>>17620296>You know I don't thinkyour opinions are irrelevant, to say the least.
>it's that crazy to think someone could have filtered a few hundred kilometers to the south of their birthplace. and the funniest thing is, like all the samples, this one in particular was not released and one of the supposed authors was upset when it was "leaked
>And honestly, I don't think it necessarily means IE migrations in any important scale.sure, just as the presence of r1a and Indo-European ancestry in India is irrelevant to the invasion, oops, migration* from India, right? we have a sample with 80% steppe dated to a period that is proposed for the introduction of IE into India. well, because the presence of a sample in Poland in the EBA (the PNL001) would be useful for any IE migration into Europe, right anon? it's just a sample with clearly non-native steppe in contrast to other samples and dated and within a context of the introduction of IE into Europe. but of course, like in India, it's not useful for IE migrations. i wonder what is useful. a time machine is a great idea.
>It's like taking that one baltic-like himera sample No. Because this sample does not represent any continuity with later populations, and unlike Greece, the introduction of the steppe component occurred after people with likely genetic profiles similar to this sample. Your argument would make sense if India did not have a clear relationship with IE migration. You would not say the same about the Logkas samples.
>and assuming it means a mass migration of balts into the mediterranean.already answered above.
