The Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans

[alanarchae]

Also let me list here my frustrations :-) as per Anatolians and the mutually exclusive arguments

1. P-Anatolian and PIA lacks agri vocab, so can't come from South Caucasus
2. Wagons, shepherding comes from South Caucasus to the Steppe
3. All non-Steppe R1b variants of Z2103 are practically Armenian or look like that.  Could it be that actually Anatolian-speakers adopted Armenian in the Iron Age? And later partly Greek as well?
4. Well, but the problem is that actually all Z2103 (xZ2109) is South of the Caucasus or a bit north of it. Even Z2106 (xZ2109). That means that around 3100 BCE, 11 out of 12 Z2103-Y-descendant is South of the Caucasus and only Z2109 is in Yamnaya to form Afanasievo, Vucedol and Catacomb (I wonder if we have deep SNP data on Catacomb, please post here).
5. So what is the chance of 11 per 12 son staying in the Steppe from 3100 BCE till 2500-2200 BCE and only invading Armenia then and not leaving a trace elsewhere? Same applies for PF7562 actually, where only 1 out of 3 descendant is the one leading to Proto-Greeks.
6. All uncles/cousins of R1b-M269 are in Eastern Europe for millennia (V1636, M73, V88) and also R1a-M417 & cousins. So why would M269 be in the South? And we have a sea of various South of Caucasus HGs also coming to Khvalynsk and Maykop and R1b-M269 is not among them.
7. How comes that Greek is closest to Armenian but they are separeted being Kentum vs. Satem. And how comes the late vocab exchange btween Greek and Indo-Iranian? Kentumness of Greek favours an early Yamnaya movement to the Balkans (Ezero-Yunatsite-Macedonia) as described by Anthony in his book, and PF7563 would be in line with that. But then neither the Indo-Iranian issue nor the Armenian fits. If Greek is in Catacomb with Armenians bordering Sintashta-Petrovka to receive II influence, why is Armenian not getting the same and why Greek is not satemized?
8. Genetically Armenian cannot come through the Balkans. And Greek cannot come through Anatolia from the East. So that relationship is somewhat a mess, and even Proto-Greeks are not L23 but PF7563 with assimilated J2b en route.

Point of note for #2, it is not certain that wagons and pastoralism came to the steppe from the Caucasus. In fact, there's evidence to suggest these in fact arrived from the Balkan Cucuteni-Trypillia farmers to the west, who were at the time the densest and most urbanized culture on earth. In recent years, consensus has been growing that wheeled vehicles originated here, not Mesopotamia. People are used to Mesopotamia and Egypt as the shorthand for urban development and culture in prehistory, but the Balkan farmers had their peak before either of those civilizations reached their classic forms. Ironically, it was likely the IE expansion that ended the Balkan urban world.

IMO it’s more likely that the farming world to the west was in a pretty devastated state before the main spread of steppe genes into it c.3000-2800BC took place. There is a lot of evidence of a really crushing period they went through with various possible explanations like climate and pandemic. This even happened far from the steppe zone in France, Britain, Ireland, TRB etc. Settlemenyt numbers got very thin and megalithic tomb internments ceased. Something very bad happened to them. Many scholars think the population suffered a huge collapse. 

I do think while people were hardly hippies, the idea that humans are sociopaths wanting to kill everyone who isn’t in their clan is totally wrong too. Sure they’d attack anyone actually threatening them or stealing from them and get might have fights over aspects of power and submission etc but the extermination? Nope. Why do that when you can just take tribute and rents. Plus it seems most Yamnaya settlers settled in the niches that the farmers didn’t. So they could easily have lived separately but adjacent and had some kind of relationship. In CW i’ve also read that in Denmark they settled props with specific  different areas to the locals. Parallel living but with one of them having even a slight demographic advantage can totally transform the population in 3 or 4 centuries. I just don’t buy the idea that at that remote era there was anything like a huge military invasion many seem to imagine.For a start it was likely that political units were tiny. 

The problem is people tend to go for the extremes - hippies or sword and sorcery type warrior invasions. It was likely neither of those things. More like  highly atomised picture of local squabbles and two groups living side by side in a perhaps unequal relationship. Kind of like in a cowboys v injuns film of yesteryear.

[alanarchae]

The Kurgan culture was proposed by Gimbutas but D.Anthony clearly narrowed it down to Yamnaya when looking for PIE origins. I think Jim Mallory shifted together with Anthony.
And genetics same to prove Anthony right. It seems that many cultures that Gimbutas considered "kurganized" or early Kurgan were actually still fully Neolithic Farmers (e.g. Baden, GAC) - or fully Caucasians like Maykop. As qijia psoted, Kurgans were also erected elsewhere, so it is better to keep to Yamnaya than kurgans when discussing PIE origins.

Mallory and Anthony were a little off in their predictions, in that they supported Volga-Ural origins for Yamnaya (which has been disproven by aDNA) and the inflated Repin dates which are false.
The quasi-kurgan features of pre-steppe Europe just show the similar 'cultural dialectics' found across Europe c. 4500 BC, which help contextualise their rise in the steppe rather than being some alien cultural element which appeared from nowhere.
And I disagree with the view that PIE was focussed on Yamnaya & R1b-L23, it comes across as a myopic haplo-daddy scenario given the current evidence.

It’s hardly surprising given the yDNA of Yamnaya, CW, beaker are all over overwhelmingly L23! As is Catacomb etc. And one branch of R1a dominates several other relevant cultures linked to branches of IE. Plus there is a very nice trail of a very similar Yamnaya type component moving with them. But I agree it’s not the whole story and it’s not absolutes.  I2 and J are in there too and a few others.

[Psynome]

IMO it’s more likely that the farming world to the west was in a pretty devastated state before the main spread of steppe genes into it c.3000-2800BC took place. There is a lot of evidence of a really crushing period they went through with various possible explanations like climate and pandemic. This even happened far from the steppe zone in France, Britain, Ireland, TRB etc. Settlemenyt numbers got very thin and megalithic tomb internments ceased. Something very bad happened to them. Many scholars think the population suffered a huge collapse. 
I do think while people were hardly hippies, the idea that humans are sociopaths wanting to kill everyone who isn’t in their clan is totally wrong too. Sure they’d attack anyone actually threatening them or stealing from them and get might have fights over aspects of power and submission etc but the extermination? Nope. Why do that when you can just take tribute and rents. Plus it seems most Yamnaya settlers settled in the niches that the farmers didn’t. So they could easily have lived separately but adjacent and had some kind of relationship. In CW i’ve also read that in Denmark they settled props with specific  different areas to the locals. Parallel living but with one of them having even a slight demographic advantage can totally transform the population in 3 or 4 centuries. I just don’t buy the idea that at that remote era there was anything like a huge military invasion many seem to imagine.For a start it was likely that political units were tiny. 
The problem is people tend to go for the extremes - hippies or sword and sorcery type warrior invasions. It was likely neither of those things. More like  highly atomised picture of local squabbles and two groups living side by side in a perhaps unequal relationship. Kind of like in a cowboys v injuns film of yesteryear.

Yes, it's important not to fall into cliches. The decline of the CT was certainly multi causal, with a huge environmental contribution. It's also wrong to imagine large scale military invasions in the style of Bronze Age state societies.  Studies of modern traditional societies often find endemic small scale warfare, and it is this constant raiding that may have put tremendous pressure on local farmers.

It's also worth mentioning that bubonic plague, found in Neolithic settlements, probably originated on the steppe, not that disease transmission was intentional in any way.

I think it is still fair to say that while there were other forceful factors in the CT decline, it was the expansion and migration of IE groups that brought it to a permanent end.

[CowboyHG]

Also let me list here my frustrations :-) as per Anatolians and the mutually exclusive arguments

1. P-Anatolian and PIA lacks agri vocab, so can't come from South Caucasus
2. Wagons, shepherding comes from South Caucasus to the Steppe
3. All non-Steppe R1b variants of Z2103 are practically Armenian or look like that.  Could it be that actually Anatolian-speakers adopted Armenian in the Iron Age? And later partly Greek as well?
4. Well, but the problem is that actually all Z2103 (xZ2109) is South of the Caucasus or a bit north of it. Even Z2106 (xZ2109). That means that around 3100 BCE, 11 out of 12 Z2103-Y-descendant is South of the Caucasus and only Z2109 is in Yamnaya to form Afanasievo, Vucedol and Catacomb (I wonder if we have deep SNP data on Catacomb, please post here).
5. So what is the chance of 11 per 12 son staying in the Steppe from 3100 BCE till 2500-2200 BCE and only invading Armenia then and not leaving a trace elsewhere? Same applies for PF7562 actually, where only 1 out of 3 descendant is the one leading to Proto-Greeks.
6. All uncles/cousins of R1b-M269 are in Eastern Europe for millennia (V1636, M73, V88) and also R1a-M417 & cousins. So why would M269 be in the South? And we have a sea of various South of Caucasus HGs also coming to Khvalynsk and Maykop and R1b-M269 is not among them.
7. How comes that Greek is closest to Armenian but they are separeted being Kentum vs. Satem. And how comes the late vocab exchange btween Greek and Indo-Iranian? Kentumness of Greek favours an early Yamnaya movement to the Balkans (Ezero-Yunatsite-Macedonia) as described by Anthony in his book, and PF7563 would be in line with that. But then neither the Indo-Iranian issue nor the Armenian fits. If Greek is in Catacomb with Armenians bordering Sintashta-Petrovka to receive II influence, why is Armenian not getting the same and why Greek is not satemized?
8. Genetically Armenian cannot come through the Balkans. And Greek cannot come through Anatolia from the East. So that relationship is somewhat a mess, and even Proto-Greeks are not L23 but PF7563 with assimilated J2b en route.

Point of note for #2, it is not certain that wagons and pastoralism came to the steppe from the Caucasus. In fact, there's evidence to suggest these in fact arrived from the Balkan Cucuteni-Trypillia farmers to the west, who were at the time the densest and most urbanized culture on earth. In recent years, consensus has been growing that wheeled vehicles originated here, not Mesopotamia. People are used to Mesopotamia and Egypt as the shorthand for urban development and culture in prehistory, but the Balkan farmers had their peak before either of those civilizations reached their classic forms. Ironically, it was likely the IE expansion that ended the Balkan urban world.

I think your right about the wheels/ wagons, but as for the decline of the Balkan world had different causes to what might be read in 'mainstream' IE literature and click-bait geneticist articles.
Steppe invaders scenario isn't accurate it was some yet to be understood climactic event, probably a flood

The chronology is very crucial:
- earlier depopulation in parts of Anatolia
- c, 4500 BC  Khvalynsk-LVC were clients of the East Balkan centres, hence we see some culturally incoporated steppe individuals in East Balkan Eneolithic
- then east balkans population collapse c. 4000. At the same time Khvalynsk/LCV declines,
- main expansion of C-T toward Dnieper (probably some Varna refugees in there). 
- 4000 BC  Cernavoda develops, then partially colonizes Balkans 
- 3800 Majkop emerges
- 3200 then main Yamnaya expansion, completes the Balkan colonization, mixing with or pushing Cernavoda ahead.

[CowboyHG]

Also let me list here my frustrations :-) as per Anatolians and the mutually exclusive arguments

1. P-Anatolian and PIA lacks agri vocab, so can't come from South Caucasus
2. Wagons, shepherding comes from South Caucasus to the Steppe
3. All non-Steppe R1b variants of Z2103 are practically Armenian or look like that.  Could it be that actually Anatolian-speakers adopted Armenian in the Iron Age? And later partly Greek as well?
4. Well, but the problem is that actually all Z2103 (xZ2109) is South of the Caucasus or a bit north of it. Even Z2106 (xZ2109). That means that around 3100 BCE, 11 out of 12 Z2103-Y-descendant is South of the Caucasus and only Z2109 is in Yamnaya to form Afanasievo, Vucedol and Catacomb (I wonder if we have deep SNP data on Catacomb, please post here).
5. So what is the chance of 11 per 12 son staying in the Steppe from 3100 BCE till 2500-2200 BCE and only invading Armenia then and not leaving a trace elsewhere? Same applies for PF7562 actually, where only 1 out of 3 descendant is the one leading to Proto-Greeks.
6. All uncles/cousins of R1b-M269 are in Eastern Europe for millennia (V1636, M73, V88) and also R1a-M417 & cousins. So why would M269 be in the South? And we have a sea of various South of Caucasus HGs also coming to Khvalynsk and Maykop and R1b-M269 is not among them.
7. How comes that Greek is closest to Armenian but they are separeted being Kentum vs. Satem. And how comes the late vocab exchange btween Greek and Indo-Iranian? Kentumness of Greek favours an early Yamnaya movement to the Balkans (Ezero-Yunatsite-Macedonia) as described by Anthony in his book, and PF7563 would be in line with that. But then neither the Indo-Iranian issue nor the Armenian fits. If Greek is in Catacomb with Armenians bordering Sintashta-Petrovka to receive II influence, why is Armenian not getting the same and why Greek is not satemized?
8. Genetically Armenian cannot come through the Balkans. And Greek cannot come through Anatolia from the East. So that relationship is somewhat a mess, and even Proto-Greeks are not L23 but PF7563 with assimilated J2b en route.

Point of note for #2, it is not certain that wagons and pastoralism came to the steppe from the Caucasus. In fact, there's evidence to suggest these in fact arrived from the Balkan Cucuteni-Trypillia farmers to the west, who were at the time the densest and most urbanized culture on earth. In recent years, consensus has been growing that wheeled vehicles originated here, not Mesopotamia. People are used to Mesopotamia and Egypt as the shorthand for urban development and culture in prehistory, but the Balkan farmers had their peak before either of those civilizations reached their classic forms. Ironically, it was likely the IE expansion that ended the Balkan urban world.

IMO it’s more likely that the farming world to the west was in a pretty devastated state before the main spread of steppe genes into it c.3000-2800BC took place. There is a lot of evidence of a really crushing period they went through with various possible explanations like climate and pandemic. This even happened far from the steppe zone in France, Britain, Ireland, TRB etc. Settlemenyt numbers got very thin and megalithic tomb internments ceased. Something very bad happened to them. Many scholars think the population suffered a huge collapse. 

I do think while people were hardly hippies, the idea that humans are sociopaths wanting to kill everyone who isn’t in their clan is totally wrong too. Sure they’d attack anyone actually threatening them or stealing from them and get might have fights over aspects of power and submission etc but the extermination? Nope. Why do that when you can just take tribute and rents. Plus it seems most Yamnaya settlers settled in the niches that the farmers didn’t. So they could easily have lived separately but adjacent and had some kind of relationship. In CW i’ve also read that in Denmark they settled props with specific  different areas to the locals. Parallel living but with one of them having even a slight demographic advantage can totally transform the population in 3 or 4 centuries. I just don’t buy the idea that at that remote era there was anything like a huge military invasion many seem to imagine.For a start it was likely that political units were tiny. 

The problem is people tend to go for the extremes - hippies or sword and sorcery type warrior invasions. It was likely neither of those things. More like  highly atomised picture of local squabbles and two groups living side by side in a perhaps unequal relationship. Kind of like in a cowboys v injuns film of yesteryear.

The idea of one narrative for 'old Europe' is also a false one, as there was no 'precipitous collapse' of 'Farmer' socieites in northern or western Europe, just constant shifting and dynamism which needs to be understood separately for every region of Europe.
The nature & degree of turnover also for beyond the Balkans for central, northern & western Europe is different to the sold narrative, because the studies, books abd publications continue to misunderstood the relevance of early CW samples. So to account for this false scenario they then had to invent theories such as plague pandemics or malignant steppe hordes from Russia, therefore the other extreme about them being entirely peaceful or that the BB phenomena was mostly a cultural interaction is a reactionary response which swings to the other extreme of interpretation.
One only has to look at all the Bronze Age data from central Europe and Scandinavia for themselves to understand their narrative is a false one.
Even in the case of Britain, where the turnover seems to be profound, there is more nuance to be had, Lastly, some of the greatest Y-hg turnovers occurred at regions most distant from the steppe (e.g. Iberia).

[Psynome]

I think your right about the wheels/ wagons, but as for the decline of the Balkan world had different causes to what might be read in 'mainstream' IE literature and click-bait geneticist articles.
Steppe invaders scenario isn't accurate it was some yet to be understood climactic event, probably a flood

The chronology is very crucial:
- earlier depopulation in parts of Anatolia
- c, 4500 BC  Khvalynsk-LVC were clients of the East Balkan centres, hence we see some culturally incoporated steppe individuals in East Balkan Eneolithic
- then east balkans population collapse c. 4000. At the same time Khvalynsk/LCV declines,
- main expansion of C-T toward Dnieper (probably some Varna refugees in there). 
- 4000 BC  Cernavoda develops, then partially colonizes Balkans 
- 3800 Majkop emerges
- 3200 then main Yamnaya expansion, completes the Balkan colonization, mixing with or pushing Cernavoda ahead.

Can you provide a source for the Balkan collapse being ~4000BCE? Most of what I've read suggests it happened substantially later, closer to the end of the 4th millennium, well after contact with Cernavoda and then Usatovo.

[CowboyHG]

I think your right about the wheels/ wagons, but as for the decline of the Balkan world had different causes to what might be read in 'mainstream' IE literature and click-bait geneticist articles.
Steppe invaders scenario isn't accurate it was some yet to be understood climactic event, probably a flood

The chronology is very crucial:
- earlier depopulation in parts of Anatolia
- c, 4500 BC  Khvalynsk-LVC were clients of the East Balkan centres, hence we see some culturally incoporated steppe individuals in East Balkan Eneolithic
- then east balkans population collapse c. 4000. At the same time Khvalynsk/LCV declines,
- main expansion of C-T toward Dnieper (probably some Varna refugees in there). 
- 4000 BC  Cernavoda develops, then partially colonizes Balkans 
- 3800 Majkop emerges
- 3200 then main Yamnaya expansion, completes the Balkan colonization, mixing with or pushing Cernavoda ahead.

Can you provide a source for the Balkan collapse being ~4000BCE? Most of what I've read suggests it happened substantially later, closer to the end of the 4th millennium, well after contact with Cernavoda and then Usatovo.

Really, out of curiosity where do you read that ? The chronology is well established. One can refer to  "Communities in Transition . The Circum-Aegean in the 5th adn 4th millenia BC' as a recent compendium with numerous chapters. For relation to climactic change, one can read the works of Weninger et al (The Geographic Corrido for Rapid Climate Change in Southeast Europe and Ukraine)
The collapse is first seen in Anatolia, then through East Balkans & northern Greece. There is then a hiatus with very little population at all (variable depending on which sub-region)
Obviously this has nothing to do with steppe invaders. 
Then Cernavoda & Usatavo re-plenish the population, but there are also Baden related migrations, then ''Yamnaya propper' comes along ~ 3100 bc

[CowboyHG]

To fill in what I mean about central Europe, although beyond the main scope of this thread



So the studies sampled early CW individuals with high steppe and made false claims about '80% replacement' because of oberver error. The early CW individuals represent early steppe migranats, whilst the 'parallele socieites' were not sampled or ignored.
The population demographics are complex, which cause rapid swings in genome-wide ancestry; and we also see there are multiple events and 're-sets'
That's why I feel that the form of genetic antrhopology in vogue by the big whigs (raw interpretation of autosomal admixture) is rather misleading. Although not denying the obviuosly big impact that migrations made, they actually ocurred over 400 years and then magnified with MBA population growth in the case of CWC-BB.

[Jafety]

RE above:
The example of conquering the Americas is usually a good one even if not perfect.
If an archaeologist in 4000 CE would dig in Peru or Mexico and look for the earliest burials with crosses + skeletons reflecting horseback-riding, he would certainly get nearly 100% European DNA from them, while when digging our 20th century Mexicans and Peruvians he would "discover the coming back of Native American admixture".
CWC and Bell Beaker sampling is also affected by this phenomenon.
Also it is very important to note that the population density of targeted migration areas significantly affects the later genetic admixture. Euro DNA frequency is very different in Southern Mexico and Peru/Bolivia vs. sparsely populated hunter-gatherer areas if Chile, Argentina, coastal Brazil etc.
In case of Europe ~3000 BCE, we can see similar trends: Yamnaya autosomal & Y-DNA is very dominant in a crescent from the Dnipro through the Baltic-Scandinavia-Britain-Ireland-and down the Atlantic coast to Portugal. On the other hand, in the Danube Valley, Balkans and Mediterranean coast, where EEF settlement was much more dense, we see much more admixture and even a renewed expansion of pre-IE types from Hallstatt-La Tene. (as a side note, this also clearly proves that the original Hallstatt = proto-Celtic theory is completely false).
The invisibility of Anatolians so far is partly also due to an even higher pop. density there.
I know this topic is beyond the scope of this thread but worth bearing in mind when thinking about how PIE spread.

[nomad01]

I think your right about the wheels/ wagons, but as for the decline of the Balkan world had different causes to what might be read in 'mainstream' IE literature and click-bait geneticist articles.
Steppe invaders scenario isn't accurate it was some yet to be understood climactic event, probably a flood

The chronology is very crucial:
- earlier depopulation in parts of Anatolia
- c, 4500 BC  Khvalynsk-LVC were clients of the East Balkan centres, hence we see some culturally incoporated steppe individuals in East Balkan Eneolithic
- then east balkans population collapse c. 4000. At the same time Khvalynsk/LCV declines,
- main expansion of C-T toward Dnieper (probably some Varna refugees in there). 
- 4000 BC  Cernavoda develops, then partially colonizes Balkans 
- 3800 Majkop emerges
- 3200 then main Yamnaya expansion, completes the Balkan colonization, mixing with or pushing Cernavoda ahead.

Can you provide a source for the Balkan collapse being ~4000BCE? Most of what I've read suggests it happened substantially later, closer to the end of the 4th millennium, well after contact with Cernavoda and then Usatovo.

I think you are both right, depends which part of the Balkans are you talking about. around Moldova, Trypillia and Cernavoda/Usatovo exist all the way to 3200-3000 BC when they are replaced by Yamnaya. In Bulgaria, Gumelnitsa-Karanovo collapses around 4000 BC, then around 3200 BC early Yunatsite/Ezero appear, who look like Trypillians being pushed south by Yamnaya.

[RCO]

RE above:
The example of conquering the Americas is usually a good one even if not perfect.
If an archaeologist in 4000 CE would dig (...)
I know this topic is beyond the scope of this thread but worth bearing in mind when thinking about how PIE spread.

A good comparison. Let's imagine how good archaeogeneticists would analyse and interpret a big population like the Brazilian full of different admixtures and compositions.
If in the future they don't have written documents and only ancient DNA from Europe after a nuclear war. They would find proxies like in Rome, Italy and would observe more proxies around the Northern Atlantic in populations like England, If they get access to Iberian populations like Catalans and Basques the distance would be more interesting just like Castilians, but if they can get Portuguese samples the match with the Brazilian admixtures would be the fittest, but if they had samples from Lisbon around the year 1000 CE they would have a Moor City with a different population because the Brazilian and Portuguese core-base was only in the North, between the Minho and Douro Rivers around the year 1000 CE, so the complexity and how Archaeogenetics needs to get all types of samples from all regions and not only proxies not investigating nearby regions, that's my opinion to undestand the CLV cline without Easterrn Caucasian-Caspian and ancient samples from Gilan and the Alborz.

[alanarchae]

To fill in what I mean about central Europe, although beyond the main scope of this thread



So the studies sampled early CW individuals with high steppe and made false claims about '80% replacement' because of oberver error. The early CW individuals represent early steppe migranats, whilst the 'parallele socieites' were not sampled or ignored.
The population demographics are complex, which cause rapid swings in genome-wide ancestry; and we also see there are multiple events and 're-sets'
That's why I feel that the form of genetic antrhopology in vogue by the big whigs (raw interpretation of autosomal admixture) is rather misleading. Although not denying the obviuosly big impact that migrations made, they actually ocurred over 400 years and then magnified with MBA population growth in the case of CWC-BB.

Virtually all archaeologists would agree with that - if you sample early obviously not local-originated graves then you will find mostly non locals but that is nothing like a representative sample of the whole population. 

Also the TMRCA date of the dominant male lines shows the absolute impossibility of a sudden replacement. L151 seen in early CW in Czech was radiocarbon dated to only 50 years after the L151 TMRCA. Even if the TMRCA dates are (as a number of folk think) an underestimate by a century or so, the that still leaves only enough time for a pretty modest sized clan compared to the native population of the regions they settled. Other examples of why the sudden mass replacement model is nonsense and an illusion include L21 in the british isies and DF27 settling Iberia both c. 2450BC. The TMRCA of L21 is 2600BC and DF27 is the same. Now, i’m aware clans can grow a lot 150ys but realistically we can’t be looking at low thousands each and even that would require each having quite a few sons each who survive and go on to breed. 

Upshot is, I don’t think any model works other than this for beaker 
1.They arrived and were able to settle in small enclaves among but apart from the locals 
2. The locals accepted /tolerated this - probably because they settled on unused land and could supply trade goodies. 
3. The beaker  folk likely then settled in a scatter of little groups all over (which kept in touch with each other via networks) 
4. Each little beaker enclave then grew in situ. They likely had some demographic advantage and grew faster than the locals they lived in parallel with. Over the next centuries this caused them to outgrow the locals. This might have been hard for the locals to actually perceive in a single lifetime. So they’d kind of let in a Trojan horse of a slow burn sort. 

The CW L151 situ also had to he a similar story imo. There simply was not enough members of L151 or L21 or DF27 when they made their big dispersals when you consider the TMRCA of the clades and the huge area fhey suddenly spread over in a generation or two. The spread simply had to be a thin one leaving a multitude of small scattered enclaves. It absolutely could not have been ike the D-day landings or the German migration period hoards. The situation may have been very different a couple of crvturyee later after in situ demographic growth turned them into a much larger groups. The actual conflict that arose during this was likely almost comically localised. The polities of that era were likely tiny in sharp contrast to the huge long distance networks.

[Psynome]

So the studies sampled early CW individuals with high steppe and made false claims about '80% replacement' because of oberver error. The early CW individuals represent early steppe migranats, whilst the 'parallele socieites' were not sampled or ignored.
The population demographics are complex, which cause rapid swings in genome-wide ancestry; and we also see there are multiple events and 're-sets'
That's why I feel that the form of genetic antrhopology in vogue by the big whigs (raw interpretation of autosomal admixture) is rather misleading. Although not denying the obviuosly big impact that migrations made, they actually ocurred over 400 years and then magnified with MBA population growth in the case of CWC-BB.

It's definitely true that claims in papers can lead to misleading interpretations of complex demographic events. In the better papers, the authors more often at qualify their results with phrases like "80% OBSERVED replacement", being careful only to speak of the data they do have without immediately extrapolating to the entire area and time period.

The delayed admixture scenario you described has been well documented in Europe already in the case of the so called hunter gatherer rebound of ancestry after the initial Neolithic migration wave, documented in Lipson et al 2017. This also happened with steppe and farmer ancestry in some regions of Europe, as you've shown. However, in some places like Britain there was in fact a massive replacement with no substantial later admixture.

[alanarchae]

So the studies sampled early CW individuals with high steppe and made false claims about '80% replacement' because of oberver error. The early CW individuals represent early steppe migranats, whilst the 'parallele socieites' were not sampled or ignored.
The population demographics are complex, which cause rapid swings in genome-wide ancestry; and we also see there are multiple events and 're-sets'
That's why I feel that the form of genetic antrhopology in vogue by the big whigs (raw interpretation of autosomal admixture) is rather misleading. Although not denying the obviuosly big impact that migrations made, they actually ocurred over 400 years and then magnified with MBA population growth in the case of CWC-BB.

It's definitely true that claims in papers can lead to misleading interpretations of complex demographic events. In the better papers, the authors more often at qualify their results with phrases like "80% OBSERVED replacement", being careful only to speak of the data they do have without immediately extrapolating to the entire area and time period.

The delayed admixture scenario you described has been well documented in Europe already in the case of the so called hunter gatherer rebound of ancestry after the initial Neolithic migration wave, documented in Lipson et al 2017. This also happened with steppe and farmer ancestry in some regions of Europe, as you've shown. However, in some places like Britain there was in fact a massive replacement with no substantial later admixture.

in britain you probably have a case of two populations (one incomer with visible burials, the other native with very hard to spot burials) living side by side but one with a reproductive advantage that over time outbred the natives hugely. I think people need to realise that the native burials in the immediate pre beaker era in Britain are v rarely found and the vast majority were apparently buried in v low visibility ways (perhaps scattering ashes on the surface or in streams). 99.9% of the pop r were apparently invisible in death - and that’s before the beakers arrived. So there is simply no way of measuring the speed of decline of the pre beaker strata after the beakers arrived. They were already mostly archaeologically invisible before that.

 My view is two populations lived parallel lives but didn’t mix for centuries. You see this in Yamnaya too where despite massive distances and passing into or through many other groups they mostly look unmixed with them. I suspect  that is just the phenomenon where migrants do not integrate/stay apart in ‘ghettos’ for some considerable time because mutual perceptions or culture or religion makes merging difficult. 

All we can see is the final outcome of it. We can’t observe the process in action

[Jafety]

One relative example is how Roma in Eastern Europe went under different demographic process than the local majorities in the 20-21st centuries, without any actual migration or war happenning. In the late 19th c. Roma were not more than 0,5% of the population of present-day Hungary, Slovakia etc, and today they can be around 10%, so that means they 20x their relative size in less than 150 years. It also has to do with lower generation gaps combined with higher fertility, i.e. having 4-5 grown up kids on average every 25-30 years leads to very different outcomes than 1-2 kids every 35-40 years. And 150 years in archaeology is practically less than a usual confidence interval for dating.