I'm not necessary referencing the Steppe origin, but the methodology they used. Tested the J2b sample but not the R1b one even tho the latter is the most exotic one to found here if you look at modern and previous prehistoric datas ( or did they tested it but it failed from the beginning and they assume it was contemporary with the J2b one? ) But if so, that's an interesting coincidence that THE important samples C14 failed, but now it's ok, it was redated, how? Did the C14 magically succeeded? Claiming that both are from the same archeological layers, and have the same ancestry, while they have almost 2'000 years of difference, it's the first R1b sample that actually would not show noticable Steppe ancestry comparing to contemporary other samples around the world ( Afanasievo, BB, etc ). Also with the Late Kura-Araxes one. While other samples from the same period do show some Steppe ancestry. I feel this is the perfect scenario to misslead or confirmed one's hypothesis if the community or other scientists didn't press to C14 the R1b samples, because it didn't make sense, the sublade and the age, but why didn't they deduce that themselves tho?