Why are the civilizations that are either African or black never advance enough beyond basic weapons and tools...

>Why are the civilizations that are either African or black never advance enough beyond basic weapons and tools

That alone is wrong, saged this shit thread.

because sub saharan africans and aboriginals livede in relativly small, isolated area.
meanwhile, europeans, arabs, asians were all connected through the silk road, it was a huge amount of people to share ideas and technology.

Guy on the right looks caucasian with black skin. Look at his narrow nose.

Looks nothing at all like any aboriginal I've ever seen

Aboriginals and West Africans are completely different genetically, grouping them like you do is retarded.

Europeans lived in Europe for about 40,000 years op, they only got civilisation around 3000 years ago, which they had to learn from middle easterners.

You are stupid.

WE

>That alone is wrong

[citation needed]

Sri Lankans are black skinned

See egypt

no. just stop

...

People in colder climates(chinks and whites) and deserts(arabs) couldn't just pick berries and fuck all day so they had to learn how to adapt and make the best out of their situation, which helped setforth natural selection and advance the intelligence of those societies while the Blacks and Abos had no reason to advance as the dumb ones who were the biggest and strongest got all da hoes and were the ones reproducing

africa and australia as continents get a -4 to all tech progression trees

Australians aren't black

Retard

Africa is nutrient scarce, particularly tropical Africa

The population only increased significantly when SEA crops capable of thriving were imported

Europe meanwhile was teeming with fauna to just walk up to and eat, the southern portion of Europe is a Mediterranean paradise with hearty plants ripe for eating

The climate makes it hard to grow crops and quite a few pests and parasites flourish in it

Explain South and Southeast Asians then.

Those niggers can pick berries all day and did not have to deal with winter and yet, agriculture.

Competition breeds innovation. Innovation creates inventions. Inventions progress technology.
Plenty of white people lived in shitty tribes with no technology. They died to or were subjugated by the who're people who formed nation states and clans and countries.
There were quite a few black kingdoms with metal working that advanced because of conflict, but Africa is big. Like, really fucking big. Europe on the other hand is relatively small.

Big places with lots of space tend to help avoid conflict, while Europe features everyone having close proximity to each other which creates conflict.

China advanced super rapidly because they faced conflict pretty much 24/7 on a staggering scale, involving potentially millions of soldiers when the global population was probably only in the 10s of millions.
When China became peaceful it ceased to advance. Although there was also that whole line of emperors that got butt hurt about the Mongols and threw away a bunch of technology.
Also Europe had tons of great beasts of burden. Africa has wildlife far less suitable for domestication.

Ancient Egypt advanced beyond the basic tools, what are you smoking, user?

Wait for him to post about modern Brits using industrial machinery, modern fertilizer, etc in comparison to pre-modern people eking out a living with hoes

You know what kind of Africans I'm talking about, user. The black ones. The ones with big noses. The ones that put plates in their mouths to make their lips massive.

Those Africans, not the ones who managed to build pyramids in 2500BC.

Why does everyone think there were continents were food gathering didn't come down to hunting & gathering?

Europe has berries to pick, Asia has berries to pick, Africa has berries to pick, etc and vast herds to hunt all over

Unless you want to compare the number of edible species, fuck off

>Black ones
So you mean the people living in south sudan and the great rift?

Errybody else is brown
>The ones with big noses
So, a belt along senegambia?

>The ones that put plates in their mouths to make their lips look massive
So, a few backwoods hillbillies in western ethiopia?

You're really contradicting yourself here

Or could it be that perhaps your knowledge of African history and cultures consists of Tarzan movies and shitty war documentaries?

The Africans in the countries colored in green.

Those Africans.

I find the idea that human exists entirely for the sake of 'progress' to be fallacious. Technology is not an end all be all to human existence. I acknowledge the irony of typing this on a computer, but 'progress' is entirely a spook.

North Africans aren't really black, they look way more like arabs than SubSaharian Africans on average, some even look European and are blonde.

>Plenty of white people lived in shitty tribes with no technology. They died to or were subjugated by the who're people who formed nation states and clans and countries.
Precisely. There were plenty of Africa-tier whites throughout history. They just got killed and erased from the gene pool by the ambitious whites.

WE
WUZ
KANGZ

(Egypt wasn't African civilization, it was part of the Middle Eastern civilization circle).

Sudanese and east Africans had great civilisations, building many monuments, temples and buildings, lasting for thousands of years.

Case closed Colombo

Well genetically yes but technologically they did about the same thing, that's to say nothing

The Western way has all but ended, both mentally and physically. Material "progress" has reached the point of diminishing returns almost as soon as it started. The "progress" from 1816 to 1916 alone is far greater than the "progress" from 1916 to 2016. This could very well be the final century of the West. The "progress" from 2000 to 2016 is nil.

To answer your question, they didn't "advance" beyond basic weapons and tools because their main worldview never compelled them to. They've always intuitively known that the attributes that make Western civilization possible are the same attributes that will inevitably destroy it.

>People in colder climates(chinks and whites) and deserts(arabs) couldn't just pick berries and fuck all day
Explain the Natufians then.

>The Western way has all but ended, both mentally and physically. Material "progress" has reached the point of diminishing returns almost as soon as it started. The "progress" from 1816 to 1916 alone is far greater than the "progress" from 1916 to 2016. This could very well be the final century of the West. The "progress" from 2000 to 2016 is nil.

How does it feel to be completely and totally and utterly wrong?

Please provide a source for your claims

This is probably the dumbest post in the thread t b h

>People in colder climates(chinks and whites) and deserts(arabs) couldn't just pick berries and fuck all day so they had to learn how to adapt
Except the people in the colder climates never "learned how to adapt" and it's people in more temperate climates who developed agriculture and domesticated animals. Bedouins, Scandinavians, Siberians or Inuits were among the last people to settle down and farm.

>This is probably the dumbest post in the thread t b h
North Africans are black is dumb? Maybe it is you who is dumb.

Well it's a bit unfair to claim the inuits or siberians never adapted but they didn't really do anything more impressive than the Bantu or the Papuans.

Hush

Don't argue

Everybody knows about the space faring imperium of Inuit-Siberica

And the splendid pre Greco-Roman marvels of blustery northern europe

>This is probably the dumbest post in the thread t b h

This is probably the dumbest post I've ever read

Homosapiens-Neanderthalensis vs Cro-Magnon

Neanderthal DNA just made them more creative and reliant on brain power rather than physical power/tribe numbers. Also winter in the North made the land barren, especially during the ice age, so only the craftiest survived. The ones who didnt think ahead and store food for winter died off. Warmer climate regions during the ice age were lush with food forests and megafauna. You didn't have to think ahead much to survive, but had to be violent to compete in the mating game, thus violent tendencies among those population groups are common.

I don't want to hear your racism crying, there's a different between dog breeds and wolves, and every other species if animals have distinct differences and behavioral traits based on their environment. Nature doesn't just ignore a species because it walks on two legs.

Aboriginals were hunter-gatherers because there was no environment conductive to its emergence and they were too isolated to adopt it from elsewhere. Europeans would be the exact same if not for the influence of the Middle East.

>maybe Abos were just too stupid to do agriculture
New Guineans are racially the same as Aboriginals and independently pioneered agriculture.

West Africans were agriculturalists who had cities, states, metallurgy and naturalistic art.

>North Africans are black is dumb? Maybe it is you who is dumb.

Well no, but no one claimed that they were, this is why i said that your post was the dumbest post on the thread. And of course they wouldnt look """"""""sub saharan"""""""" if they live all the way up north.

While blacks are africans not all africans are black

>arguing with /pol/ instead of just asking them to provide a source for their claims

North Africans aren't BLACK or have all WIDE NOSES like Niggers.

That was my point you stupid fuck.

You colored Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco and fucking Lybian green as if they were exactly the same as SubSaharian Africans phenotypically

So I corrected you.

What a fuckwit.

The congo natives live in the most resource rich area in the world and yet they have the world's lowest IQ

Because they have a low average IQ. The average IQ of a population must at least be above a certain threshold to allow for the development of advanced civilizations. Sub saharans and aboriginals are below that threshold.

Now as to why sub saharans and aboriginals have a low avergmage IQ, no one knows for sure. Plausible theories are that a cold climate increases IQ, or that agricultural civilizations slowly increase in IQ over time (by virtue of smart and industrious farmers having more descendants than shitty farmers). Another interesting explanation about the abysmally low aboriginal IQ is that their IQ actually regressed because as you know, the brain consumes a lot of energy, and Australia being scarce in sources of energy, and there being no competitor to aboriginals, the stupider aboriginals might have had an advantage because they had lower daily energy requirements.

WE

The majority of Africa used iron and farmed by 500AD.

Why does nobody ever shit on Amazonians, Polynesians, Siberians, Inuits, Caribs, Plains Indians, the hunter-gatherers of the western United States, native Patagonians, Southeast Asian highland tribes, etc?

What resources? They have utterly shit land and chronic tsetse fly infestation that makes plough-based agriculture nearly impossible. Do you think ancient civilizations were built on coltan and rubber production or something?

You dont seem to have the greatest reading comprehension skills m8.

Pls read my previous reply a few times over until it actually clicks

Because their numbers are tiny. Unfortunately, our ancestors had the bad idea of bringing africans over to the new world, and introducing medicine and technology to Africa, which caused an unnatural population boom of African people, and all the associated negative consequences.

Africa has some of the best agricultural land though.

>Also Europe had tons of great beasts of burden.

With the exception of the reindeer, there are no domesticated animals native to Europe that could be considered beast of burden. The auroch was wiped out in Europe, and was domesticated in two, possibly three different areas: The Middle/Near East, South Asia, and (if those theories about the genetically distinct subspecies of bovine are correct in Africa), North Africa. Goats, sheep, and equines were domesticated elsewhere.

That being said, Europeans did use those animals to the best of their abilities.

>My worldview is entirely derived from infographs that I read on an imageboard. I've never read a single book, research paper, or scholarly article on intelligence and its relation to society.

But African tribes were in state of perpetual warfare.

>I've never read a single book, research paper, or scholarly article on intelligence and its relation to society
I have actually, at length. You should probably google the word "psychometrics". You'd be surprised to learn that the academic consensus among experts is exactly what I say. Of course they keep a low profile because their work is rather politically incorrect.

The only parts of sub-Saharan Africa with decent agricultural land are in West Africa, Ethiopia and the East African highlands free of tsetse-flies. The former two did have civilizations, while in the latter agriculture was only introduced after about 500 BC so there was no time at all to developed civilization, which takes thousands of years. They did have complex chiefdoms though, in places like Zimbabwe and the Great Lakes region.

The rest of sub-Saharan Africa was utter shit, either arid desert, jungle or tsetse fly-infested wasteland.

You don't seem to be able to express what you think in English, you retarded fuck.

Cro-Mags are native to Europe, as they are LITERALLY THE FIRST EUROPEANS. They had bigger brains on average and were more robust, and despite having darker skin than your average European today, they were still modern humans. In fact, they actually have more Neanderthal DNA (but only slightly) than modern people do today.

Neanderthals, while having bigger areas in their brains for some things, they lacked in other fields.

Besidea, Aborigines and other Australasian races have Neanderthal blood, doesn't make them any smarter than anyone else.

>Look mom, I posted it again!

Allow me to cuck your shit up, senpai.

First, a definition: "civilization", as classically defined, simply means a society that possesses both stable urban centers and a true writing system.

Now, some starting points:

1. Civilization only ever independently developed in two places: Mesopotamia and Mesoamerica.

2. Europe NEVER independently developed writing or civilization. ALL European written languages are the direct descendants of Levantine writing systems.

3. The development of civilization directly jives with contact dates with previous civilizations. This is why South-Eastern Europe developed civilization well before Northern Europe. Rome had been civilized for ~800 years before the first Northern Celtic/Germanics EVER put pen to paper. Large swaths of Northern Europe were uncivilized until the 13th century A.D.

>Because they have a low average IQ. The average IQ of a population must at least be above a certain threshold to allow for the development of advanced civilizations. Sub saharans and aboriginals are below that threshold

>le stagnant IQ meme

I could have sworn this has been debunked. I'll post the paper when i find it

Now, in terms of independently developing civilization, Sub-Saharan Africa was at a series of disadvantages, namely:

1. A smaller population (compared to Europe, East Asia, South Asia, etc.) and thus much lower population density in an area roughly two times the size of the United States. Sub-Saharan Africa didn't catch up to Europe in terms of population until about 2000 A.D.

2. A desert roughly the size of the United States separating most of Sub-Saharan Africa from the Levant, the "Cradle of Civilization". By contrast, there was no large geographic separation between Europe and the Levant.

3. Large plains interspersed with jungles, which made interior, far-reaching navigation largely impracticable until European explorers arrived in the 19th century.

CONT.

Just to make that point clear, for ALL OF RECORDED HUMAN HISTORY UNTIL 15 YEARS AGO, Sub-Saharan Africa had fewer people than Europe. Nonetheless, it has always been more diverse in terms of genetics and ethno-linguistics.

Put simply, having a small but extremely diverse population on a huge continent is not very conducive to the INDEPENDENT development of civilization. Sadly, this diversity greatly assisted Europeans in divide and conquer tactics during the colonial era and some of those policies resulted directly in genocide (as in Rwanda and Burundi). Many of these issues still plague much of Sub-Saharan Africa today and the politicization of ethnicity (i.e. "if you're part of ethnic group A, you vote for party A or you're a traitor!") is a huge problem today and directly results in massive amounts of corruption.

>muh natural resources
Many of the "natural resources that should have magically thrust civilization and wealth upon the blacks" simply weren't valuable or even known until the 19th century or beyond. I've literally seen /pol/sters cite Uranium and diamonds as would-be sources for African pre-colonial wealth. /pol/ seems to be patently unaware that most precious metals were largely disdained until Arab or European contact.

CONT.

>Indians stopped fighting
sure.

>The only parts of sub-Saharan Africa with decent agricultural land are in West Africa, Ethiopia and the East African highlands free of tsetse-flies.
Which combined represent a bigger landmass than Europe.

If Buganda is the highest level of civilization they can attain despite prime farmland, it does say a lot about their ability.

I gotchu senpai.

In regards to IQ, if you subscribe to the tautological reasoning that intelligence is "what ever IQ tests measure", then there's only a 50-70 year gap between black Africans and white Europeans. Owing to the Flynn Effect, the average IQ of unselected Finnish, Danish, and American soldiers (the former two tested with a highly g-loaded test (Raven's Matrices)) shows that Europeans in the early-mid 20th century would test around 80-85 today. And even if you reject the Flynn effect's quasi-egalitarian implications (which many well-versed intelligence researchers do, as the consistency of the gap remains relatively stable), Egypt, which currently has an average IQ of ~81, was civilized for ~3,500 years before the first NORTHERN European (~100) put pen to paper.

Barbados (~83), a black country, is one of the least corrupt and best managed countries in the Americas and currently has a high income and a high human development index (occasionally venturing into "Very High"/"Developed"). The British managed to foster a civilized culture among the descendants of slaves who were by no means selected for their intelligence. So even if there is a permanent, irredeemable gap, culture is certainly a deciding factor in the success of a society. For reference, the average IQ in Sub-Saharan Africa is ~80 (Wicherts et al, 2010).

That being said, if we look at basic societal indicators such as life expectancy, literacy rates, years of education, maternal mortality, number of universities, road density, average income, etc. almost all of Sub-Saharan Africa is at a level that Europeans reached in the early-mid 20th century, which is to say that there are plenty of people still alive when most of Europe was shittier than Africa today. Plus, Sub-Saharan African countries currently have amongst the highest growth rates on Earth and there are far fewer civil wars and violent conflict than there were just 20 years ago.

CONT.

>muh headstart
When humans were migrating out of Africa 60-90kya, there were generally no more than 25,000 people on Earth at any given time. In other words, more people probably go to your local University than there were humans on the entire globe.

In conclusion, /pol/, people don't call you "ignorant" just because you hurt their feelgoods. They call you ignorant because you're genuinely unaware of human history.

>Just look at that economic growth. Don't we have the best economic growth, folks?

>Civilization only ever independently developed in two places: Mesopotamia and Mesoamerica.
Also China, the Andes, the Indus Valley, the Gangetic Plain, the Mississippi, Crete and [TRIGGER WARNING] Nigeria (though very late in history).

>Europe NEVER independently developed writing or civilization.
Minoans did. Though thanks to the Bronze Age collapse their influence on later civilizations was basically canceled.

The last point is important though, the close interconnection of Eurasia/North Africa by trade and migration routes encouraged the spread of civilization. Most of sub-Saharan Africa had little connection with the rest of the world.

Correction: Africoids are homo-erectus, confused the two

Many argue that Linear A was influenced by hieroglyphs.

>Though thanks to the Bronze Age collapse their influence on later civilizations was basically canceled.

What?

Not really.

It's funny, you accused me of deriving my information from /pol/ infographics, and now proceeded to post a /pol/ infographic.

>First
Okay. I'd add agriculture or pastoralism to that, and substract writing, but I'll go with your definition.

>2.
Sure. But they did manage to adapt from their neighbors the civilization they encountered and improve upon it, something Africans have never been able to do despite many contacts with arabs.

>3
Well there's also the fact that many southern europeans were colonists from the middle east. You might want to look at migration patterns during the neolithic.

You're also underselling the advancement of northern europeans. Sure they didn't have writing, but they did have a rune system. Likewise their metal smelting and weapon production were far above what Africans could do even in the 19th century. And they had the wheel. I'm pretty sure that if you could find an african tribe with the level of the advancement of the northern europeans you would use it as "proof" that africans werr advanced. I'm sure that in the following posts you're going to talk about the environment impeding african progress, not mentioning that the exact same arguments can be applied to ancient northern europeans. Finally I'd appreciate it if you came up with your own arguments instead of resorting to copypasta.

>Likewise their metal smelting and weapon production were far above what Africans could do even in the 19th century. And they had the wheel.

Not him but werent these all introduced by outsiders?

>Many argue that Linear A was influenced by hieroglyphs
Maybe, but the development of an urban palacial culture was still essentially independent as far as I know.

>Not really.
They influenced the Mycenaeans, but the Bronze Age collapse reverted Greece to an essentially tribal society after that. Minoan/Mycenaean writing, political systems, statecraft and urbanism were lost. The only Mycenaean influence that really survived was in vague fictionalized stories about stuff like the Trojan War, and that doesn't really have anything to do with the Minoans.

When Greek civilization reemerged, it had to either reinvent or adopt its civilization from outside, like their art from the Middle East and Egypt or writing from the Phoenicians.

>1
The entire european population after the fall of the roman empire was around 20 million people iirc. I can't imagine Europe being a demographic giant during the first millenium B.C.

Anyways not an argument since you yourself pointed out that africans are concentrated in a few fertile zones.

>2
So what? The himalayas separated India from China, but they both developed their civlizations independantly. Also africans had numerous contacts with egyptians and later arabs.

>3
Are large plains and jungles the reason why Blacks failed to discover Madagascar?

>Sure they didn't have writing, but they did have a rune system
Derived from Old Italic script.

>metal smelting and weapon production were far above what Africans could do even in the 19th century
Pic related. African metalworking only declined in the modern era due to cheap imports.

>they had the wheel
Introduced from Central Asia.

this thread again?

The diversity of Africa is a testament of the primitiveness of its people. Primitive peoples are very diverse, like the Papuans.

As for resources, Africa had a lot of salt and gold (and slaves). Did you forget about Mansa Musa? By the way, what did Mansa Musa do with his wealth? Did he use it to develop his country?

I wrote that copy-pasta myself, you fagola.

>But they did manage to adapt from their neighbors the civilization they encountered and improve upon it, something Africans have never been able to do despite many contacts with arabs.

This is EXACTLY what Africans did. When, for example, Islamic African civilization such as Mali, Songhai, etc. are lauded for their successes, /pol/ simply reverts to, "It doesn't count -- they were influenced my the Arabs!"

>You're also underselling the advancement of northern europeans. Sure they didn't have writing, but they did have a rune system.

Africans also had indigenous writing systems that were not true writing. Look up Nsibidi.

>And they had the wheel.

Wheeled vehicles were largely impractical in much of Africa.

>Likewise their metal smelting and weapon production were far above what Africans could do even in the 19th century.

Now you're just lying. Africans independently developed iron-smelting AND made some pretty bad-ass weaponry. Europeans are not known to have INDEPENDENTLY developed iron-working.

You're deliberately mixing European advancements after outside influence with civilization with independent developments and claiming them as proof of superiority. Get real, m8.

Limit yourself ONLY TO WHAT WAS INDEPENDENTLY DEVELOPED IN EUROPE WITH NO FOREIGN INFLUENCE OR (significant) CONTACT.

>Introduced from Central Asia.
Nordics ARE central asian.

You seem to be woefully ignorant of population migrations. No, present day europeans have not lived there continuously for the past 40 000 years.

>WE
Europeans are a mix of indigenous hunter-gatherers, Anatolians and Proto-Indo-Europeans. So yes, some Europeans have some Proto-Indo-European ancestry, but that doesn't make Proto-Indo-Europeans European any more than it makes Anatolians European. You might as well say that they were Indian or Iranian.

Hell, you could use the same argument to say that because there was a back-migration from the Middle East into Africa, that means Middle Easterners are Africans and we all owe agriculture to Africans.

You're a hypocrite.

You have no understanding of the Flynn effect. Even Flynn woulf disagree with you.

>quasi-egalitarian implications
Only in your delusions.

>Egypt vs northern Europe.
IQ fluctuates and changes. The IQ of modern northern europeans is probably higher than the IQ of the cromagnons who inhabited northern europe before the indo european migration. Likewise the Egyptian IQ is probably far lower than the ancient egyptian IQ due to dysgenic populaton growth: the population of Egypt is 80 million, up from 2 million in the year 1800. We can imagine that this population growth wasn't fuelled by the smartest egyptians.

Barbados is a slave plantation with hotels having replaced sugar cane fields. Rich whites own the hotels which employ black labourers.

Africa has high growth rates because they have tiny economies. They can only improve. Also, Europeans in the mid 20th century were sending men into space. If you think that the Congo has reached that level you are completely delusional

>The "progress" from 1816 to 1916 alone is far greater than the "progress" from 1916 to 2016. This could very well be the final century of the West. The "progress" from 2000 to 2016 is nil.

>Automobiles
>Refrigerators
>Airplanes
>The Space Station
>Electricity
>Computers
>The motherfucking Internet
You're a dumbass, kill yourself

>barbados
>why are tiny touristy countries with small populations so shiny?
I dunno.

>You have no understanding of the Flynn effect. Even Flynn woulf disagree with you.

Where am I wrong? The rest of your post obviously isn't worth a response.

Do you reject the validity of the rise of average IQ in the 20th century? Do you reject that Raven's Progressive Matrices are one of the highly g-loaded tests? Do you reject Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory?

The wheel was probably developped by indo europeans.

Even of you're the author of this shotty copypasta, using copypastas is proof of lack of arguments.

>exactly what african did
To a certain extent. When people say "it was arabs" on the case of Mali, it's because it literally was arabs who migrated there.

I'll give you the nsibidi, frankly I've never heard of it.

Whether wheels are impractical is besides the point. The wheel is impractical in the arabian desert but arabs had knowledge of it.

>ur lyin reeee
As far as I know there is no proof that africans independtly developed iron smelting, just we don't know how they developed it thus for some unknonmwn reason (probably political correctness) we know assume that they developed it.

Your emphasis on "independently developed" shows how poor your arguments are. Sure Europeans didn't independently develop agriculture or writing, but they adapted it and made something even greater.

Africans are incapable of adapting, as is clear from watching the behavior of africans in western countries.

Now I've answered most of your bullshit arguments, your turn:

Why has every single IQ study ever conducted shown a black white IQ gap?

Why had no study ever found a high IQ black population?

Why do black populations of various different ethnic and cultural backgrounds who live in different continents, whether that be America, Europe or Australia, all exhibit the same social pathologies: very poor educational attainment, high crime rate, undesirable social behaviors (illigitemacy, degradation of property, etc.)

To put it succinctly: if blacks are really just as good as white and asians and their lagging behind historically is due to external factor, why the hell are they unable to adapt to modern civilization when introduced to it?

This will be my last post as I have to go, but I'd like you to think critically about these questions

>inb4 muh raycism

Also, I should let you know, before you waste your time and embarrass yourself, that Rushton, Lynn, Gottfredson, etc.'s only objections to the Flynn effect were:

1. Most tests have changed over time, possibly resulting in changes of score without changes in intelligence.

2. The specific causes are unknown.

Beyond that, they have very little to say.

I use examples with Raven's Progressive Matrices precisely because they've remained virtually unchanged since their inception in the mid-1930s.

>Europeans are a mix of indigenous hunter-gatherers, Anatolians and Proto-Indo-Europeans. So yes, some Europeans have some Proto-Indo-European ancestry
Most europeans have a a majority of indo european ancestry. Indo european culture replaced previous cultures. Also yes iranians and upper caste indians also have indo european ancestry, I don't deny it. You're attacking a strawman, because you don't have any arguments.

>The wheel was probably developped by indo europeans

That doesnt reall answer the question