Which paternal haplogroup had the greatest impact on the course of human history?

Rome was R1, as were all other ancient Indo-European civilizations.

N3

This will cause immense butthurt to the Sardinian autist who claims Rome and Etrusca were Sardinian

I've never claimed any of that, it's just that you can't read any of the links or facts that I posted

> No wheel
> Urban centers half the size of more interesting places like Teotihuacan
> Half of what you say is untrustworthy bullshit because we have 0 written records
> Your patethic 15000 year headstart meme is as autistic and retarded as you are, because civilizations could only invent agriculture as a result of cultivating flora that mutated as a result of the ice age
> Politically: a loose federation of Tribes that is comparable to the gauls under vercingetorix, uncomparable to proto nation States and enlightened monarchs of the time
>Architecture comparable to European pre- bronze age architecture minus thé megalithical structures that made it interesting, requires literally zero engeneering skills.
> No accomplishments in the field of any exact science
>Agriculture is Very primitive compared to mayans and aztecs

Okay seriously i think they inca's are An interesting and noteworthy civilization but you shitting up Evert thread made me write this, you are a loser and a rape baby, i sincerely hope you are a direct descendant of a spanniard

>> Politically: a loose federation of Tribes that is comparable to the gauls under vercingetorix, uncomparable to proto nation States and enlightened monarchs of the time

Not him but this is just pain wrong, they had a regular paid army coming from all the territories under the Empire's rule

It's a toss up between J2 and R1b desu.

Levy of standing army?

>wheel
15000 years of offset. Precolumbian cultures already had the wheel. Stil useless without horses.
>urban center
Gee, I wonder what could happen to the urban center all over the empire from Chile to Ecuador if the same spaniards confirm that they destroyed the sttuctures for materials.
>all bullshit
So you are giving your opinion about something you don't know about? Hmm?
>ice age made agriculture possible
It's pretty much clear that even assuming that hypothesis indoeuropeans have been morphing the environment destroying jungles and woods, and finally getting rid of anything natural that could perturb their settlements.
>politically
Hmm...Another hint that this "guy" doesn't know anything about what he's talking about.
>zero engineering skills
>The hugest irrigation system of the world
>venturi effect discivered 3000BC
>seismic resistant structures 2500BC
>the rope bridges couldn't even be replaced till XX century
Hmm...
>science
>entering bronze age
?
>agticulture
Chinampas were used on the Titicaca lake.

And all of this with a 15000 years of offset without horses.

>shitting up every thread
>"should have genocided those natives"
>"incas w-"
>"stop ruining threads!"
Hmm...

Agriculture existed long before thé Indo Europeans

Cmon incatard don't act like you're not the biggest autist on this board, you do shit up threads

Existed where there were people thousands of years before to morph the environment. The first know crop IIRC is in greece: lentils.

Is entering thé bronzen age all you van say for science

Also
>They where better at a few niche engineering structures only doe their biome that euro's knew nothing about

What are you trying toch say?

Are you french?
Because I've got no idea of what you are trying to say.

I didn't even taunt you fags and the result is the same.

First known crop*

All you van say*

Can*

So what exactly is your argument against the glacial theory?

>what's your opinion about the interpretations of the glacial theory
The glacial period has affected several ecosystems and environments, but trivializing the progress of the human being to just the influence of the climate change to ceratin plants is pretty much delusional.

What was the chalcolitic science of europeans.

Why did agriculture develop around the same time in numerous places then? What's your explanation?

Shifting from previous alloys tot tin is one off the top of my head

The theory puts a single factor: glaciation. The offset between amerindian crops (6000BC) and european crops (10000BC), which is quite a bit. This offset implies that there are more circumstances outside of the glaciation changes, the 37000 years of modern humans towards horse populations, the nomadic lifestyle morphed towards the change of confederations and a need of settlements. The obvious man made environment modification. The difficult coastal settlements due to climate fenomena "Niño". Etc...

Even I ignored the main offset of 25000 years (40000BC europe, 15000BC Americas), so I lowered it to just 15000 years. I could lower the offset to 4000 years as the agricultural beginning can coincide, yet it would still be astounding, the results.

?

?

>>omnipotent agriculture

No. The people living there were and still are majority J2. Germanic rapebabies dont make mucg of a difference

>spanish affirmed there was no starving village or family due to the distribution and equity administration from the Inca empire from the surplus of productivity and storages
>the spanish late settlements managed to live with just those stored foods for years
It's said that today's agricultural productivity is inferior to the Inca period.

Watch out you might trigger the Italian autist who thinks he's Germanic

Why did these J2 move there from the Aegaean?

R1a and R1b.

N3 and O2b.

Was Europe l1/l2 before the Indo-European R1 migrations?

Was Egypt E3 before the arab invasions?

Why is Greece E3b1 like Nilo-Saharra?

Where did K end up after it went north of the Philippines?

Did O3e arrive in Japan before O2b?

I find it unlikely that distant O2b seafarers from the area of Vietnam, Borneo or Java could have contended with the closer and more populous Korean colonists, enough to put so much Y chromosomal DNA into Japan so they likely arrived first. Another mystery is that O1 inhabits the China Sea islands so you would expect this seafaring group to find Japan before O2b. I speculate Java became excellent traders and sailed past their O1 cousins.

General DNA similarity resembles their neighbors in Korea, so however the O2b colonists got there, they promptly began racemixing with their neighbors.

Those niggas came from Cyprus

>Where did K end up after it went north of the Philippines?

Romania maybe

>Oase

>Was Europe l1/l2 before the Indo-European R1 migrations?
Yes

The last study about the Bell Beaker showed that Western Europe was I2 and G until 3000-2800 BC, then Western Europe become entirely R1b around 2800 BC

>Was Egypt E3 before the arab invasions?
Egypt was mainly J

>Why is Greece E3b1 like Nilo-Saharra?
Most likely Afro-Asiatic Early Neolithic Farmers

>entirely

>what are South Italy, Sicily and Sardinia

>South Italy, Sicily and Sardinia
Southern Europe

CT, as it descendants actually managed to outgrow their primitive state and develop complex societies
Poor A and B bastards never did

Wrong.

You may not like it, but the fact is that you got STEPPE'D like the rest of us.

The Chad haplogroup

>Spain has highest concentration of R1b
>never amounted to any development, only war and plunder
Sure

How so? Anglo-Saxons were l1. Germanic tribes that actually accomplished anything were either l1 or R1a.
Steppe input came from R1a folk.

So? J2 is highest in the Caucasus. J1 is highest in the Arabian peninsula. E is highest in Africa. R1a is highest in Poland. Most haplogroups have their highest concentration in shitty places.

Anglo Saxons were a mix of R1a, R1b and I1 just like the Nordics of today. But their R1b mutation is diffrent from Celtic-Brythonic.

Bullshit. They were l1 in majority but with small amounts of R1a. R1b were actually Germanised Celts.

Anglo-Saxon samples are l1. Vikings carried mostly l1 and even N1c, R1b was in minority.

>N1c
Meant to say Q, since they're both mongoloid. lmao

>Anglo-Saxons were I1.
Well I could argue that they were largely R1b, but that's a waste of time because I know who you are and what your opinions on that are.

What I will argue, however, is that the Anglo-Saxons achieved the most after they had settled in Britain, i.e. after they become "modern" British people. Likewise the Germanic tribes achieved the most after they had settled in Germany and Austria and so forth.

Stop with your mental gymnastics. Anglo-Saxons were l1, just like majority of Germanic tribes originally. Deal with it.

Utter horseshit. Anglo-Saxons were R1b and I1, and had R1a and N1c as minority. This is why GERMANIC mutation of R1b is 30-40% frequent in England.

I already said that I'm not having this argument with you. I've proven to you on /int/ several times now that the Anglo-Saxons were largely R1b, and I refuse to repeat myself to a moronic brick wall once again.

The "Celticised" Anglo-Saxons (i.e. British people) achieved far more than the "original" Anglo-Saxons did. And British people are majority R1b, you cannot dispute that fact.

Look at the germanic fanboys sperg out. You didn't prove shit.

>Anglo-Saxons were R1b and I1,
source?
>The "Celticised" Anglo-Saxons (i.e. British people) achieved far more than the "original" Anglo-Saxons did. And British people are majority R1b, you cannot dispute that fact.
"original" brits were beakers, that's why british isles are rich in r1b.

I see that you have no arguments. This is because you have no intellect or knowledge in this field and acquire all of your "theories" from Slavic nationalist users of amateur genetics forums.

Face it, you copied your entire I1 Anglo-Saxons/R1b-U106 Britons theory from Tomenable on Anthrogoenica. Aside from the arguments he put forward, you have none of your own.

R1b-U106 was found among 2 Britons from the Roman Era

R1b in Europe is linked to Proto-Celts aka Bell Beakers

eupedia.com/genetics/britain_ireland_dna.shtml#germanic_migrations
>Germanic people brought a whole new set of paternal lineages with them, namely I1, I2a2a-Z161, R1a (L664 and Z284), R1b-U106, and to a lower extent Q1a. Those haplogroups now make up over half of all male lineages in England and Lowland Scotland.

>2
>2
>2
>2
>2
TWO
T W O
I I

You have some persecution complex, you aussieshit.. Nowhere did I say anything about Slavs lmao.

Being buttblasted will not change the fact that Britons were U106 :)

I have some interesting facts.

The closest language to English is Frisian. This is not surprising since Frisians, despite acquiring their name from the original Frisii tribes, are actually the descendants of Anglo-Saxons who did not migrate to England, but rather stayed on the continent. Coincidentally, or perhaps not, the English and the Frisians have the highest frequencies of R1b-U106 in the world.

Another interesting fact is that the Anglo-Saxons effectively completely migrated from Jutland. They were replaced by Danes, who migrated from the Danish islands and southern Sweden. These incoming Danes would have had a higher amount of I1 than the Anglo-Saxons because they were migrating from I1-heavy Sweden. Yet despite this, I1 and R1b are approximately equal in modern Danes. We can therefore conclude that the original Anglo-Saxons were at least 50/50 I1/R1b, with most likely more R1b, as is the case in modern day Frisia and northern Germany.

thanks. i rarely even go to eupedia anymore.
maciamo is a true madman coming up with new theories every day and angela is an unpleasant bitch and when she's on her period, she bans everyone for no fucking reason.

Why are you cringy subhumans so obsessed with haplogroups
It's not like they're relevant anyway.

>tfw there are mesopotamians and hittites in c. asia, spain and sweden according to this retard
lmao
haplogrouptards are literal subhumans.

>taking eupedia seriously
jesus christ...

seems far fetched even with your trips
Which study?
When did Egypt get J'd?

The R1b and I1 theories are mutually compatible.

The NE part of Germany and NW Poland was I1 while the NW side was R1b, as Netherlands is today.

Spain had the second largest colonial empire after Britain. They were the first ones to discover and colonise the Americas. The Spanish Navy was once the most feared naval force in the world. They were the first ones to circumnavigate the globe.

So they weren't always completely fucking useless like they are today.

Now since IJ has been detected in Gravettian Europe, is it time to acknowledge that J is of European origin and thus all civilizations created by J people can be rightfully claimed by Europeans?

But you do realize that I y-DNA is European while J is Middle-Eastern?

Why is this board suddenly filled with /pol/tards now? I mean they were always here but the quality of posts in the last month has dropped tremendously and there has been a large uptick in activity.

They weren't Germanic rapebabies. Their variety of R1b was U152, associated with Italians and Alpine Celts. It was the haplogroup brought over by the people who became the Latins. It's so fucking amazing the amount of shit that comes out of people's mouths when they have no knowledge of the subject.

>everything I don't like is /pol/
Go away

They have the same origin.
If their common ancestor lived in Europe but the IJ>J mutations happened in say Iraq J would still have a European origin. Haplogroup letters are just letters and we could call them anything we want.

I want you to look at the OP.
No matter which way you slice it, from a historian's viewpoint, this is an objectively stupid question.

SO YU BE SAYIN

The Beaker Phenomenon And The Genomic Transformation Of Northwest Europe

biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135962

Europe has had a civilizing effect on the world for 30000 years

You got it backwards m8

>Still posting Eupedia maps on Veeky Forums
how does it feel to be a brainlet

So R1b was spread from Iberia not from the Steppe like R1a?

No the paper says the opposite.
Steppe bucks fucked 90% R1b into the notoriously matriarchal, mother goddess worshipping I2/G Basques.

>Steppe bucks fucked 90% R1b into the notoriously matriarchal, mother goddess worshipping I2/G Basques.
So why are haploautists jerking off to R1b again if they got fucked by R1a steppeniggers?

>So R1b was spread from Iberia not from the Steppe like R1a?

Did you even read the study ?

Bell Beaker culture was spread by R1b from Central Europe through genocide and rape

R1b itself is a steppe haplogroup, as for R1a it is a native Eastern European haplogroup

>Bell Beaker culture was spread by R1b from Central Europe through genocide and rape

From Western Iberia

>through genocide and rape

Only in Western Europe, in South Europe it was spread relatively peacefuly

Other way around. Scandinavia and Germany used to be majority R1a until superior R1bs dominated them.

Try to read the paper for fucks sake.

The Beaker """"""""culture""""""" which was some kind of rampant group alcoholism was spread from Iberia to C.Europe without any associated gene flow. It was adopted by a mixture of steppe people and local farmers who were only very remotely related to Atlantic and Mediterranean farmers.

>From Western Iberia
No
They spread from modern-day Ukraine, then they came in Central Europe, finally the Celts conquered and genocided the Iberians creating modern-day Spaniards

>Only in Western Europe, in South Europe it was spread relatively peacefuly
No

This, it's really not hard to understand unless you're a Pole who has a set against Western Europeans.
>Beginning with the Beaker period, and continuing through the Bronze Age, all British individuals harboured high proportions of Steppe ancestry and were genetically closely related to Beaker-associated individuals from the Lower Rhine area.
>Lower Rhine area

Daily reminder those are your posts. Keep that in mind whenever you decide to look down on other people again.