Why did Europeans fail to develop strong civilizations on their own before the Middle Easterners civilized them?

Kill yourself, retard.

They are Europeans since the closest to them genetically are South European people, barely anything to do with modern Near Easterners

Source?

>this is what southern europeans actually believe

Virtually the only difference is that Southern Europeans have WHG and EHG European admixture. Doesn't make the farmers European in origin though.

Any modern PCA

>Virtually the only difference is that Southern Europeans have WHG and EHG European admixture.

Retarded or shitposting?

Modern Nears Easterns all have at least 20-40% CHG admixture, North Africans and Levantines have a lot of Natufian admixture as well

Minoans had CHG.

Modern southern Europeans have both Middle Eastern CHG and steppe CHG so you can't really use that too much to differentiate Southern Europeans from ME.

Myceneans plot closer to S.Eurioeans like Sicilianc, hence they are closer to Europeans than to Middle Easterners, case closed

Sicilians are a very mixed people.
Lots of Middle Eastern stuff there.

Since Sicilians and Ashkenazi Jews are similar in origin and genes, Mycenaeans plot close to them both.

>before the Middle Easterners civilized them

>before the Middle Easterners civilized them

But this is where your double standard collapses, most Western Europeans migrated to Europe around 3500-3000 BC, the EEF migrated earlier, by your deduction the "Middle Easterners" were the retarded ones replaced by the peoples who went on to create the modern civilizations.

In an open forum, you're dead, here you can come back tomorrow, or the day after and pretend this post was never made.

You stupid moron

See

What?

What the fuck are you talking about?

Ignore him he's a retard who thinks ethno linguistic assimilation only occurs through genocide.

EEF people were often replaced in Western Europe, Britain itself had a near complete population turnover. This occurred around 3500BC. How can you blame these people, who make up the largest proportion of the civilized 1st world today, as not creating a natural civilization in Europe? When they themselves migrated late into Europe.

European steppe is Europe

But that is not an adequate answer to any question I just asked. Did I ask, "Is Europe in Europe?", because if I did, your answer is quit sufficient.

I shouldn't expect this thread to be anything other than retarded but whatever.

Civilization arose first in the places where agriculture emerged earliest and where the environment was right for it. Agriculture first emerged in the Fertile Crescent, so it should surprise nobody that the earliest civilizations emerged in nearby fertile regions like the Nile and Sumer, and then in neighboring areas like Greece and the Indus Valley. Civilization 'spread' from these cores (later cores emerged in China, Mesopotamia, and elsewhere), but complexity also emerged semi-independently in regions where agriculture was well established. In the Mediterranean you have a mix of adoption from earlier civilizations like Mesopotamia, Canaan and Egypt as well as independent developments emerging due to the antiquity of agriculture and economic stimulation from the east, so the rise of civilization in the Mediterranean can be called semi-independent.

In northern Europe (west and east) agriculture came later, so it's no surprise that they developed later than the Middle East and Mediterranean. That said, northern Europe still developed at a slower pace than other regions; agriculture was introduced around 6000-4000 BC, allowing thousands of years for civilization to develop, but nothing emerged before Roman conquest (though proto-civilization was emerging in Gaul and Britain by that time, stimulated by the Mediterranean economy). The reason is probably not due to a lack of fertile river valleys, not a cold climate nor some sort of inherent cultural backwardness. Stuff like Stonehenge or La Tene art attests to clear cultural sophistication and complexity, but something prevented the jump to complexity. Most realistically, it was because northern Europe has heavy soils which constrained agricultural development and population growth. It wasn't until the introduction of heavy plows and other technological developments that northern Europeans could really flourish in the Middle Ages.

Europeans were not complete savages, just like Africans were not savages either before European contacts, they both were on their way to develop civilizations, the Greeks and Minoans already did

Not him. Just correcting your error there.

Unlike farmers, PIE were chiefly of European origin.

>emerged

>chiefly

Seems these words means you don't have to explain what you're talking about. I think I will use these words to explain to the shop keeper how groceries just chiefly emerged in my pocket without having to pay for them.

What the fuck.

What did you not understand about my post (the first you quoted)?

Yamna were in majority native to Europe, EEF only in fraction.

The steppe invasion of "Europe" or rather the western portion of it was actually Europeans taking land from Middle Easterners, not some latecomers to Europe taking land from Europeans.

>Why did the middle easterners fail to exist before the ancient humans colonized the area? There some sort of genetic inferiority?
Props for making fun of that African-Resource loser, but I figure I might as well contribute something useful.
To anyone who actually believes this or the Africafag, the closer a people are to the area of greatest technological advancement, the more likely they are to succeed. Obviously these areas shift as certain specific events cause certain nations to fail or be weaker, that's why Africa sucks now, and has generally always sucked, that's why the near east sucks now but didn't suck a while ago, and that's why the west is good now but wasn't a while ago, and probably won't be a while from now.

But my comment just emerged chiefly, therefore I win, you cannot ask why, because of the "natural emergence".

Are you a native English speaker? I don't think you understand those words.

Not it wasn't, thinking of Yamnaya as "Europeans" or as EED as a Middle Easterners is retarded

But it's technically true.

This. We are eternally grateful for being colonized by a superior culture, as the technological and social advances that we were exposed to helped to lift us out of the dirt

Agriculture arose from nomadic peoples, if you're going to explain something, stop padding your explanation with magical terms to give continuity to your arguments, where there is discontinuity.

I don't think you understood the very simple English terms I used. 'Emerged' is really no different from 'arose'. It is not a 'magical' term. You seem to lack a full comprehension of the English language.

Agriculture did not "arise" from nomadic people, it was pioneered by sedentary hunter-gatherers in the 'hilly flanks' of the fertile crescent who lived off of wild grasses, which they gradually domesticated. Such cultures are responsible for monuments like Gobekli Tepe, and it seems likely that agriculture in other regions also arose out of such sedentary foragers.

Nice. Where can I buy the official /pol/ world history textbook?

>sedentary hunter-gatherers
Okay, I pretty sure that is an Oxymoron. If a HG group became sedentary, then their supply of roots/seeds/berries would demolished, the animals would also suffer, lest they were following migrating herds, but then they wouldn't be sedentary then, would they. The climate may have been different then, but it wasn't as bountiful as you lead us to believe.

Terramare, El Argar, Minoans, Orkney Neolithic, Nuragic, Malta temple culture, Cucuteni, Vinca, Lipari, Motillas, Salsbury, Cycladic civilization

Hunter-gatherers always being nomadic is a common misconception. Sedentary and semi-sedentary hunter-gatherers, sometimes with very complex societies, are actually well attested in both archaeology and recent ethnography. The Natufians of the ancient Levant were sedentary and lived off of the abundant wild grasses which spread after the end of the Ice Age. More recently, natives of the Pacific Northwest like the Tlingit and Haida had complex chiefdoms with sophisticated art and architecture and high social stratification (including slavery), though their diet relied on wild fish and berries. Then there are plenty of semi-sedentary cultures like the Jomon, the Ertebolle, etc. The people who produced Paleolithic European cave paintings were probably also semi-sedentary, moving back and forth between the same settlements with the changing seasons.

Google 'affluent foragers' or 'complex hunter gatherers' if you're interested.

>semi-sedentary, moving back and forth between the same settlements with the changing seasons.
That is nomadic, nomadic peoples move around about 90km squared, this as they follow the paths of least resistance. Natural geographic features, or terrain largely dictates this, especially in semi-arid mountainous regions, which the middle east is.

Semi-sedentary cultures are different from fully nomadic ones in that they might stay in the same spot for months or years at a time, rather than moving regularly. If I remember right, the Paleolithic cave-painters of southern France only moved between northern and southern settlements between winter and summer, but otherwise were sedentary.

Anyway, the Middle Eastern cultures like the Natufians were fully sedentary. They had permanent villages and stored their food.

> Nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes follow the animals they hunt, carrying tents with them.

> A nomad is a member of a community of people who live in different locations, moving from one place to another.

Yes, that's what a nomad is. However, not all nomads move constantly. Some only move seasonally, and others might stay in the same spot for years at a time. These are semi-sedentary, or semi-nomadic.

And again, the Middle Eastern hunter-gatherers, who pioneered agriculture, were fully sedentary.

>It's a "leftypol tries to meme about African inferiority and fails miserably" episode

What's the point of this thread? Seriously, it sounds like those console war threads on /v/. Like, you don't seek discussion, just shitpost