631>Z1043>Y22894

I know that I meanbbefore Roman Period where lived what territory

[targaryen]

A description of the earliest southwestern-most detected Yamnaya steppe mounds, found in EBA Çinamak (Northern Albania), was given in the conference The Transformation of Europe in the Third Millennium BC - Day 1, 7:54:50.

Lazaridis et al. 2022 (Supplementary Materials for The genetic history of the Southern Arc) state:

EHG ancestry becomes ubiquitous after this time and reaches up to 35±3% in an outlier individual (I14689) from Çinamak; such high levels of EHG ancestry are of course not unheard of in mainland Europe as they were found in individuals of the Corded Ware culture(8). This individual, the earliest known one with EHG ancestry from the western Balkans dates to the same period (2831-2480 calBCE). This suggests a parallel appearance of steppe ancestry in Central Europe and in the western Balkans, well beyond the geographical limits of the steppe itself. The bulk of the individuals from Çinamak are from the 1st millennium BCE and have a lower 16±2% EHG ancestry on average.

Is it possible that those steppe people also brought J2b-L283 in Northern Albania? Or is it more likely that J2b-L283 firstly reached another area of the western Balkans?

It's probably a mixture. There were likely waves of Indo-Europeans that colonized the Western Balkans. Before ~2000 BC, they would all just be "Late Indo-European" and could still understand each other.

For example, "Old English" was formed as a result of West Germanic tribes migrating to Britain, but it was only in Britain that this ethos was formed. There was no "English" in continental Europe. Just West Germanic dialects of Angles, Saxons, Jutes that when mixed together formed the ancestor of modern day English.

[GHurier]

This "most likely road" is absolutely debunked by all studies. Posts by Ghurier reproduce false information.

Hi fellow Maykoppian,

As you started this way, I didn't even read the whole propaganda you wrote (probably based on the simplistic logic of the "oldest sample so far" and simply drawing line from sample to sample).
I just want to stress that the diffusion model I presented :
--> Is based on cultural influences having been recently published by experts in their domain,
--> Is based on well documented diversity centers,
--> Is consistent with all known ancient samples (like really, my model have currently 0 outliders).

This is the ground of a good scientific model, that explains why my claim always receive ancient DNA validation.
As I said, end of the story, handle it.
You will be disapointed when J-L283 will be found in Rinaldone or when some J-Z622 will be found in Los-Millares.

Keep in mind, all samples that aired in the last weeks confirmed my previous claims :
--> Z597 in southern Germany during EIA,
--> Picenes being phylogenic intermediates samples between Nuragic and Cetina (if correct) = ~3100 BCE segregation of clades involving Italy (therefore not working with a 1800 BCE diffusion from a place that didn't have diversity at this phylogenic stage).
--> A ~2700 BCE sample around the Black sea, where I always placed the origin of J-L283 (Note that this sample alone is not that constraining, alone he could still fit with many origins).

If you want to investigate the path used by J-Z615 to exit Rinaldone and arrive to North-east Italy, you might want to read about copper mettalurgy contacts in Italy.
You can start by the publication of Dolfini et al. 2020.
From here, it is fairly easy, Bell-beaker influence from the north made the job, giving the impulse to the formation of Cetina culture (also a well documented cultural influence).

Tchuss !

[GHurier]

J-Z585 has nothing at all to do with the Tyrrhenian Sea or any 3500-3100 BCE mobility or "East Med" migrations or any direct Maykop mobility. None of these "alternative" scenarios are suggested by the archaeogenetic record.

If you says so ...
However, no offense, but I prefer the opinion of a professor in prehistory about relations between ancient cultures.
In particular after reading carefully his arguments that I find very compelling.

On top of that, when there is a lineage's phylogeny mirroring perfetly the scenario this researcher proposed years ago ...
I'm very enclined to listen to him.

Good luck with your ideas. 
But truth to be said, this is not even a diffusion model, and it didn't stands 10 secondes for anyone going beyond "drawing lines" between ancient samples.
 
Cheers !

[Ushta]

This "most likely road" is absolutely debunked by all studies. Posts by Ghurier reproduce false information.

Hi fellow Maykoppian,

As you started this way, I didn't even read the whole propaganda you wrote (probably based on the simplistic logic of the "oldest sample so far" and simply drawing line from sample to sample).
I just want to stress that the diffusion model I presented :
--> Is based on cultural influences having been recently published by experts in their domain,
--> Is based on well documented diversity centers,
--> Is consistent with all known ancient samples (like really, my model have currently 0 outliders).

This is the ground of a good scientific model, that explains why my claim always receive ancient DNA validation.
As I said, end of the story, handle it.
You will be disapointed when J-L283 will be found in Rinaldone or when some J-Z622 will be found in Los-Millares.

Keep in mind, all samples that aired in the last weeks confirmed my previous claims :
--> Z597 in southern Germany during EIA,
--> Picenes being phylogenic intermediates samples between Nuragic and Cetina (if correct) = ~3100 BCE segregation of clades involving Italy (therefore not working with a 1800 BCE diffusion from a place that didn't have diversity at this phylogenic stage).
--> A ~2700 BCE sample around the Black sea, where I always placed the origin of J-L283 (Note that this sample alone is not that constraining, alone he could still fit with many origins).

If you want to investigate the path used by J-Z615 to exit Rinaldone and arrive to North-east Italy, you might want to read about copper mettalurgy contacts in Italy.
You can start by the publication of Dolfini et al. 2020.
From here, it is fairly easy, Bell-beaker influence from the north made the job, giving the impulse to the formation of Cetina culture (also a well documented cultural influence).

Tchuss !

I think the unfounded and misleading propaganda is yours, not Corrigendum's. Arguing that their reconstructions are based "on the simplistic logic of the "oldest sample so far" and simply drawing line from sample to sample" while not providing evidence for your arguments is not the proper way to reject a hypothesis.

The recent Picenes paper actually rejects your claims, because it clearly states that J2b-L283 is among the Yamnaya (steppe) components that marked a clear distinction of the Adriatic (eastern) Italic from the Tyrrhenian (western) Italic peoples of the Iron Age. That obviously implies an eastern influx, most likely from Cetina and Iapygian migrations.

You stated "You will be disapointed when J-L283 will be found in Rinaldone or when some J-Z622 will be found in Los-Millares", if it will be found there in the Middle Bronze Age as it did in the Western Balkans, then you can put forward those counterarguments, but so far you have absolutely no evidence for them.

[GHurier]

[...] while not providing evidence for your arguments is not the proper way to reject a hypothesis.

The recent Picenes paper actually rejects your claims, because it clearly states that J2b-L283 is among the Yamnaya (steppe) components that marked a clear distinction between the Adriatic (eastern) Italic and the Tyrrhenian (western) Italic peoples of the Iron Age. That obviously implies an eastern influx, most likely from Cetina and Iapygian migrations.

You stated "You will be disapointed when J-L283 will be found in Rinaldone or when some J-Z622 will be found in Los-Millares", if it will be found there in the Middle Bronze Age as it did in the Western Balkans, then you can put forward those counterarguments, but so far you have absolutely no evidence for them.

1\ I provided arguments :
--> Cultural contact among the cultures I spoke of, I provided the references to published papers. It is not my own work, I just quoted work by experts. If you want to contest them : (i) publish a paper, (ii) write to them directly.
--> Diversity centers are well documented, by me, by others, most decent automated tools would gives you the same solution anyway for the stages we are discussing here.
--> Combining the two elements above, all ancient sample found so far can be explained.
That's how is built a model usually. And yet, this model have 0 outliers sample and is sourced by recent papers for the cultural contacts.

If you have specific questions, I can adress them ... otherwise, if you limit yourself to "your wrong", I will just tell you "great, have a nice day".
And keep in mind that a Model "A" can't be proven wrong by a Model "B". In such situation, if both are working "A" and "B" are just alternatives.
Yet, I'm still waiting for a real model with the so-called ~2000 BCE steppic origin that can produce a realistic explanation of : (i) all ancient samples, (ii) the spatial structure of samples and their phylogenic relation.
A lot of people here are just dismissing the aspects of data that their simplistic claims can't explains !



2\ The Picene paper found samples in IA Italy. 
From IA-samples you can infer the ~3600 BCE origin of the whole clade ? I don't know how you do, and whatever is the CV of the dude doing so, I wouldn't trust him much.
You speak of an "obivous" estern flux. 
But how can you prove that this "flux" you see in autosomal DNA is related to the same "flux" that brought J-L283 at this location ?
Do you think that between ~3600 BCE and Picenes Italy was only involved in one single flux of genes ?
You have many fluxes overlapping, I don't know how you disentangle them. 
Me I use diversity as a proxy for that, and you ?
To me, it is "obvious" to you because you presupose massive migration movements and you neglects ALL other cultural influences.
If picenes samples are J-Z597 they likely derive from an eastern flux related to Cetina.
If Picenes samples are J-Z615, J-Z585, or J-Z2509 (Z597-), then it is another story.

If phylogenic intermediates, the Picenes samples, the Nuragic, and the Balkanic samples would constitute a ~3100 BCE segregation of J-L283 subclades.
Read C. Jeunesse 2020 : Maykop-->(Rinaldone, Usatovo) connection around ~3600 BCE
Read A. Dolfini et al. 2020 : Tuscany --> North-Eastern Italy connection pre-3000 BCE
Read V. Heyd 2007 : Cetina relation to bell-Beaker influences.
As you see, with this simple three references, I can explain all BA J-L283 samples and diffusion mecanism.
It is a very simplified version of my diffusion model.

It works way better than a magical ~2000 BCE migration that managed to produce a ~3100 BCE segregation of subclades.
I didn't know a single documented movement of population where the mecanism you invocate here can be observed.
Thus, yet you failed to propose an alternative model to the realistic and sourced model I constructed.

As a bonus, the concerned mecanism explains why J-L283 BA samples are found with very diverse autosomal profiles, and not a single common autosomal component in the ~3600 BCE horizon.



3\ Be prepared ... (with the lyrics of "The Lion King" !)

[corrigendum]

You stated "You will be disapointed when J-L283 will be found in Rinaldone or when some J-Z622 will be found in Los-Millares", if it will be found there in the Middle Bronze Age as it did in the Western Balkans, then you can put forward those counterarguments, but so far you have absolutely no evidence for them.

We can move on. Theories which have no foundation in the archaeogenetic record and actually go against what the record highlights aren't worthy of any discussion.

[corrigendum]

A description of the earliest southwestern-most detected Yamnaya steppe mounds, found in EBA Çinamak (Northern Albania), was given in the conference The Transformation of Europe in the Third Millennium BC - Day 1, 7:54:50.

Lazaridis et al. 2022 (Supplementary Materials for The genetic history of the Southern Arc) state:

EHG ancestry becomes ubiquitous after this time and reaches up to 35±3% in an outlier individual (I14689) from Çinamak; such high levels of EHG ancestry are of course not unheard of in mainland Europe as they were found in individuals of the Corded Ware culture(8). This individual, the earliest known one with EHG ancestry from the western Balkans dates to the same period (2831-2480 calBCE). This suggests a parallel appearance of steppe ancestry in Central Europe and in the western Balkans, well beyond the geographical limits of the steppe itself. The bulk of the individuals from Çinamak are from the 1st millennium BCE and have a lower 16±2% EHG ancestry on average.

Is it possible that those steppe people also brought J2b-L283 in Northern Albania? Or is it more likley that J2b-L283 firstly reached another area of the western Balkans?

Both scenarios are equally plausible as this R-M269 individual comes from the same population which brought J-L283 in the western Balkans.

In any case, there definitely were two different waves of J-L283 movements towards Albania: one with Cetina culture and the other with Glasinac-Mati culture.

Here’s a link to the original archaeological survey of the Movila Gologan kurgan from Crihana Veche that produced sample I10206, the first J2b L283 Yamnaya sample to date.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...16_si_2017
Plan view:
Here is a photo of the burial and a brief textual description (note arrowhead diagram in lower right corner of photo):
Because it was originally thought the burial could belong to Cernavoda I, this explains the original speculative age of 3500-4500 BCE.  Cernavoda I is estimated typically around 3650 BCE.  They utilized kurgan burials initially before transitioning to flat graves.  Genetic sequencing of the sample determined it is a CoreYam sample mixed with 2 populations: Core Yamnaya and “Yunasite” ancestry, which could also be Trypillian ancestry.  This combination essentially defines western Yamnaya: The core is moving west and admixing.  Hence its designation as EBA Yamnaya.
As noted, this burial contained an arrowhead.  This is somewhat unusual amongst Yamnaya graves, which seldom contained weapons.  Only about 5% of Yamnaya burials contain weapons of some sort.  See this interesting slide from Dr. Denis Topal, who had a nice presentation at a conference recently held in Budapest, Hungary:
So about 5% of Yamnaya graves contain weapons and about 22% of that 5% are arrowheads.  The second most popular weapon behind daggers, just ahead of axe heads in the #3 spot.  Arrowheads in kurgans tend to peak in the Donetsk area of Ukraine amongst Yamnaya burials, as well as further to the east in the Volga/Ural zone (outside of the predefined core).
Last but not least, here are some interesting slides from Dr. Topal’s presentation highlighting just how many barrows or kurgans they have throughout Moldova, along with the average density of graves found amongst various kurgans delineated by region of Moldova:

FLINT ARTEFACTS OF NORTHERN PONTIC POPULATIONS OF THE EARLY AND MIDDLE BRONZE AGE: 3200 – 1600 BC (BASED ON BURIAL MATERIALS)

Sub-type II – side edges of the arrowhead form an oval, the arrowhead if the widest at the base of the nibs.

Version 2 – the notch at the base of the arrowhead is arch-shaped (the side edges of the notch are parallel or slightly touch each other). Three items
in burials with skeletons contracted on the back (all found among the bones) had a sub-rectangular notch. The latter type has vast analogies in the Early and
Middle Bronze-Age Northern Caucasus [Krupnov 1951:43-44; Kruglov 1958:23; Abibulaeva 1982:152]. Generally, such arrowheads are sometimes linked with
Catacomb cultures. Yet, we should mention a quiver set found in a Yamnaya grave with the skeleton contracted on the side, Alkalia 33.3 (Odessa Region), which contained 11 arrowheads of this type (Fig. 14:3-12)

The earliest bifacial flint knife-daggers were found in the North Caucasus and the Lower Don [Kondrashov, Rezepkin 1988:93; Gudimenko, Kyiashko
1997:103]. Particular attention should be paid to grave goods of an elite Maikop grave 5 of barrow 31 of the ‘Klady’ (‘Hoards’) cemetery (Krasnodar area). There a flint knife-dagger with the debris of a handle lay on top of a stone axe; a bronze dagger lay on top of a bronze axe-hammer, and another lay nearby [Rezepkin 1991:173]. Since the stone axe may be viewed in that case as an insignia of power, the position of the knife-dagger stresses its sacral meaning. Trasologically it was identified as a meat-cutting knife, though we have certain doubts about classing it in the category of ‘hunting’ tools [Korobkova, Sharovskaya 1983:88- -94], given the presence of two more bronze daggers and the general context of a ‘prince’s’ burial (see Chapter VI)

It is interesting that Yamnaya weapon technology reflects influences and contacts with the N. Caucasus region.

[Sephesakueu]

Anything that goes much beyond the obvious basic info extracted from the data of each sample (autossomal profile mainly, archeological context and most especific clade) is entering unnecessarily sufferable territory.
J-L283 Yamnaya sample is too young to be our MRCA , I see no reason why after being discovered among yamnaya L283 would not be found in other more unsampled steppe-caucasus related chalcolithic and bronze age groups at an even earlier date and with more relevance to the identification of a possible MRCA. Steppe groups were as we know extremely mobile and after all, the same genetic profiles moved across diferent territories and accquired diferent cultures , for example the case of R1b-L51 in Afanasievo , Corded ware and now Yamnaya.
I think it is very silly that a discussion about a Y chromossome is so damaged by ethno nationalist talk and it is also important to note that its a waste to in the atempt to offer a reactive counternarrative ( as I have made in the past), just fall in a trap of resentment. It seems to me indiferent and unlikely to discuss for example Maykop origin for this clade till we have ancient samples that comprove it.
So we should stick more I think to discuss each ancient sample to its maximum deapth without the use of much imagination, instead this would avoid petty feuds and hatred in our comunity, not that some care , it seems to me that is precisely the aim some non J-L283 infiltrato aways held around here. Those who lack power in life seek it in internet foruns?

Also if pre-print samples are now being added to the J-L283 ancient dna map:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid...271305&z=4

Why not add the Hallstatt celt MBG006 already too? Its a very important sample too. Hunter Provyn also has ignored it so far for some reason , but each to its own .

[elflock]

I think it is very silly that a discussion about a Y chromossome is so damaged by ethno nationalist talk and it is also important to note that its  a waste to in the atempt to offer a reactive counternarrative ( as I have made in the past), just fall in a trap of resentment. 
...

Also if pre-print samples are now being added to the J-L283 ancient dna map:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid...271305&z=4

Why not add the Hallstatt celt MBG006 already too? Its a very important sample too.  Hunter Provyn also has ignored it so far for some reason , but each to its own .

Care to specify what about previous in depth posts, that are based on factual data, are rooted in what you frame "ethnonationalist" ideology (or whatever)? Considering the posts come from posters of different ethnic backgrounds that strikes me as an oddly bizarre claim.

The counterarguments have much more to do with reason than gibberish long texts that don't adhere to scientific data but rather emotionally charged pseudoscientific bias. E.g. Ghurier's non factual posts. 

You're appalled by the fact that one sample hasn't been uploaded to the J2b-L283 map fast enough? You do realize that Veseli's and Provyn's work for J2b-L283 haplogroup research is voluntary, right? Some minimal gratitude wouldn't be too bad.

If you want to point something out, fine, but to go on a full accusation spiral postulating "narrative" based bias against reasonable contributors seems more like projection to me.

You stated "You will be disapointed when J-L283 will be found in Rinaldone or when some J-Z622 will be found in Los-Millares", if it will be found there in the Middle Bronze Age as it did in the Western Balkans, then you can put forward those counterarguments, but so far you have absolutely no evidence for them.

We can move on. Theories which have no foundation in the archaeogenetic record and actually go against what the record highlights aren't worthy of any discussion.

Indeed.

[Sephesakueu]

They do this work because they want to for their own egoistic reasons , i have no reason to be grateful. If they wanted to stop it would also make no diference for me personally.
Projecting what? Everybody has their bias, it is how it is, that is why i am proposing we just stop fighting like brats over uncertainties and stick more to being less emotional investigators.
Tho of course this is hard when you are mixing y dna with nationalism. The best example is the "roman mediated" narrative that got repeated for so long in a irrational manner, because imagine lots of the J-L283s around europe have no illyrian origin or even don't have origins in Cetina would this be a problem for some? It seems so, for reason beyond my comprehension honestly but anyway that is irrelevant.

[Trojet]

Also if pre-print samples are now being added to the J-L283 ancient dna map:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid...271305&z=4

Why not add the Hallstatt celt MBG006 already too? Its a very important sample too.  Hunter Provyn also has ignored it so far for some reason , but each to its own .

Which preprint (or paper) has MBG006 been published in?

As far as I'm aware, it hasn't been published in a paper yet (only the raw data has been uploaded at ENA, which doesn't have information on sample IDs). Once the actual paper gets published, it will be added to the aDNA map like the rest of them, so be patient. We had the same scenario with the Patterson et. al. paper, where the raw data was uploaded before the paper was published. It's usually the other way around..