Speculating that much with less than 10 samples. It's pretty obvious that the Myceanean samples are remnants of the previous Minoans or local Neolihic both on y-dna and mtdna. People are very too sensitive.
I'm not sure how people can still dream that Anatolians and Myceanean contexts are the exception of the IE rule. Because IE clearly comes from Steppe, if people here would brainstorm like the guys on ADNA, Anthrogenica or Eurogenes it would already be a certainty. But how would you explain that a LBA Anatolian heavy CHG J2a people would have shifted to IE languages? It's that or the samples doesn't matter.
This seems rather incoherent to me. It almost seems as if you haven't read the papers and have misunderstood what some of us are saying. There is definitely a difference between the Minoans and the later Mycenaeans, as the Lazaridis paper made clear. That difference is definitely the addition of some steppe like ancestry.
Given that, why would accuse us of proposing that there is no steppe ancestry in the Mycenaeans?
Now, when it arrived in Greece it is highly unlikely that it arrived in undiluted steppe form. Eurogenes is still stuck in adolescence with his fantasies of "blonde steppe cowboys". What probably happened is that as elsewhere they mixed along the way.
As to the question of "rule", it's indeed true that in some cases newcomers rise to become the "elite" of the new society. How rigid those "caste" divisions are and how long they remain intact varies from situation to situation. I can't think of any situation in Europe comparable to the one in India.
In Spain, for example, within a few hundred years of their arrival the Visigoths passed edicts that both the "Romans" and the "Visigoths" were to be treated equally before the law. Does that sound like caste bound India to you?
Indeed, sometimes the newcomers are not even a homogeneous genetic entitiy. That we know was the case with the "Huns", and it appears it may have been the case with the Goths as well. Is it so difficult to understand that groups of marauding men might fill their depleted ranks with strong men from the area through which they are passing? Or that they might elevate their sons by local women? The medieval Irish made no distinction between the children conceived in marriage and those from other "arrangements". Inheritance didn't depend on those distinctions.
Throwing around straw man arguments isn't helpful either. I have no doubt that Indo-European speaking steppe people moved into Europe.
I gather you're veering off into a discussion of the source of the "Anatolian" languages. There are three possibilities: it arose in place in Anatolia, it came from the steppe by a route south through the Caucasus, or it came from the Balkans.
I don't care how it happened, but so far as I can see all the hypotheses have problems.
The answer is not going to come from often uneducated, uninformed people on Eurogenes or Anthrogenica or anywhere else "brainstorming". It's going to come from new DATA competently analyzed.
@Alyan
Good post.
@Pip
It's 60%
Iberian. For the steppe component, 40% is the maximum found and that's only in certain areas. In the areas where the language didn't change it goes as low as 10%.
Please go back and read the paper again, people, AND the supplement.
The admixture didn't begin until after the passage of 500 years. For all that time the two groups lived together more or less harmoniously, so all these juvenile male fantasies of Conan the Barbarian types marauding in, killing all the men and taking all the women won't fly.