Were the original Indo-Europeans white?

No, they were redhead asians

The problem is that the swarthy yamnaya were pretty much exterminated by their corded ware offspring (who were still heavily Yamnaya admixtured)

What is this a problem for?

>The Proto-Indo-Europeans had "light skin" but they were still darker than any modern Europeans.
t. shitalian

Redpill me on Corded Ware, who were they?

The Yamna horizon hasn't been excavated in full yet and all the samples from it so far have turned out R1b, R1a were probably more light.

Forest steppe peoples closely related to PIE Yamnaya peoples who adopted the PIE language and culture and spread throughout northern, central and eastern Europe and ultimately into Asia.

No, because "white" was invented in the modern era.

That image is kind of pointless though because the R1b Yamnaya samples precede the R1a Central Asian samples by literally thousands of years. By this point the R1a Indo-Europeans had mixed with Pre-Indo-European Europeans and spread back eastward.

I agree that R1a Proto-Indo-Europeans contemporary with Yamnaya were "probably" lighter and fairer to a degree, but there is literally no proof at this stage. Keep in mind that R1b Bell Beakers were also light skinned and somewhat fair, so it's not impossible that R1a Indo-Europeans were once darker.

They probably looked like (P)ersians.

Why would they look like Persians?

>idiots who think Yamna culture was Indo-European

WHAT PART OF PROTO DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

>Eurasians
fixd

>original Indo-Europeans
Idiot, Indo-European is a language family.

The proto-indo-iranic speaking peoples who used the word Arya as a self designation had fully expressed skin depigmentation and lactase persistence.

he's an idiot and says they looked like Persians, when what he should have meant to say was Persians used to look more like them.

shut the fuck up you french worm

>their skin was darker than modern southern Europeans
you mean somewhat darker than all modern Europeans, idiot.
>just look up skulls from the early PIE period
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

idiot

autist

Is R1b an indo european haplogroup ? or only R1a ? In my opinion only R1a.

>indo
>european
>haplogroup

>ndo
>>european
>>haplogroup

I meant the original founding population of the indo ayrans. Is only R1a acceptable ? since this is what archaeology reveals.

>original founding population of the indo ayrans
oh yeah dude, R1a out the ass more than likely

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronovo_culture

So in the study they found R1a and C. I think R1b is not indoeuropean. only R1a and C should be indo european.

The forefathers of: Balto-Slavs, Early Germanics and Indo-Iranian folk.

is that a fluffy pony?

The wiki page says that androno culture was an east ward migration after corded ware hence they found mongoloid C. The rest was R1a, that is why i say that the r1a is the original indo european haplo group.

No. They hadn't evolved yet.

it's best girl from boku no hero

Angry little faggot who doesn't realise that Proto-Indo-European = common ancestor of all Indo-European languages = "original" Indo-Europeans

>you mean somewhat darker than all modern Europeans, idiot.
These mean the same thing

>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
What's so hilarious?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Iranians
>the study determined that at least 60% of the individuals overall (out of the 26 Bronze and Iron Age human remains' samples of the study that could be tested) had light hair and blue or green eyes

Indo-Iranians weren't the original Indo-Europeans, though.

>Proto-Indo-European = "original" Indo-Europeans
idiot who doesn't understand what words mean, the average modern European has lighter skin than the average modern Southern European. The Proto-Indo-Europeans had lighter skin than the average of those European groups they encountered.

you fail to grasp the point

I thought the proto indo Europeans were darker and got the light skin from the hunter gatherers they encountered.

>idiot who doesn't understand what words mean
Except I do. Let me say it again:
Proto-Indo-European = common ancestor of all Indo-European languages = "original" Indo-Europeans

>the average modern European has lighter skin than the average modern Southern European
Stop getting so caught up over one minor fucking point, jeez. Just pretend I left out the "southern" because it makes no difference anyway. The point is that PIE peoples had darker skin than ANY modern European population and that is a proven FACT. Because of this, calling them "white" in today's sense would be dumb.

>The Proto-Indo-Europeans had lighter skin than the average of those European groups they encountered.

>The Proto-Indo-Europeans had lighter skin than the average of those European groups they encountered.
Let's assume you're right for a minute. HOW IS THIS RELEVANT? OP was asking of the original Europeans were "white". PIE were not white by today's standards. It doesn't matter if the people they replaced were even less white. They were not white by today's standards, end of story.

>you fail to grasp the point
Except I do. Indo-Iranians are not the original Indo-Europeans. OP asked if the original Indo-Europeans were white. Therefore, how white Indo-Iranians were is not relevant to OP's question.

nope, WHG had blue eyes and darker skin.

EHG were a massive part of the PIE ethnic breakdown, that being tripartite, including ANE and Neolithic farming peoples. And that is to say nothing of their close relationship with the peoples of the Burned House horizon and Cucuteni–Trypillia.

Define "white." It's impossible to make a genetic definition of race. If you try, then all PIE peoples are too genetically similar to one another to separated into races, even if you say there are up to 12 races.

science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2381.full

>white

>PIE peoples had darker skin than ANY modern European population
idk, Sardinians and North Africans can get really dark. Probably darker than the PIE given their geographic location.

>WHG had blue eyes and darker skin.
True, but northern and eastern European hunter gatherers had lighter skin, blue eyes and fair hair. is right. Corded Ware acquired its lighter skin and hair from pre-existing populations in northern, central and eastern Europe.

Well in that case it would come down to where you put the threshold of whiteness. Some people would call Sardinians white, others would call them non-white. So it's really an unanswerable question to begin with.

>eastern European hunter gatherers
you mean those people who formed a massive part of the PIE?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans#Eastern_European_hunter-gatherers

Yes but PIE were also mixed with swarthy CHG.

>CHG
Yeah PIE has a huge Near East component but mate, almost all the Y-dna is EHG. And even CHG was mixed with the Neolithic farmers.

They were still swarthier than northern/eastern hunter gatherers, though.

Not all of them I'd wager. PIE was almost universally taller though.

>northern hunter gatherers
I actually can't find anything on these people.

They're usually referred to as Scandinavian Hunter Gatherers, I just prefer to say "northern" to keep it consistent with WHG and EHG.

I'm not finding much on their skin tone at least, but the area wasn't exclusively hunter gatherer. There were also lots of farming peoples that predate Battle Axe culture, like the Funnelbeaker culture.

Did WHG subsist in the north?

Here's some skin pigmentation and eye colour information if you're interested. SHG is included as one of the populations tested.
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xe9sgt0PSt6cUQ3cYp14foBoaVGsOKZBmmHJoKz0HB0/edit#gid=1800275085
>There were also lots of farming peoples that predate Battle Axe culture, like the Funnelbeaker culture.
True. Interestingly though farmer populations in Europe and Anatolia weren't as dark as what people assume, even in terms of eye colour.

Also I guess you could say that WHG subsisted in the north given that the Indo-Europeans were largely WHG themselves. But it's likely that much of the WHG in Europeans today was brought back to Europe by the Indo-Europeans, rather than continuously surviving through from the Mesolithic.

>re16891982 - did not match any documents
so what gives?

>this SNP is a relatively new one in human evolution; one estimate [PMID 17182896] is that the rs1426654(A) allele, in other words, light skin pigmentation, spread through the European population around 6,000 - 12,000 years ago

>AA, AG, GG, A%
>GG, CG, CC C%
what?

So it sounds like people are claiming that the original people of Europe disappeared

Yes.

>much of the WHG in Europeans today was brought back to Europe by the Indo-Europeans
n-no

>SHG is included
paleolithic Sweden is, but it was Neolithic peoples who were displaced by the Battle Axe culture.

...

...

...

>n-no
?
It's been pretty well established at this point.

Isnt it commonly known that the indo-europeans were the so called "aryans"

>The earliest known sample of the threonine allele is 13,000 years old from Satsurblia Cave in Georgia.
>It is theorised that selection for the derived allele is based on the need for sunlight to produce the essential nutrient vitamin D.
>white

What's this?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_(period)
*yawns*

your breath smells like shit

...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Subpluvial
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

Orcadians are niggers

Not by modern standards.

First of all, there was no one tribe of "Indo-Europeans". They were a bunch of inter-connected tribes who spread out at various times and speeds. Generally though they were lightly-swarthy Steppe dwellers, primarily horse and cow herders, had a patriarchal society and believed in Sky Daddy.

The Scythians were probably their most "direct" local ancestors, and these are considered an Iranic group. It's likely they slowly inter-married with (proto-) Central Asians, (proto-) Middle Easterners, Anatolians and the forest barbarians of eastern Europe.