You will somehow have to deal with this, and adjust your theory to actually fit the data. Instead of this sophistry pretending there is any epistemological value to your diversification models. That diversification could have happened in the Steppe (and a number of other locations) for all we know, and associated populations moved in tandem into a number of regions, including Tyrrhenian sea (just not in whatever anachronistic timeline you are proposing).
As these Nuragic profiles are not pure EEF, obviously they can not model Neolithic Sardinia.
But Neolithic Sardinia + Remotnoye-rich-population (in whatever vehicle, whether coreYamnaya, Cetina, Italy_BA_L283 and even the Etruscan_L283 profiles) can easily model the Nuragics.
So lets lay down the myth to rest. We have 0/Hundreds of L283 with any profile lacking Steppe/Yamnaya/Remontoye.
And no diversification model based on TMRCAs has any epistemological or predictive value here.
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 ...
You have no ancient DNA samples to support your now outdated theory, whereas the ancient samples from Zolotarevka (early Yamnaya) and Crihana Veche (Core Yamnaya) represent the path that your ancestors took en route to the Balkans and beyond, whether you like it or not.
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).
You keep bringing up the Bell Beaker thing. It’s obvious at this point that the “Bell Beaker” ancestry seen in Cetina samples comes from females and not the J2b L283 Yamnaya associated ancestry.
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).
You have this strange fixation on Sardinia.
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
People move. The Yamnaya were quite mobile.
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.
Look at the Sankey diagram. Maykop is a separate group relative to the J2b L283 late steppe Eneolithic outlier, which is a mix of Caucasus Eneolithic and Steppe Eneolithic.
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.