Thread 17907575

While the populations with the lowest amount of steppe blood you had in Europe (Rome and Greece) were the most advanced and civilized?

My hypothesis is that the ''indo-europeans'' were just violent backward barbarians who destroyed civilizations and cultures in Europe which were more sophisticated and advanced than theirs in all but warfare.
So where they couldn't do it as extensively as they did in northern Europe like in Italy and Greece those countries were able to bounce back stronger and experienced a sort of ''Renaissance'' while northern Europe was thoroughly destroyed/replaced and plunged into complete barbarism by those invading backward barbarians

>>17907575 (OP)
What is that shit all the bottom? All that land belongs to Arabs.

>>17907575 (OP)
High steppe people went to the fucking moon

>>17907575 (OP)
true
>>17907596
due to late selection of ANF genes on intelligence
>However, the data do not support the cold winters theory of intelligence (Lynn, 1991, 2006), as the effect of latitude on EA3 and IQ in the regression models (Supplementary Tables S1 and S3) tended to be slightly negative (β = −0.055 and −0.097, p = .022 and p < .001 respectively), contrary to the theory’s prediction. This implies that, at least within the temperate zone from which our samples were derived (30.64 to 69.65°), and within the last 12,000 years, climate did not exert a discernible selective pressure.

>Indeed, Eastern Hunter Gatherer ancestry, which derived up to 70% of ancestry from Ancient North Eurasians living in the extremely cold climates of Siberia (Posth et al., 2023), was a negative predictor of EA or IQ in the regressions.

>Hunter-gatherer ancestry (particularly V2 or WHG) was negatively associated with EA3, EA4 and IQ in the regression models (Supplementary Tables S1−S3) even after accounting for Years BP (β = -0.314, -0.4, -0.249), suggesting that the increase in cognitive capacity was not solely driven by the Neolithic revolution but was partly mediated by admixture with the immigrants that accompanied it.

>There are some non-continuous changes in some genetic scores. These relate to population replacements. The farmers seem to be smarter than the hunter-gatherers, and their replacement increased intelligence faster than within population would have done. Group selection in action.

https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/what-do-ancient-genomes-show-about

>>17907575 (OP)
a chittering brown bottom bitch cockroach/churka made this map.
you're considered wh*te, gorgi/mahmud. chill out and eat a sandwich or something
>My hypothesis is that the ''indo-europeans'' were just violent backward barbarians who destroyed civilizations and cultures in Europe which were more sophisticated and advanced than theirs in all but warfare.
sorry to shatter your inferiority complex fueled fantasies here, but Urartu, Turkics, and Elamites were just as violent as indojeets and made similar attempts to destroy Asia Minor.

>>17907575 (OP)
Turkics aren't even native to europe

>>17907621
Neither are Uralics for that matter. The only native language of Europe is Basque.

The smartest EEFs were Funnelbeakers/Globular Amphora as they invented the wheel and axle as well as contributing 50% to the Moon Landers. Nordic excellence.

>>17907596
>>17907609
Balts, Slavs and Irish are notorious underachievers and they're all high steppe.

>>17907646
>look for notable people in Western European sources
>find mostly Western Europeans
truly wondrous and marvelous findings

>>17907677
>da Anglos are bringing the Balt man down!

>>17907596
>>17907644
There's no third-party verifiable evidence for the moon landings other than Nixon (a proven liar) and the Apollo astronauts saying they did it

Anyone who spoke Common Celtic back then was a certified barbarian.

>>17907575 (OP)
>>17907760
I heard the reason they are "barbarians" is because of the way their speech sounded to Greek ears. They just kept hearing "bar bar".

Back to the point of the thread, I think the climate has a lot to do with it. Greece is very nice. Diogenes famously lived in a barrel. Less time spent on staying warm and surviving the winter let them focus on other stuff.

Same idea with earlier civilizations like Egypt or Babylon. You obviously have a LOT of other factors in play, like genetics and culture, so Australia's Aborigines weren't going to rise up before white people went there. They didn't even have the wheel.

Why Indo-European and not Indo-Aryan though?

>>17907575 (OP)
The people in those places before the indo Europeans were proto indo Europeans from the steppe. All of European history has been the steppe vomiting white people everywhere. Before that it was Anatolia.

>>17907713
Da tovarish, of americaninski never went to the moon, oh wait.

>>17907646
The top 5 here are all ~40% and up Steppe

>>17907586
Berber and egyptian language
Berber is still very present in toponomy in the maghreb

>>17907575 (OP)
This is an incredibly retarded image. There would be no uralics, turks, tatars or mongols without indo-europeans. Europe would either be entirely brown like MENA, or eventually the hunter-gatherers in the north east or the farmer pops with high hunter gatherer admixture and HG y-dna like the ones in the north would take over, and we'd have the same white caucasoid pops we have today, probably speaking language similar to indo-european.

>>17908578
>Europe would either be entirely brown like MENA
I though nobody believed the "indo-europeans were muh white aryan blonde blue eyed chads" meme anymore. The reason you're white isn't because the Indo-Europeans, it's because of the fact that the Indo-Europeans mixed with the indigenous population of europe. I also don't see how Indo-Europeans would stop the separately evolving Turks and Uralics from eventually spreading into Europe.

>>17908618
>I though nobody believed the "indo-europeans were muh white aryan blonde blue eyed chads" meme anymore.
They weren't brown churkas either.
>The reason you're white isn't because the Indo-Europeans, it's because of the fact that the Indo-Europeans mixed with the indigenous population of europe.
Most of europe was brown due to migration of anatolian farmers in the neolithic. Light skin, eyes and hair was only common in northern europe because they had farmer pops with high levels of hunter-gatherer admixture and unmixed hunter-gatherer populations in some places.
>I also don't see how Indo-Europeans would stop the separately evolving Turks and Uralics from eventually spreading into Europe.
They did not evolve separately. Indo-europeans were migrating east through the eurasian steppe and siberian forests as early as 4th millennium BCE. The culture, genetics, religion and even language of these north east asian populations is significantly influenced by indo-europeans.

>>17907682
>friedrich zander
German
>Paul walden
Worked in Germany, died in Germany
>Karlis Balodis
Studied in Germany

Really makes one think

>>17907713
So why didn't the soviets contest it at the time?