http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s–jFylVoOl–/tdjgnb58f3aknofmaqei.jpg

from this scull:

http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Kostenki-Skull.jpg

Btw: The 36 000 year old scull has better teeth then me.

The ANE component was present in Europe before the neolithic and before indo europeans.

Citation?

I think your interpretation is a bit in error.

I think you’re right. Thanks.

Cochran on Lazaridis et al, Triune origins:

The Sibermen look to be the Indo-Europeans, or a major component thereof. And so you must have an Urheimat that is fairly far east – not in Europe. Before their advent, most of Europe must having been speaking EEF languages of some kind, of which Basque is the only survivor. Interesting that this paper say absolutely nothing about the Indo-European expansion.

He speculates that R1a/b Y-DNA is of ANE origin.

Cochran elaborates in Silver Blaze:

They conclude that in most parts of Europe, it looks as if modern populations inherited the three EEF/WHG/ANE groups ( Levantine farmers, West Hunters and Sibermen) via only two proximate ancestral populations. Europe at the time was almost entirely occupied by Sardinian-like farmers – then another population moved in, one that had about 3 times as much West Hunter as Sibermen. The hint is that the ratio of WHG to ANE is almost a constant. They put it this way: a large number of European populations are consistent with descent from identical “Farmer” and “Hunter (= WHG + ANE)” populations.

The WHG + ANE fraction is about half in France, lower than that in the South of France. It’s much lower in southern Europe. The Albanians, Ashkenazi Jews, Greeks, Maltese and Sicilians have essentially no WHG ancestry, while a decent fit is possible for the Basque, French_South, Bergamo, Pais-Vasco, and Sardinians using no Siberian component. Using another estimation approach you get a nonzero but lower Siberian component in Basques, and almost none in Sardinians.

This last wave can only have come from a region that had both WHG-like and ANE-like ancestry. That rules out the Middle East: they don’t have WHG. You see quite a lot of ANE in the northeast Caucasus and the northern Near East – the high is in Chechens and Lezgin.

All this is pointing to a big wave of genetic change around 3000 BC, a wave that did not originate in the Near East (including Anatolia). Perhaps the strongest hint is what they don’t say in this paper. Although they mentioned such possibilities in an earlier related paper, they make no mention of the Indo-Europeans. They don’t even use the word language anywhere in the supplement. All this while they’re clearly working out the origin and scope of the Indo-European invasion!

The Balkans looks to be where this started, and there a fairly sophisticated agricultural population (with very advanced metallurgy for the time) seems to have been utterly squished.

That would be The Danube Valley Cultures of Old Europe who got squished.

So to summarize, the two most recent ancestral populations of modern Europeans (=WHG+EEF+ANE) are: Old Europeans (=WHG+EEF, with EEF increasing southward), who were invaded by Aryans (=WHG+ANE, in a 3-1 ratio) about 5Kya. Kostenki 14 (=WHG+EEF+ANE) is dated to 37Kya, thus his apparently “modern” composition is difficult to explain. There are the anomaly/error possibilities Cochran suggests, or Lazaridis is wrong.

Cochran may not say it, but I will. Contemporary scientists very deliberately avoid connecting their work to anything that might validate the pre-DNA, pre-WWII race science understanding of Aryans. BECAUSE JEWS. If the scientists were finding genetic evidence that invalidated this prior understanding of Aryans they would say so, and the jewsmedia would crow about it. This political distortion compounds whatever confusion there is in deciphering and interpreting the evidence.