The Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans

[Gabru77]

@Jaska
Linguistic analysis of Max Planck Institute Jena makes it clear and completely supports what I said, I'm if anything fully supporting the linguistic evidence that is there

[Gabru77]

@Jaska
Then you should pick up Gamkrelidze-Ivanov instead of ignoring all the linguistic evidences, linguistic evidence isn't alone proving whether Anatolian or Indo-Iranian are from Steppe, archaeological, genetic, philological, linguistic evidence all do and all point to Non-Steppe origin for these two branches. Check Heggarty and his 70+ linguists. Linguistics don't say Indo-Slavic clade that itself goes against Kurganist fantasy of R1a

[jdean]

Colin Renfrew conceding Marija Gimbutas was right : )

[Gabru77]

This forum is full of noobs lmfao
@jdean
Obviously Renfrew's hypothesis is one of the most wrong ones, it's still amazing how it was considered alongside Kurgan up until few years ago but Heggarty and Max Planck Jena theory which is actually possible in every inch as opposed to Renfrew's impossible theory is being brushed as false
Do you seriously think there are supporters of Anatolian hypothesis? Well good thing I'm not, Armenian hypothesis especially the Max Planck Jena one is what's correct

[Kale]

It is unfortunate we have no samples from Western Kazakhstan prior to the bronze age to help elucidate the 'Tutkaul' component of CLV.
I suspected it for a while but thought I was in a small crowd in that respect.
Anyways, here's some models for Kumsay_EBA and Steppe Maykop.
right = c('Congo_Mbuti.DG', 'Anatolia_Barcin_N.SG', 'Anatolia_Boncuklu_N.SG', 'Iran_TepeAbdulHosein_N.SG', 'Iran_Wezmeh_N.SG', 'CHG.SG', 'Morocco_OUB002_Epipaleolithic.SG', 'Morocco_SKH001_MN.SG', 'Italy_GrottaContinenza_HG.SG', 'Bichon.SG', 'Sweden_StoraForvar_HG.SG', 'RUS_Arkhangelsk_HG.SG', 'Tarim_EMBA1', 'Afanasievo_KarasukIII.SG', 'Yamnaya_Kazakhstan_Karagash.SG', 'Andaman_100BP.SG', 'RUS_Primorsky_DevilsCave_N.SG', 'Peru_RioUncallane_1800BP.SG')
allsnps=TRUE

Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA
RUS_Stavropol_Progress_Eneolithic 0.359224 0.0208512 17.2280
Tajikistan_Tutkaul_N 0.297426 0.0332411 8.94754
Botai 0.343349 0.0321419 10.6823
Tail: 0.98

Maikop_Steppe
RUS_Stavropol_Progress_Eneolithic 0.519477 0.0200897 25.8579
Tajikistan_Tutkaul_N 0.236266 0.0323298 7.30799
Botai 0.244258 0.0319512 7.64471
Tail: 0.29

I wonder if this surplus Tutkaul is from the same source that contributed to CLV in the first place?

[Moeca]

It is unfortunate we have no samples from Western Kazakhstan prior to the bronze age to help elucidate the 'Tutkaul' component of CLV.
I suspected it for a while but thought I was in a small crowd in that respect.
Anyways, here's some models for Kumsay_EBA and Steppe Maykop.
right = c('Congo_Mbuti.DG', 'Anatolia_Barcin_N.SG', 'Anatolia_Boncuklu_N.SG', 'Iran_TepeAbdulHosein_N.SG', 'Iran_Wezmeh_N.SG', 'CHG.SG', 'Morocco_OUB002_Epipaleolithic.SG', 'Morocco_SKH001_MN.SG', 'Italy_GrottaContinenza_HG.SG', 'Bichon.SG', 'Sweden_StoraForvar_HG.SG', 'RUS_Arkhangelsk_HG.SG', 'Tarim_EMBA1', 'Afanasievo_KarasukIII.SG', 'Yamnaya_Kazakhstan_Karagash.SG', 'Andaman_100BP.SG', 'RUS_Primorsky_DevilsCave_N.SG', 'Peru_RioUncallane_1800BP.SG')
allsnps=TRUE

Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA
RUS_Stavropol_Progress_Eneolithic 0.359224 0.0208512 17.2280
Tajikistan_Tutkaul_N              0.297426 0.0332411  8.94754
Botai                            0.343349 0.0321419 10.6823
Tail: 0.98

Maikop_Steppe
RUS_Stavropol_Progress_Eneolithic 0.519477 0.0200897 25.8579
Tajikistan_Tutkaul_N              0.236266 0.0323298  7.30799
Botai                            0.244258 0.0319512  7.64471
Tail: 0.29

I wonder if this surplus Tutkaul is from the same source that contributed to CLV in the first place?

Russians did a survey on Haplogroups of the altai kazaks ..................I think they are wetern Kazarks .....................most where L and T ydna

[Moeca]

and more .............................why cannot load bigger files ?