Why are all early IE southern European samples heavily neolithic/southern ?

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

Greeks, Romans, Illyrians, Thracians.....none of these were northern euro or steppe genetically, only in minor part. And they were IE speakers for sure.
How to explain it ?

[Blondie]

Greeks, Romans, Illyrians, Thracians.....none of these were northern euro or steppe genetically, only in minor part. And they were IE speakers for sure.
How to explain it ?

Haplogroup shows your origin.
Iberians are almost homogeneous IE population, celt-iberian, they have 71% IE haplogroup.

Italians have 39% italo-celtic genetic, 15,5% greco-anatolian, middle eastern, 13,5% north african. The last two are result of greek, phonetician and other migration waves in old Roman Empire.

The most dominant greek haplogroup is J2 and e1b1b, so the greco-anatolian, middle eastern and north african markers. The total IE haplogroup is 27% in Greece. So the greek population have north african, middle eastern (mostly anatolian) and proto IE origin.

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

South Europe and the whole Mediterranean Area was a place of north african, european and middle eastern colonization, mainly in Italy and Greece which were center and capitals of Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, and lot of people migrated to these richer areas as slaves, soldiers, merchants etc. Later these peoples were assimilated by locals.

[Dick]

Good question

[IncelSlayer]

Haplogroup shows your origin.
.

But you realize that for a population to be mostly X genetically it is also required that most of their *recent* ancestors have ydna&mtdna that correspond to that X admixture, right?If anything those studies just show us again the big impact medieval german,slavic,celtic,asian,mena tribes had in medieval era on the greco-roman population.

[Dick]

But you realize that for a population to be mostly X genetically it is also required that most of their *recent* ancestors have ydna&mtdna that correspond to that X admixture, right?If anything those studies just show us again the big impact medieval german,slavic,celtic,asian,mena tribes had in medieval era on the greco-roman population.

Yes but who were the real IE? we wouldnt have civilization without Greece and Rome. Slavs and germanics did nothing.

[Bosniensis]

Greeks, Romans, Illyrians, Thracians.....none of these were northern euro or steppe genetically, only in minor part. And they were IE speakers for sure.
How to explain it ?

hahhahahah

Oh ... what could it be....

Muh Indo-European brothers where are they... :(

Why do not Greeks and Romans score Thor DNK :(?

Greeks came from Siberia no? NO!

You read Indo-European propaganda in School which is why you don't understand. :)

[Bosniensis]

I'll repeat once again:

Romans and Greeks (and before them Celts, Illyrians and Thracians) came from Anatolia where Hellenic-Syrian civilization flourished, and before that they lived in Ancient Syria (Palmyra)

All Hellenic temples were spread accross mediterranean Syria and Levant, NONE was build in Steppe where Germanic and Slavic people lived cause Romans, Greeks and Thracians, Illyrians, Celts WERE NOT! I repeat WERE NOT! Indo European People.

Romans are closer to some Persians and Syrians than Germanic people, Persian-Greek relations are well known.

THESE ARE ROMANS! (YES EVEN THOSE MENA)

https://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-J2.jpg

[xripkan]

Greeks, Romans, Illyrians, Thracians.....none of these were northern euro or steppe genetically, only in minor part. And they were IE speakers for sure.
How to explain it ?

You can read this paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5565772/. What it says is that Myceneans had low steppe admixture. A possible scenario is that their ancestors from steppes before arriving Balkans mixed with neolithic populations. This is why the Mycenean samples are J2a. This haplogroup came to Greece with them along with R1b. Then they mixed with local neolithic farmers in Greece. The conclusion is that they were Indoeuropean in cultural terms but mixed in genetic terms.

[Dick]

I'll repeat once again:

Romans and Greeks (and before them Celts, Illyrians and Thracians) came from Anatolia where Hellenic-Syrian civilization flourished, and before that they lived in Ancient Syria (Palmyra)

All Hellenic temples were spread accross mediterranean Syria and Levant, NONE was build in Steppe where Germanic and Slavic people lived cause Romans, Greeks and Thracians, Illyrians, Celts WERE NOT! I repeat WERE NOT! Indo European People.

Romans are closer to some Persians and Syrians than Germanic people, Persian-Greek relations are well known.

THESE ARE ROMANS! (YES EVEN THOSE MENA)

https://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-J2.jpg

Armenians are IE. How much steppe do they have?

[Ayetooey]

Is this in reference to the "Thracian" sample. It was dated 500bc, proto-indo european Thracians settled 1500bc. Go figure.

[Bosniensis]

Armenians are IE. How much steppe do they have?

Armenians are like Turks (Similar) very little steppe.

# Population Percent
1 West_Asian 36.45
2 East_Med 36.02
3 West_Med 14.07
4 Red_Sea 6.45
5 North_Atlantic 4.62
6 South_Asian 2.24
7 Oceanian 0.14

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Armenian 3.49
2 Georgian_Jewish 5.62
3 Assyrian 6.34
4 Kurdish_Jewish 9.58
5 Turkish 10.31
6 Iranian_Jewish 10.47
7 Kurdish 11.4
8 Azeri 11.74
9 Lebanese_Muslim 12.92

This result by itself explains how little modern Turks are related to Central Asian (Kazakhs, Oghuz etc..) people.

[Morena]

Because they were mostly descended from the Anatolian farmers. I'm becoming more and more convinced that had it not been for them, Europe would be a continent filled with barbarians.

[Token]

Armenians are IE. How much steppe do they have?
Like 5% steppe, LUL.

[JMack]

Because as I said in the past, Indo-Europeans were great warriors like Turks (the true ones, not the LARPers from Anatolia) and Mongols, but from a civilizational POV were just a bunch of primitive tribesmen.

All the great IE cultures of antiquity were predominantly non-IE racially, like Persia, India, Greece, Rome, Hittities and other Anatolians. The closest to ''Indo-Europeans'' the most barbaric the group was.

Modern/contemporary age (more like from 1700s from now, but whatever) is the first time heavily admixed IE people (Northern Europeans) became dominant in world scale.

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

You can read this paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5565772/. What it says is that Myceneans had low steppe admixture. A possible scenario is that their ancestors from steppes before arriving Balkans mixed with neolithic populations. This is why the Mycenean samples are J2a. This haplogroup came to Greece with them along with R1b. Then they mixed with local neolithic farmers in Greece. The conclusion is that they were Indoeuropean in cultural terms but mixed in genetic terms.

Thanks bruv


Is this in reference to the "Thracian" sample. It was dated 500bc, proto-indo european Thracians settled 1500bc. Go figure.

Nah, to all IE southern euro samples in general. Bronze Age Dalmatian was also southern and closest to Albos. Only exception would be Montenigga Iron Age sample but I was told it was very low quality.

[Ayetooey]

Thanks bruv



Nah, to all IE southern euro samples in general. Bronze Age Dalmatian was also southern and closest to Albos. Only exception would be Montenigga Iron Age sample but I was told it was very low quality.

Bronze age Dalmatian was as it says, Bronze age Dalmatian; Illyrians settled around 1000BC, that sample was just a native.

[Dick]

Because as I said in the past, Indo-Europeans were great warriors like Turks (the true ones, not the LARPers from Anatolia) and Mongols, but from a civilizational POV were just a bunch of primitive tribesmen.

All the great IE cultures of antiquity were predominantly non-IE racially, like Persia, India, Greece, Rome, Hittities and other Anatolians. The closest to ''Indo-Europeans'' the most barbaric the group was.

Modern/contemporary age (more like from 1700s from now, but whatever) is the first time heavily admixed IE people (Northern Europeans) became dominant in world scale.

I suppose but Iberians played a major role, look at the conquests in South America. As for the British Empire i doubt they would've become a world power if it wasn't for the Norman conquest. Normans changed many things in England including their language, global politics etc. They should be labelled as Anglo-Normans not Anglo-Saxons.

[gıulıoımpa]

spoken Language does not mean a direct connection with DNA.

also, let's not forget that Rome was from the beginning a coalition of different ethinicites. Latins were one of them but the contribution of others , even non IE is notable (like Etruscans).

so in the beginning when Rome was a hut village on the seven Hills it may have been IE. but it got later "diluted"or remained majoritarily in the elites.

Still the portion of IE DNA in Italy is higher than many other ethnicities that claim to be "something" when actually they have much little dna contribute from that said something.

[michal3141]

Greeks, Romans, Illyrians, Thracians.....none of these were northern euro or steppe genetically, only in minor part. And they were IE speakers for sure.
How to explain it ?

Because IE haven't just replaced original populations completely. They only mixed with the local populations and the local, neolithic substratum is still dominant in Mediterranean area.
Consider the case of Minoans (non IE speakers) and Mycenaeans (IE speakers).
Mycenaeans can be modeled as approximately 80% Minoan + 20% Steppe.

More on this fascinating subject in:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/08/steppe-admixture-in-mycenaeans.html

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

Bronze age Dalmatian was as it says, Bronze age Dalmatian; Illyrians settled around 1000BC, that sample was just a native.

He was't native man, he had steppe mtdna and Balkan was settled by Indo-European tribes in early bronze age.

[Ayetooey]

He was't native man, he had steppe mtdna and Balkan was settled by Indo-European tribes in early bronze age.

He was described as "Illyrian" when posted here, but Illyrians settled 500-700 years after this sample was dated so he predated such colonalisation. And his Y dna wasn't Indo-European, so not a good indicator of a fresh off the steppe Indo-European.

There's no conspiracy that Indo-Europeans were some neolithic med people; more likely explanation is they were small in numbers and it was more of a cultural assimilation, similar to the magyars in Hungary.

[Dick]

Because IE haven't just replaced original populations completely. They only mixed with the local populations and the local, neolithic substratum is still dominant in Mediterranean area.
Consider the case of Minoans (non IE speakers) and Mycenaeans (IE speakers).
Mycenaeans can be modeled as approximately 80% Minoan + 20% Steppe.

More on this fascinating subject in:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/08/steppe-admixture-in-mycenaeans.html

And the new and old languages became infused, not necessarily due to being conquered, which is why there are now different ethno-linguistic branches of IE, under one tree yet very different from each other.

[JMack]

I suppose but Iberians played a major role, look at the conquests in South America. As for the British Empire i doubt they would've become a world power if it wasn't for the Norman conquest. Normans changed many things in England including their language, global politics etc. They should be labelled as Anglo-Normans not Anglo-Saxons.

Yeah, 'Anglo-Saxon' is a misleading term when applied to English people. Most of these ethnic affiliations are a fruit of 19th century nationalism, they had no access to genetics or legit anthropology at the time (even if the racial anthropologists predicted many things that modern genetics confirmed).

As for Iberians, they have some Steppe ancestry, but it's not predominant. Imo Iberians are probably the closest Europeans to be ''balanced Euros'' with the higher amounts at the same time of Steppe, WHG and neolithic.

[Dick]

He was't native man, he had steppe mtdna and Balkan was settled by Indo-European tribes in early bronze age.

What are steppe mtdna's?

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

He was described as "Illyrian" when posted here, but Illyrians settled 500-700 years after this sample was dated so he predated such colonalisation. And his Y dna wasn't Indo-European, so not a good indicator of a fresh off the steppe Indo-European.

There's no conspiracy that Indo-Europeans were some neolithic med people; more likely explanation is they were small in numbers and it was more of a cultural assimilation, similar to the magyars in Hungary.

Myceneans were J2a and less steppe than Bronze Age Dalmatian dude. He was Illyrian for fuck's sake. Where did you get info when Illyrians settled btw ?
Only Indo-Europeans who settled Dalmatia from bronze age were Illyrians so he can't be anything else.

Real PIE people were R1 and North European and it's pretty clear elite domination happened in southern Europe.
Also in SE Europe study Dalmatian sample is clearly separated from neolithics who were also tested, he got different mt,ydna and minor steppe admixure. His ydna is as much Illyrian as your is Slavic or Dick's Germanic.

What I am saying is this Dalmatian was 100% certain Indo-European speaker, not some neolithic because they were tested also and different than him.

Northern Euro IE samples in southern Europe just won't happen man, seem Indo-Europeans of med basin were mostly indoeuropeanised locals and never very steppe from the start.

[Dick]

(even if the racial anthropologists predicted many things that modern genetics confirmed).


Yeah quite fascinating

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

What are steppe mtdna's?

The oldest J2b2-L283 sample recovered among ancient DNA samples is a Late Bronze Age (1700-1500 BCE) individual from southern Croatia (Mathieson et al. 2017). His genome possessed about 30% of Steppe admixture and 15% of Eastern Hunter-Gatherer, which suggest a recent arrival from the Steppe. He was accompanied by a woman with similar admixtures, and both possessed typical Pontic-Caspian Steppe mtDNA (I1a1 and W3a). The timing, location and admixtures of these samples fit with the Illyrian colonisation of the Dinaric Alps, which is thought to have taken place between 1600 and 1100 BCE. The Illyrians may have been late Steppe migrants from the Volga region that were forced out of the Steppe by the invasion of the northern R1a tribes who established the Srubna culture (from 2000 BCE). Through a founding effect, J2b2-L283 lineages might have considerably increased their original frequency after reaching Illyria.

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J2_Y-DNA.shtml#J2b2a1

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

So yeah, Dalmatian Bronze Age dude was 30% steppe + 15% EHG , more than Mycenean Greeks. Certanly not a ''local''. Modern Croats derive 40% ancestry from this dude, I seen some models with nMonte.

[Ayetooey]

Myceneans were J2 and less steppe than Bronze Age Dalmatian dude. He was Illyrian for fuck's sake. Where did you get info when Illyrians settled btw ?
Only Indo-Europeans who settled Dalmatia from bronze age were Illyrians so he can't be anything else.

Real PIE people were R1 and North European and it's pretty clear elite domination happened in southern Europe.
Also in SE Europe study Dalmatian steppe is clearly separated from neolithics who were also tested, he got different mt,ydna and minor steppe admixure. His ydna is as much Illyrian as your is Slavic or Dick's Germanic.

What I am saying is this Dalmatian was 100% certain Indo-European speaker, not some neolithic because they were tested also and different than him.

Northern Euro IE samples in southern Europe just won't happen man, seem Indo-Europeans of med basin were mostly indoeuropeanised locals and never very steppe from the start.

Pretty much every historical/archaeological book written on the Illyrians states they came in 1000BC; that sample was dated 1700BC, it might of been indo european influenced but it was not an "Illyrian". I'm not going to start going through books (but there's Archaeological journals easily attainable through google which go into more detail online if you want to check them out) but I'll post some online sources. https://www.globalresearch.ca/history-of-the-balkans-the-ancient-illyrians-modern-day-albanians-and-southern-slavs/5628162

It is true that every story about the Balkan Peninsula begins with the ancient Illyrians.[1] Historians believe that these Indo-European people were one of the largest European populations to inhabit the western portion of the Balkans from the coasts of the Ionian Sea and the Adriatic Sea to the Alps about 1000 B.C.

https://www.livius.org/articles/people/illyrians/

In the Hallstatt period (c.800-c.500 BCE), we can identify the first Illyrian kingdoms. The Vače situla, a bronze vessel found in Slovenia, shows people sitting on thrones, soldiers, horses, chariots, a sacrifice, servants, and something that may be a ritual combat or an athletic contest.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/history-of-the-balkans-the-ancient-illyrians-modern-day-albanians-and-southern-slavs/5628162

The Illyrians were Indo-European tribesmen who appeared in the western part of the Balkan Peninsula about 1000 B.C., a period coinciding with the end of the Bronze Age and beginning of the Iron Age. They inhabited much of the area for at least the next millennium. Archaeologists associate the Illyrians with the Hallstatt culture, an Iron Age people noted for production of iron and bronze swords with winged-shaped handles and for domestication of horses.

Source: Based on information from R. Ernest Dupuy and Trevor N. Dupuy, The Encyclopedia of Military History, New York, 1970, 95; Herman Kinder and Werner Hilgemann, The Anchor Atlas of World History, 1, New York, 1974, 90, 94; and Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15, New York, 1975, 1092.

Rhetoric aside we're basically in agreement; it was more of a cultural assimilation and the genetic impact was small; but none of these samples are representative of proto-Indo Europeans in the Balkans, they're all heavily native genetically, that's my point.

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

Rhetoric aside we're basically in agreement; it was more of a cultural assimilation and the genetic impact was small; but none of these samples are representative of proto-Indo Europeans in the Balkans, they're all heavily native genetically, that's my point.

That's my point too bruv. But this sample look like recent steppe arrival, looks like neolitisation of PIE speakers happened already in steppe. Same for ancient Greeks.
Anyway don't expect classical Illyrians to be any more steppe than him, probably just less and as time went on and more and more wog.

[Ford]

The Illyrians were Indo-European tribesmen who appeared in the western part of the Balkan Peninsula about 1000 B.C., a period coinciding with the end of the Bronze Age and beginning of the Iron Age. They inhabited much of the area for at least the next millennium. Archaeologists associate the Illyrians with the Hallstatt culture, an Iron Age people noted for production of iron and bronze swords with winged-shaped handles and for domestication of horses.

Are there any haplogroups associated with the Hallstatt and Illyrians that you know of?

[Token]

We have a trail of extremely steppe rich people entering the Southern Balkans by the time of the rise of Mycenaean civilization, a Bulgarian sample literally indistinguishable from Sintashta, and early Iberian Beakers clustering straight with Netherlands Beakers. Indo-Europeans coming from Northern Europe directly established the foundation of southern IE cultures and population replacement by violence was involved. Southern Europe was already full of proto-cities by the time that Indo-Europeans started flooding Europe and southwards movements were mostly carried by bands of young warriors as shown by strongly male biased steppe admixture in modern day Southern Europeans.

[Bosniensis]

Are there any haplogroups associated with the Hallstatt and Illyrians that you know of?

None of Ours atm, but very few samples I2a2 and J2a are found in Iron Age Illyria

[Ayetooey]

Are there any haplogroups associated with the Hallstatt and Illyrians that you know of?

Illyrians we don't know since there hasn't been an actual sample found from the 1000BC mark (AFAIK) which would coincide with their colonisation of the Balkans. Hallstatt culture I'm not entirely sure but I've heard G2a before.

Anyone interested in more detailed historical/archeological evidence on them should read the The Illyrians by John Wilkes.

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

Illyrians we don't know since there hasn't been an actual sample found from the 1000BC mark (AFAIK) which would coincide with their colonisation of the Balkans. Hallstatt culture I'm not entirely sure but I've heard G2a before.

Anyone interested in more detailed historical/archeological evidence on them should read the The Illyrians by John Wilkes.

Do you think Illyrians were centum speakers like Celts and Greeks ? I think it's likely. It's weird how Albanians are satem but have typical centum related haplogroups (R1b).
maybe they became satemised later.

[Ayetooey]

Do you think Illyrians were centum speakers like Celts and Greeks ? I think it's likely. It's weird how Albanians are satem but have typical centum related haplogroups (R1b).
maybe they became satemised later.

Not something I've read into massively, but I know ancient Greeks created an ancestor in their literary culture of the Illyrians named Illyrius who had two brothers. Their names were Celtus and Galas, Celtus representing the Celts, Galas representing the Gauls. Seems to imply the Greeks at least believed their to be a connection, which if you look at what we know of the Hallstatt culture isn't far from the mark.

"The Hallstatt culture was the predominant Western and Central European culture of Late Bronze Age (Hallstatt A, Hallstatt B) from the 12th to 8th centuries BC and Early Iron Age Europe (Hallstatt C, Hallstatt D) from the 8th to 6th centuries BC, developing out of the Urnfield culture of the 12th century BC (Late Bronze Age) and followed in much of its area by the La Tène culture. It is commonly associated with Proto-Celtic and Celtic populations in the Western Hallstatt zone and with (pre-)Illyrians in the eastern Hallstatt zone."

[Antimatter]

Haplogroup shows your origin.
Iberians are almost homogeneous IE population, celt-iberian, they have 71% IE haplogroup.

Italians have 39% italo-celtic genetic, 15,5% greco-anatolian, middle eastern, 13,5% north african. The last two are result of greek, phonetician and other migration waves in old Roman Empire.

The most dominant greek haplogroup is J2 and e1b1b, so the greco-anatolian, middle eastern and north african markers. The total IE haplogroup is 27% in Greece. So the greek population have north african, middle eastern (mostly anatolian) and proto IE origin.

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

South Europe and the whole Mediterranean Area was a place of north african, european and middle eastern colonization, mainly in Italy and Greece which were center and capitals of Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, and lot of people migrated to these richer areas as slaves, soldiers, merchants etc. Later these peoples were assimilated by locals.

You got some stuff wrong. Having E1b1b doesn't mean they are "North African". First of all, We don't know as of yet where did E-M35 (E1b1b1) originate, and several homelands were suggested (Western Asia, Northern Africa, East Africa). Most of Greek E is E-V13, which in turn came from E-M78 which is dominant in Egypt, the Levant and somewhat in Maghreb region. Now E-V13 was born likely at Anatolia and autosomally its carriers are definitely Greek as it arrived during Neolithic (or probably at the mesolithic) likely.

J2 is Middle Eastern, and it's tied to different expansions/incidents andit probably came during the Neolithic as well, not to neglect other post-Neolithic expansions notably Bronze Age ones.

Now,

Greeks have around 27% of Indo-European associated haplogroups i.e R1a and R1b. As you can see it's not that much, and steppe_BA tends to be 10-20% at best. Neolithic farmers were already living at Greece, pre-IE population. These were mixed with other lovals before them, Western Hunter-gatherers with I2. The IE comers would assimilate with the existing population, rather than fighting them. There is no reason to believe it was a massive and violent attack/extermination act.

We can see the same in Rome, where R1b+R1a amount to only 31%. Rome was already inhabited by Neolithic Near-Eastern farmers (J2,J1,E1b1b1,G2a,T) and we have archaeological record of this. IE men would marry with the women, and vice versa, and so their autosomal scores would not become as dominant as the already native population amounting to 10-30%.

[Dick]

Are there any haplogroups associated with the Hallstatt and Illyrians that you know of?

possibly yours, G2a

[Dick]

We have a trail of extremely steppe rich people entering the Southern Balkans by the time of the rise of Mycenaean civilization, a Bulgarian sample literally indistinguishable from Sintashta, and early Iberian Beakers clustering straight with Netherlands Beakers. Indo-Europeans coming from Northern Europe directly established the foundation of southern IE cultures and population replacement by violence was involved. Southern Europe was already full of proto-cities by the time that Indo-Europeans started flooding Europe and southwards movements were mostly carried by bands of young warriors as shown by strongly male biased steppe admixture in modern day Southern Europeans.

of course. The proto-Romans stealing Sabine women to breed with is a bed time classic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_the_Sabine_Women

[Token]

The most impressive historical period Indo-Europeans were the Sarmatians and Western Scythians, woth Corded Ware levels of steppe admixture as late as the Iron age. Germanic and Balto-Slavs were Neolithic wogs compared to them.

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

The most impressive historical period Indo-Europeans were the Sarmatians and Western Scythians, woth Corded Ware levels of steppe admixture as late as the Iron age. Germanic and Balto-Slavs were Neolithic wogs compared to them.

In what way were they most impressive ?

[Dick]

The most impressive historical period Indo-Europeans were the Sarmatians and Western Scythians, woth Corded Ware levels of steppe admixture as late as the Iron age. Germanic and Balto-Slavs were Neolithic wogs compared to them.

What about this prehistoric Norwegian. He is closest to Estonians.

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?277794-North-Norwegian-Hunter-Gatherer-on-GEDmatch

[Token]

In what way were they most impressive ?
In every way as far as Indo-Europeans are concerned. Unlike every other Indo-European people, Scytho-Sarmatians managed to maintain a strictly Indo-European material culture, royal Kurgan building, PIE warfare, nomadism and semi-nomadism, horse worship, etc. Not only were they genetically more Indo-European than any other Iron age people, their culture also stayed almost unaltered since Kurgan culture.

[kiotr]

I suppose but Iberians played a major role, look at the conquests in South America. As for the British Empire i doubt they would've become a world power if it wasn't for the Norman conquest. Normans changed many things in England including their language, global politics etc. They should be labelled as Anglo-Normans not Anglo-Saxons.

Perhaps, but conquest isn't the end all be all for success. Italy was historically more successful than Iberia in not only scientific achievement but cultural contribution to the whole of Europe. Foundations of it's musical, scientific, architectural, and artistic practices etc. Ultimately a larger more felt impact than Iberia.

[Token]

What about this prehistoric Norwegian. He is closest to Estonians.

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?277794-North-Norwegian-Hunter-Gatherer-on-GEDmatch

Closest to Estonians because he had barely any Basal admixture, and Estonians are the Europeans with the lowest amounts of Basal and highest amounts of "Crown Eurasian" admix. Bidimensional PCAs as used to calculate distances in such calculators can be very misleading.

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

In every way as far as Indo-Europeans are concerned. Unlike every other Indo-European people, Scytho-Sarmatians managed to maintain a strictly Indo-European material culture, royal Kurgan building, PIE warfare, nomadism and semi-nomadism, horse worship, etc. Not only were they genetically more Indo-European than any other Iron age people, their culture also stayed almost unaltered since Kurgan culture.

Got any gedmatch results of these ubermenschen bruv ?

[Token]

Got any gedmatch results of these ubermenschen bruv ?
Nope, but i ran some models on them.

[1] "distance%=1.8284"
Sarmatian_Pokrovka
Yamnaya_Samara,69
Barcin_N,13.8
Mongola,9
Ganj_Dareh_N,5.2
WHG,3

[1] "distance%=2.8257"
Sarmatian_Urals
Yamnaya_Samara,69.4
Barcin_N,15.8
Mongola,11.2
Ganj_Dareh_N,2.8
WHG,0.8

[1] "distance%=2.9318"
Scythian_Samara
Srubnaya-Alakulskaya_MLBA,74
Ganj_Dareh_N,12.8
Mongola,10.8
WHG,2.4

[Not a Cop]

In every way as far as Indo-Europeans are concerned. Unlike every other Indo-European people, Scytho-Sarmatians managed to maintain a strictly Indo-European material culture, royal Kurgan building, PIE warfare, nomadism and semi-nomadism, horse worship, etc. Not only were they genetically more Indo-European than any other Iron age people, their culture also stayed almost unaltered since Kurgan culture.

Well that's hardly surprising considering that they stayed in original homeland more or less.

[North Sea]

Is this in reference to the "Thracian" sample. It was dated 500bc, proto-indo european Thracians settled 1500bc. Go figure.

500 BC is after 1500 BC and not before. The time in BC goes downwards. Alexander was born only 150 years later or so, around 350 BC. That sample was 100% a Thracian.

[Ayetooey]

500 BC is after 1500 BC and not before. The time in BC goes downwards. Alexander was born only 150 years later or so, around 350 BC. That sample was 100% a Thracian.

That was my point lmao; there's a 1000 year old difference hence why the "Thracian" in 500BC is heavily neolithic and not fresh off the steppe genetically.

[North Sea]

That was my point lmao; there's a 1000 year old difference hence why the "Thracian" in 500BC is heavily neolithic and not fresh off the steppe genetically.

Got it now. Yeah , it isn't an IE sample. Bronze Age samples in Bulgaria 1000 years earlier were much more Northern. I guess they mixed and produced such people.

Anyway, it is now believed Indo Europeans originated in the Southern Caucasus. Its mostly EHG like ancestry that shifts those samples extremely North.