Are all Europeans related to one another more because of IE or because of pre-IE stone/neolit CM?

[Caveat Emptor]

So ultimately all Europeans are in proximity to one another if you zoom out. Of course if you want to zoom in you can make distinctions between Sweden, Denmark and Norway if you want to, but I'm referring to zooming out as in comparing the whole of Europe to other continents.

A great deal of ancestry is shared among all europeans (whether you're Italian, Irish, Latvian, Hungarian or German, and yes - Finnish too) to the extent that 23andme is unable to account for even up to 50% of the total genome if you set your ancestry composition to 90% conservative.

"Broadly European" then becomes dominant in most cases.

Indoeuropeans all share common ancestry going back 6.000 years (give or take) in the early Yamnaya and Corded Ware cultures (when proto-indoeuropean was still spoken).

However, neolithic and upper paleolithic populations of WHG and farmers were already in Europe for literally tens of thousands of years.

So the question is: Is the European population more connected via IE line (especially males?) or is it rather due to pre-IE populations that were already in Europe (which explains the diversity of mtdna?)

[Tooting Carmen]

A mixture of both?

[Caveat Emptor]

A mixture of both?

I guess so, but which one would you say is more important in connecting Greeks and Swedes, or British and Hungarians etc? Would it be the indoeuropean (especially male) line or would it rather be thousands of years of shared pre-IE neolithic farmer and hunter gatherer ancestry?

[Tooting Carmen]

I guess so, but which one would you say is more important in connecting Greeks and Swedes, or British and Hungarians etc? Would it be the indoeuropean (especially male) line or would it rather be thousands of years of shared pre-IE neolithic farmer and hunter gatherer ancestry?

Maybe more the former? The neolithic farmers were not very evenly distributed across Europe, were they?

[Creoda]

So ultimately all Europeans are in proximity to one another if you zoom out. Of course if you want to zoom in you can make distinctions between Sweden, Denmark and Norway if you want to, but I'm referring to zooming out as in comparing the whole of Europe to other continents.

A great deal of ancestry is shared among all europeans (whether you're Italian, Irish, Latvian, Hungarian or German, and yes - Finnish too) to the extent that 23andme is unable to account for even up to 50% of the total genome if you set your ancestry composition to 90% conservative.

"Broadly European" then becomes dominant in most cases.

Indoeuropeans all share common ancestry going back 6.000 years (give or take) in the early Yamnaya and Corded Ware cultures (when proto-indoeuropean was still spoken).

However, neolithic and upper paleolithic populations of WHG and farmers were already in Europe for literally tens of thousands of years.

So the question is: Is the European population more connected via IE line (especially males?) or is it rather due to pre-IE populations that were already in Europe (which explains the diversity of mtdna?)

You're more related via the most recent ancestry you have in common, which for Europeans as a whole is the Aryan conquest.

[Caveat Emptor]

Maybe more the former? The neolithic farmers were not very evenly distributed across Europe, were they?

That's right as far as I know they weren't - however - they were spread across Europe just enough so that we all share a decent amount of our total genome from neolithic farmers. (And of course the hunter gatherers were everywhere for 40k years as far as I remember).

This makes me wonder whether the "localized" pre-indoeuropean populations of hunter gatherers and farmers are responsible for our genetic proximity - or whether in fact they are responsible for the inter-european diversity (assuming they didn't mix and became extremely localized during these 40k years before the arrival of indoeuropeans, if you know what I mean).

[Token]

European Hunter-Gatherer admixture is what makes European so close to each other and so distinct from others West Eurasians, to a certain extent it can be called a exclusively European component. Indo-European admixture is present almost everywhere in Eurasia.

[Caveat Emptor]

You're more related via the most recent ancestry you have in common, which for Europeans as a whole is the Aryan conquest.

Could it be the case then that the pre-IE paleolithic hunter gatherers and then the neolithic farmers (the former of whom could have spent up to 40.000 years in europe) be responsible for the diversity between the populations instead? I.e. Let's say Sweden at the time of IE arrival already had a large paleolithic and neolithic population, same with Greece, Britain, Spain etc. Would it be the case that while the IE were related, the pre-IE populations were really "localized" for possibly tens of thousands of years, and would therefore facilitate for the creation of distinct phenotypes and genetic diversity, in otherwise quite homogeneous IE populaton? i

[Caveat Emptor]

European Hunter-Gatherer admixture is what makes European so close to each other and so distinct from others West Eurasians, to a certain extent it can be called a exclusively European component. Indo-European admixture is present almost everywhere in Eurasia.

But would it not be the case instead that the paleolithic / neolithic populations that predated IE by thousands of years were genetically and phenotypically really "localized"? While IE population was quite homogeneous as they arrived from the Yamnaya and Corded Ware recently?

[Proto-Shaman]

Indo-European = Old Europe = non-CM