As far as can tell from TFA, there is no conclusive evidence that the genetic replacement was significantly due to "slaughter." And I am not aware that we have

As far as can tell from TFA, there is no conclusive evidence that the genetic replacement was significantly due to "slaughter." And I am not aware that we have the tools to make such a distinction. But I didn't read the paper. Does anyone else know otherwise? The article also includes death from pathogens in the "slaughter" category, but to me this seems like a very different category. While intentional violence and pathogens both seem like very plausible contributors to genetic replacement, it seems to me we should hold a high bar before endorsing them as causes. One reason for this high bar is that powerful people in the past have drawn conclusions based on this sort of finding which have had strong effects upon human welfare. Slaughter is one of those effects.