CrazyDonkey
Regular Member
- Messages
- 339
- Reaction score
- 63
- Points
- 28
- Location
- Seattle, Washington (Ballard)
- Ethnic group
- Irish/Scottish/British/Scandi/C Euro
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- I2a-Y31616>FT435332
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U2e1d
The only thing we have to go on is the data from the samples. They DO NOT show admixture from the beginning according to the authors. They also show admixture from preceding "local" people. Whether those local people were derived from various movements of farmer people within Europe before 2500 BC is another matter and not relevant to that fact.
We also know from the authors that in some areas the "new" admixture was as low as 10%. In others it was close to 40%.
Now, it may be true that in some sites not sampled there "is" evidence of some "remnant" local Iberian ancestry which may over time have mixed back into the population, lowering the percentage of "new" ancestry even further. Or, it may be that subsequent migrations lowered it. We need more samples from subsequent periods for more certainty.
In the initial influx phase from around 2,500 BCE to 2,000 BCE, all but one of the newcomer samples have ~50% or higher "eastern ancestry". None of the males, except one, however, have more than ~70%, while all of the females, except one, have more than 75% (and one 100%). In the next phase from 2,000 to 1,500 BCE, all of the samples, except one (a female), have ~55% or less such ancestry and are about three times as numerous.
It looks to me like two separate influxes, or waves, with the second overrunning the first. After the second wave crashed (2,000-1,800 BCE), the non-steppic samples disappear (~1,600 BCE), through elimination, migration, and/or assimilation.