What was the phenotype of the Proto-Indo-Europeans?

What was the phenotype of the Proto-Indo-Europeans?

I found somewhere pic rel, which is supposed to be PIE average face, and it doesn't look purely "Nordic", or "Corded" at all.

Other urls found in this thread:

biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/03/03/113241.full.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

the ancient yamnaya/yarnna people were light skinned but didn't exactly look like modern Europeans(they were still darker). They also had brown hair and brown eyes, blue eyes were a genetic mutation

Look at non mongoloid Central Asians

There are some dark Northern Euros though like Alicia Vikander. She always baffles retards who seem to think she looks Balkan or whatever just because her skin is a little darker. But yes, Yamna were slightly darker on average but probably no more than Alicia.

I noticed that the "Nordic" type is actually the most popular in places with strong Proto-European influence like Scandinavia, while not in Eastern Europe and other places with strong Steppe influence.
Good example, but shouldn't Indo-Europeans be more similiar to pure Europeans than mongoloid admixed Uzbeks?
Also Central Asian Indo-Europeans like Scythians and Tocharians seemed to be light pigmented mostly.

>Good example, but shouldn't Indo-Europeans be more similiar to pure Europeans than mongoloid admixed Uzbeks?

I thought we were talking about phenotype here, not autosomal dna

also yes you're right, Indo Europeans are more related to modern europeans than to Central Asians, but Central Asians tend to look very indo european.

Balts have more Indo-European AND more "Proto-European"/stone age European heritage than Scandis.

Scandis are more mixed with Anatolian Neolithic farmers than Balts although not by a huge amount.

I think you are cherrypicking a bit.

Also Andronovians actually tended to look more European than modern C. Asian.
Balts are mixed with Finnic people so much, that Lithuanians have more N1c y-DNA than R1a.
Dunno if they are more or less IE than Scandinavians, but they are clearly not the "purest" Indo-Europeans in Europe.

Well i should've said some. but c.asians tend to look very varied.
interesting region imo

Baltic N1c has a tmrca of less than 3k years. It's a founder effect and some single guy who lived a long time ago couldn't have changed the entire genetic structure of a pop.
Haplogroup I1 in Scandinavia and the entire world for that matter is also a founder effect but 5000 years old. Whatever guy was the ancestor of all I1 men probably wasn't even 100% stone age European descended nor passed on all that much DNA except his Y-DNA.

bump

she's light skinned for a scandinavian

>Balts are mixed with Finnic people so much, that Lithuanians have more N1c y-DNA than R1a.


Haplogroups don't indicate your overall genetic makeup. How hard is it for you people to understand it.

Wasn't N1c in the Baltic States 6700 years old (from Narva culture)? I have always thought that Livonians are the natives in Baltic states, while Balts are migrants from the steppe.
They don't, but they surely show impact of diffrent populations. And N1c is more popular in Lithuania than Corded Ware R1a.

The "nordic" phenotype is the interbreeding of IE and neolithic western european peoples

The average crimean slav is what an IE sort've looked like

>The average crimean slav
Slavs are not native to crimea. Those Russians/Ukrainians live there because of Tsarist and Soviet administration who reduced the number of Tatars and increased the number of ethnic Russians in the region.

Lol "Phenotype"

You do realize Phenotype varies incredibly within the same group of people, right?


Maybe you can tall about the average phenotype

...

Then "what were the phenotypes".
Hair, eye and skin colour are not everything, but I find it a bit interesting that Yamna people were mostly dark-pigmented, while Andronovo and Afasanevo people were mostly light haired and light eyed.

He looks more mongolized than Yamna average in my opinion.

Nope. Narva culture was I2 and R1b. Comb Ware Estonia had R1a of a rare type unrelated to Indo-Europeans. N1c was not found in the Baltics even as late as 200 BC although in all likelihood it had crossed over from Finnics to Balts by that point but may not have yet become frequent.

biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/03/03/113241.full.pdf

Slavs and Scandinavians have nearly identical fractions of Neolithic vs Yamna DNA. They both largely originate in the Corded Ware and not Yamna.

Why should Proto Indo Europeans look "purely Nordic"?

>Slavs and Scandinavians have nearly identical fractions of Neolithic vs Yamna DNA. They both largely originate in the Corded Ware and not Yamna.
Then why do they look so diffrent?
Because that's what the most of Nordicists claim, and that's what originally anthropologists believed.

Phenotype can change extremely fast within a few generations so there's no reason to believe they looked anything like modern Scandis

Because of phenotypic drift mainly. Also the Neolithic farmers in W Europe and E Europe might have have different phenotypes due to adaptation as their common ancestors had lived 10000 years ago.

Than how did europeans become white?

The white skin genes have been around for a long time. Their frequency just wasn't fixed at close to 100% so there were more intermediate complexion individuals.
Light skin is an advantage at high latitudes combined with an agricultural way of life(not at much with just the former) low on vitamin D. Pale people were healthier which lead to more offspring.

>Then why do they look so diffrent?
They actually don't look that different. Plus a lot of you retards cannot comprehend that genotype and phenotype are two separate things. I have a different phenotype than my own brother for example (no, there was no cucking or adoptions).