Is true that europeans descend from 3 different populations, western hunter gatherers...

Is true that europeans descend from 3 different populations, western hunter gatherers, early neolithic farmers and indo-europrean invaders? Moreover, is it true that western hunter gatherers had swarthy skin but blue eyes and that early neolithic farmers had light skin but swarthy eyes? And what of the appearance of these indo-european invaders? I am new to this subject and am basing my post on this article: bbc.com/news/science-environment-29213892

pic related: an artist's illustration of what these hunter-gatherers might have looked like.

Other urls found in this thread:

kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/why-both-sides-are-wrong-in-the-race-debate/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/articles/28639281/
unsworks.unsw.edu.au/fapi/datastream/unsworks:1471/SOURCE1?view=true
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_morphometrics_in_anthropology#Generalized_Procrustes_analysis_(GPA)
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

neanderthals too

Neanderthal DNA is found in all non-subsaharan-african populations. I'm talking about europeans specifically.

IE weren't single people. Some of them looked like French, some like Scandinavians and some like Slavs.

Do you have any facts to back that up?

>Some of them looked like French
delusional farmerbois unironically believe this

Archeology. Yamna were like modern French in terms of looks. Corded Ware like Scandinavians, Balts and Slavs.

>Yamna were like modern French in terms of looks
Source?

yeah, EEF were like 50% WHG though and became even more over time and IE invaders too were part WHG

That's like basic facts desu

>The genetic basis of a number of physical features of the Yamnaya people were ascertained by the ancient DNA study conducted by Haak et al. (2015), Wilde et al. (2014), Mathieson et al. (2015): they were genetically tall (phenotypic height is determined by both genetics and environmental factors), overwhelmingly dark-eyed (brown), dark-haired and had a skin colour that was moderately light, though somewhat darker than that of the average modern European.[25][6] Despite their pastoral lifestyle, there was little evidence of lactase persistence.

source?

>Yamna = 0% ENF
>Modern French = 64% ENF, 32% Yamna
>"But they looked like modern Frenchies"
Explain yourself

>Yamna = 0% ENF
lol

yeah, they were a 50/50 split between EHG and CHG

bump

>Both are R1b
>Slaves are R1a

Cry more, Polish faggot

How is that similar to a french

He's saying the Yamnas were shitskins so they're related to the French by the virtue of also being shitskins.

100% Similar

Yamnaya man looks like the average French guy

He looks like a jew

>Polish
?

Not really, the Yamnaya man has a more developed lower face and less bloated head

not 50% but 25-40% depending on the place

Aside from the jew nose they look absolutely nothing alike. The French guy looks like some generic Anglo even.

Reading about Indo-Europeans made me a misanthrope ashamed of my ancestry. Peaceful people were attacked and their women stolen by horse-raiding barbarians. Sadly, this is how modern Europeans were created. Frankly, it's disgusting.

Is this a bait post or have you been conditioned into being such a cuckold you won't even feel proud about that?

Proud about what? Barbarians destroying native cultures, burning settlements and raping women? It's appalling that this is our ancestry.

They were both troglodytes, not to mention those troglodytes replaced the troglodytes before them before being replaced in turn

They look the same

T.French

They look completely different, the Yamnaya man has a smaller head and forehead and a bigger nose, and a different jawline, not to mention the pigmentation obviously

>jew nose

It's the typical IE nose, if you don't have it, you're most likely a small-nosed negroid

It's not a IE nose, even fucking Bedouins usually have that type of nose

Europeans created megalithic cultures and they had stable settlements. I wouldn't call them troglodytes.
Humanity in general sucks. It's not like the Indo-Europeans were the only ones who acted like that. Semites were also brutal.

why did Cro-Magnons have larger brains Veeky Forums? did life after farming really become that much simpler?

It's a shared feature between caucasoid, but only pure IEs have this kind of nose.

Seing how angry you are, i guess you have a negroid nose.

Yes but it's got nothing to do with genetics, farmers in Germany practiced cannibalism, and later Sardinians who are basically farmer genetically were said to be vicious pillagers and pirates by the Romans

>Proud about what? Barbarians destroying native cultures, burning settlements and raping women?
Yes, exactly about that.

Not at all, you can have a straight nose without those negroid like enlarged nostrils, AKA the classical Greek type of nose often portrayed in statues, which is usually not hooked and gross, because those are objectively undesirable features

If you're fucking blind maybe.

>objectively undesirable features
From a non-IE PoV,.

IE-people consider the aquiline nose as a symbol of boldness and manliness.

Yeah no, most Nordics have a straight Greek like nose

Most Nordics have a concave pig nose, not straight.

>Nordics
Pre IE carrying I haplogroup and heavily admixed with negroid.

>Greek
Negroids carrying E haplogroup

The Spirit of the English Magazines - Volume 1 - Page 375
>The aquiline boldness of his nose, the expression of his

The Westminster Review - Volume 27 - Page 120
>His pious and earnest nature, apparent even in his portrait, in which his compact and furrowed brow and strait aquiline nose, convey the idea of enduring boldness,

Due to negroid admixture, Nordics aren't IE

Two cases of IE nose among Nordics.

Indo Europeans had lactase persistent genes, hence why there are so many cognates for "Cheese" in all European languages.

Due to its dissimilarity with the rest of Indo European languages, the Indo-Aryan branch aren't spoken natively; the religion of Zoroaster and religion of Hinduism prove that difference.
Zoroastrianism uses the word "Devil" for the European cognate of "Deity" and "Angel" for the European cognate of "devil/demon". And Hinduism incorporates a lot of Dravidian religious influences. It also explains why they can't eat as much dairy as Europeans.

People with lactase intollerance can eat dairy, they can't drink milk

>It's a pseudoscientific Raciology thread again
They should just merge us with /pol/

>hence why there are so many cognates for "Cheese" in all European languages
there aren't though

You could just ban Poland from Veeky Forums and there wouldn't be this type of threads anymore, or at least they'd be far less retarded

He's not Polish.

there are no first people, people had whatever eyes they inherited, there were no invaders. you are putting your own ideas onto history to ensure it appeals to your narrative, go away.

Yes i am

You're a fifth column monkey and don't deserve to be called Polish.

>“Aryan” Indo-European Yamna were literally kikes

Really makes you think

I've read western hunter-gatherers were supposed to look like modern day basques.

Indo-Europeans did nothing wrong

I bet you also bitch about how barbaric muslim rapefugess are for molesting European women.

>WHG
Broad faced with originally brown eyes, but later also blue due to mixing with EHG
>EHG, later PIE
Blond or brown and blue eyed, Narrow or Medium faced = NORDIC
>ENF
Brown haired and brown eyed. Narrow faced.

Yamna were not PIES.

Man on picrel is a generic Caucasus dweller (Armenoid + Alpinid), not IE Nordic.

bump

>Yamna were like modern French in terms of looks
>posts picture of literal kike

If you're a Pole, why are you namefagging as a nordic aryan, people that actually detest you and other slavs.

Veeky Forums is the only mainstream website where discussion of race isn't under a blanket ban, you can avoid conversations about race literally on the entirety of the internet yet you continue to visit Veeky Forums and demand it conforms to the rest of the internet.

Not at all, there are dozens of good blogs like Eurogenes or forums like Anthrogenica, and they actually can host some serious discussions from time to time, in Veeky Forums every rece/genetics threads devolve into mindless insults, baits, mostly uneducated biased posts, vague statements, racial slurs being thrown in every post

>Anthrogenica
>can host some serious discussions

Anthrogenica is for Half-Redpilled Normies, The Apricity is the way to go.

Yeah you can discuss race if you specifically find websites that revolve around race or anthropology more broadly, you can also discuss race on white nationalist or black nationalist websites but Veeky Forums is still one of the last big tent websites on the internet where casual discussion of race in general (and not just white privilege stuf) is allowed.

The apricity is full of retarded "phenotype" threads , "classify me", etc which are pseudoscience

kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/why-both-sides-are-wrong-in-the-race-debate/

Anthrogenica is full of "muh Basal Eurasian", and "muh X proxy for X".


Anthrognica's autism is so high that you are automatically permabanned if you create two accounts with the same IP.

Nah it's pretty respectable I just wish other whites like (((you))) weren't giant fags and we would fight them in an honorable contest of arms

>People with lactase intollerance can eat dairy
not with as much nutritional efficiency as someone who's lactase persistent can.

Lactose intolerance isn't a condition.

Yamna were late-PIEs.

Basal Eurasian and proxies are comprehensible for non-brainlets, as is the ban of sockpuppents from one IP.

Memetypes are brainlet breeding ground. Unlike brainlet believers think, scientific craniometry reveals EHG (YOO) wasn't a nordic aryan but closer to Chinese than to Russians in cranial morphology (though not in genetics), so more mongoloid-looking than Tatars. European and Caucasoid looks derive from WHG and CHG.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/articles/28639281/

>(YOO) wasn't a nordic aryan but closer to Chinese than to Russians in cranial morphology (though not in genetics)

except your graph shows you specifically that there's a negligible difference between the distances from YOO of Norwegians, Chinese, and native NA.

Not saying much. What were the samples?

Read the paper, I linked it. YOO is the first and the highest quality EHG group genetically sampled to date (haplogroups R1a and J). Unlike YOO, no modern European group in the study (Ukrainian, Russian, Norwegian) has Chinese as the closest neighbour in cranial measurement distances.

meanwhile, Chinese, Norwegians, and YOO are about equidistant from pic related.

>Unlike the Ukrainian Mesolithic, the Yuzhny Oleni Ostrov Mesolithic displays a high morphological affinity with several groups from Northern Eurasia of both European and Asian origin. A possibility of a common substrate for the Yuzhny Oleni Ostrov Mesolithic and Siberian Neolithic groups is reviewed. The Siberian Neolithic is shown to have morphological connection with both modern Siberian groups and the Native North Americans.

That's exactly in line with how they are genetically, Eurasian non-African populations with no recent African mix are all equally distant from West Africans. It's in no way at odds with EHG being closest to Chinese, while no modern European group is in relative or absolute distance.

>not getting my point

My main point is that your dear forum is an echo-chamber and USSR-tier when it comes to freedom of expression. As for myself, i have a dynamic IP so i'm pretty much unbannable, but i'm still not gonna recreate an account for a site whose members believe that Kura-Araxes bearers(J1) conquered Semites(E and J2) and later adopted their language, while linguistic and historical evidences support the reverse.

I love how you've used ad hominem right at the start of your post to justify the sheer autism of "your" forum btw.

>wasn't a nordic aryan
You're literally talking to a non-white, i don't care about "muh Nordic"-bs

I don't believe anything of the sort, looks like you're beating a strawman. J1 could easily be old enough in Arabian peninsula to be present in proto-Semites. But even if some particular group of autists survived the purges it's worth it to keep going, their turn will come once ancient DNA proves them wrong, just like all Out Of India guys.

>That's exactly in line with how they are genetically
yeah, but that isn't saying much.

on that chart Igbo are almost as close to Norwegians morphologically as native NA are to YOO and as YOO are to Norwegians. The article is behind a paywall, seems like their data might not be highly significant.

>complete male crania from several Mesolithic and Neolithic burial sites across Northern Eurasia
they might not have a very large sample. I'm interested as to how large the Chinese sample was, given how much closer they are to every group other than UkrMesol on average than the rest of them.

You'll find more differences between individuals than between groups, and more between small groups than large groups.

>no modern European group is in relative or absolute distance
Norway and Ukraine are closer than Igbo and Khants, but are colored red for some reason.

If you can't get through the paywall, they have 10 YOO skulls in the comparison while only 2 samples have Y-DNA sampled. 13 Chinese from Shanghai and Beijing so no any potentially "west Eurasian" looking Uyghurs or anything like that messing up the comparison. Native North Americans have experienced high drift so it doesn't mean anything that they have high distances to YOO. Their closest neighbour is still Khanty and South Siberian Neolithic, in line with genetics and even with possible Dene-Yeniseian migration.

>J1 could easily be old enough in Arabian peninsula to be present in proto-Semites

I'm perhaps beating a strawman but you're holding outdated theories(century-old in fact) , nobody aside from Saudis believe in the Arabian Hypothesis since Clay and compared linguistics crushed it.

Now the main hypotheses are the Levantine Hypothesis and the Egyptian Hypothesis.

...

I don't really care whether J1 was present in proto-semites, it could have been present in Arabian Peninsula pre Kura-Araxes regardless of the fact. There are Saudis with old enough subclades for it. And there's Levantine Neolithic and older Y-DNA too, all E or something other than J.

>they have high distances to YOO
they don't though, they're just as close to YOO as they are to Khants.

A bit closer to Khanty than to YOO, and not as close to YOO as Chinese.

Khanty are as far morphologically from YOO as Igbo, and both Norwegians and Ukrainians are closer.

Makes me doubt the significance of these figures desu.

>And there's Levantine Neolithic and older Y-DNA too, all E
That's the Natufians(Proto Afro-Asiatic) aka direct ancestors of the Proto-Semites who were E and CT

>it could have been present in Arabian Peninsula pre Kura-Araxes
I'm not discussing that. I'm arguing against the Proto-Semites being J1 and/or Kura-Araxes conquering the Proto-Semites.

I hold the view that J-carriers are native to ME but were displaced from the Levant by incoming Natufians(Proto-AA), then later on, Proto-Semites/Semites conquered Ubaidian Culture bearers and later Sumerian Culture bearers(J-carriers) in Mesopotamia and spread their language through elite dominance creating Modern Semites.

>The features on which East Asians (Northeast and Southeast) are a truly distinct group, relating mainly to facial flatness measures and tall faces in the orbits height, are only a subset of a larger number of cranial features, which aren't population structured. So the really different variables can get "swamped" in analyses by the larger number of variables, and through this you can get a spurious link.
>t. Matt

unsworks.unsw.edu.au/fapi/datastream/unsworks:1471/SOURCE1?view=true

It just means Khanty have a distinct look due to drift, their closest neighbours are Naukan Eskimos and NativeNA broadly in line with genetics. If YOO were European looking, never mind Nordic looking there's no way Chinese followed by Native North Americans would be their closest neighbours. All modern Europeans have shortest procrusted distance to another European group.

EHG mtDNA haplogroups are predominately U5, U4, and U2. Just look at the distribution of U.

>Nearest-neighbor joining trees demonstrate group relationships predicted by the regression on geography and on climate.
The study you linked shouldn't be taken as definitive in isolation. Besides, procrustes distance doesn't necessarily correlate with phenotype and denotes broad shape differences including mere size. It's a statistical model that superimposes and adjusts different shapes and measures the degree of match to an ideal mean shape.

haplogroups have nothing to do with craniofacial shape, nothing. there are literally no studies which have found a connection. The study specifically mentions that comparative facial flatness links YOO and Chinese. No evidence has surfaced that could derive European looks (except pigmentation) from EHG.

At the moment. We know that there are many human migrations in Europe during prehistory and then protohistory. It is difficult to trace such ancient migrations. Knowing what these people look like physically is even more complicated.
Because a population is never genetically homogeneous.
A genotype does not necessarily produce a visible phenotype.
And we rely on a small number of often damaged skeletons.
The idea that there would be Indo-European migrations is more an idea of the linguists than the archaeologists. This is a hypothesis; is possible. But it is controversial even in archeology.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_morphometrics_in_anthropology#Generalized_Procrustes_analysis_(GPA)

>haplogroups have nothing to do with craniofacial shape, nothing.
no, significant correlations can be made if you go broad enough. Like if you're talking about parental A and B. Not sure about mtDNA because of how broadly it's generally distributed, but U is definitely linked to caucasoids of a European variety.

>No evidence has surfaced that could derive European looks (except pigmentation) from EHG.
Some of them had blue eyes unless I'm mistaken. Aren't EHG closely related to WHG, mediated by ANE?

>The HERC2 and OCA2 variations for blue eyes are derived from the original mesolithic hunter-gatherers, and the genes were also found in the Yamna people.[47]
>The genetic variations for lactase persistence and greater height came with the Yamna people.[47] The derived allele of the KITLG gene (SNP rs12821256) that is associated with – and likely causal for – blond hair in Europeans is found in populations with Eastern but not Western Hunter Gatherer ancestry, suggesting that its origin is in the Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) population and may have been spread in Europe by individuals with Steppe ancestry. Consistent with this, the earliest known individual with the derived allele is a ANE individual from the Late Upper Paleolithic Afontova Gora archaeological complex.[48]

hmm

>Everything is pseudoscience. except MY science. MY science is the REAL science
you are naive sounding.

...