750 words
Nordicists say that the Aryans, the Indo-Europeans, had blonde hair and blue eyes. Though, recent genetic evidence shows that the origin of the Indo-European language is from the Russian steppe, originating from the Yamnaya people. The originators of the Indo-European languages weren’t blonde-haired and blue-eyed, but dark-haired and dark-eyed. Better known as the ‘Kurgan Hypothesis’, this is now the leading theory for the origin of Indo-European people.
Haak et al (2016) showed that at the beginning of the Neolithic period in Europe (approximately 7 to 8 kya) that a closely related group of farmers appeared in Germany, Hungary, and Spain. These ancient populations were different from the indigenous peoples from the Russian steppe, the Yamnaya, who showed high affinity with a 24000-year-old Siberian sample. Approximately 5 to 6 kya, farmers throughout Europe had more hunter-gatherer ancestry than their predecessors from the early Neolithic, but the Yamnaya from the Russian steppe were descended from the Eastern European hunter-gatherers, but also from a population with Near East ancestry (Ancient North Eurasians, ANE). Further, the migration of haplotypes R1b and R1a traveled into Europe 5000 years ago.
The Late Neolithic Corded Ware culture from Germany trace approximately 75 percent of their ancestry to the Yamnaya, which confirms a massive migration from Eastern Europe to the heartland of the continent 4500 years ago. This ancestry from the Yamnaya persisted in all of the Europeans sampled up until approximately 3000 years ago, and is common in all modern-day Europeans. The researchers then conclude that this provides evidence for a steppe origin for some of the Indo-European languages from Europe.
As mentioned above, Haber et al (2016) show how, as I alluded to above, that the Yamnaya people share distant ancestry with the Siberians, which is probably the source of one of the three ancient populations that contributed to the modern-day European gene pool (Ancient North Eurasians, West European hunter-gatherers, and Early European farmers from Western Asia with the fourth population being the Yamnaya people).
Olade et al (2015) show that since the Basque people speak a pre-Indo-European language that this indicates that the expansion of Indo-European languages is unlikely to have begun during the early Neolithic (7 to 8 kya). They, like Haak et al, conclude that it’s in agreement with the hypothesis of the Indo-European languages coming out of the East, the Russian steppe, around 4500 years ago which is associated with the spread of Indo-European languages into Western Europe.
Finally, it is known that the Yamnaya people had dark skin (relative to today’s Europeans), dark hair, and dark eyes. Knowing what is presented in this article, this directly goes against the Nordicist fantasy of the blue-eyed, blonde-haired Indo-Europeans. Nordicists also like to claim that the Indo-Europeans had blonde hair and blue eyes, when genetic evidence goes directly against this claim:
For rs12913832, a major determinant of blue versus brown eyes in humans, our results indicate the presence of blue eyes already in Mesolithic hunter-gatherers as previously described. We find it at intermediate frequency in Bronze Age Europeans, but it is notably absent from the Pontic-Caspian steppe populations, suggesting a high prevalence of brown eyes in these individuals.
Further, the Yamnaya were a tall population. Since the Yamnaya had a greater genotypic height, it stands to reason that Northern European populations have more Yamnaya ancestry.
The Yamnaya herded cattle and other animals, buried their dead in mounds called kurgans, and may have created some of the world’s first wheeled vehicles. They were a nomadic population that, some linguists say, had a word for wheel. The massive migration into Western Europe from the Russian steppe contributed large amounts of North Asian ancestry in today’s Europeans. The Yamnaya are also shown to be the fourth ancient population that is responsible for modern-day Europeans.
Modern-day genetic testing is shattering all of these myths that are told about the origins of Europeans and Proto-Indo-European peoples and languages. The ACTUAL basis for most PIE languages is from the Russian steppe, from a relatively (to modern Europe) dark-skinned, dark-haired, and dark-eyed people who then spread into Europe 4500 years ago.
The Nordicist fantasies of the Aryans, the originators of Proto-Indo-European languages has been put to rest. It was originally proposed based off of myths and stories, mostly from ancient Indo-European cultures who were situated thousands of miles away from the original Indo-Europeans (the Yamnaya).
The Kurgan Hypothesis is now the theory that’s largely accepted by the scientific community as being the homeland of the Proto-Indo-Europeans. The Yamnaya people now make a fourth founding population for Europeans, with the other three being West European hunter-gatherers, Ancient North Eurasians, and Early European Farmers.
NotPoliticallyCorrect 
Reblogged this on ETC., ETC., & ETC..
LikeLike
This is hilarious, he using information from Khan who motto is discussion on all things brown and not a official geneticist, actually kalash are not closer to south Asian and have 50 percent steppe DNA just like Norwegian and two the modern phenotype was already common in corded ware who were about 33 percent blonde hair and blue eyes and androvono is even more than that according to real scientists, funny cuz blonde hair and blue eyes is a minority in yamnaya as the admixture graph in the 2015 study shows, 8 of 24 fatyanovo 2020 nature communication blonde hair and blue eyes with r1a-z93, you realize yamnya is all r1b and the Indo Aryans of India were r1a like German corded ware not like yamnya, there has recently been r1a found in Europe 2000 years before yamnya migrations, nature communication 2019 genetic history of south eastern Europe, 2009 nature communication on androvono 7 of 10 were blonde hair and blue eyes, 2020 battle axe culture, 6 of 11 blonde hair and blue eyes r1a, you realize that the oldest samples of blonde hair are 15k years old and over 10 samples over 7k years old exsist
LikeLike
um… this is unscientific.
(first wave – neolithic hunter gatherers)
Blue eyes first, but evolved for the same reason – feminine selection.
(second wave)
Light skin brown eyes and second for the same reason – feminine selection. and spead across teh entire eurasian plain from spain to china. From here all indo european cultures seem to split and evolve separately.
Yamna in the urheimat are pushed west into poland and the baltics by the S tribe, but eventually reclaim their territory.
(third wave)
Lighter, varied hair evolved third (it appears) for the same reason – feminine selection. The nordics and the Rus are the least ‘polluted’ european gene pools. so the myth is not false in the sense that they represent our ‘best’ gene pools, and the myth that the ancients were blonde, red, brown, and dark brown, and now rarely black, is merely a consequence of the DESIRABILITY OF PEDOMORPHIC evolution in whites. in other words, lighter, thinner, taller, women are more desirable. And this is what we see in the data.
LikeLike
No it’s not. Everything I’ve said is scientific.
Sexual selection was a driver in blue eyes, but blue eyes originated near the Black Sea 10kya.
You do know that the originators of the proto-Indo-European languages were the Yamnaya, dark-skinned (relative to today’s Europeans) and dark eyes and hair, this came out back in May. When the Yamna moved out of the Russian steppe 6500 ya, THIS is when the modern-day European phenotype coalesced, with the admixture from three populations. Moreover, there is the Anatolian hypothesis in which some of the PIE languages came out of the Middle East. Hell, the Yamnaya went south as well and into India. You know the ‘lost tribe of whites’ that alt-righters like to talk about, like the Nuristani and the Kalash people?
Wow!! Whites in the ME!! But wait…… They are genetically closer to South Asians and the ONLY reason they look similar to Europeans is because the phenotypes we racially code are recent. Quoting Razib Khan:
Also here’s a nice bonus for you since you seem to believe myths:
Myth-making.
The Yamna invaded; they were a warrior culture. They were the last population to make up modern-day Europeans.
….I’m convinced that alt-righters are retarded. What do you mean by ‘least polluted European gene pool’? What ‘best gene pools’? You do know that superiority is a retarded notion biologically speaking right? Claiming what you’re claiming means that evolution would be ‘progressive’, it however is NOT progressive.
Rarely brown, rarely black? Did you even read the Dienekes article I linked:
The Pontic-Caspian steppe populations=the Yamna.
Yes sexual selection occurs but this says nothing about the Yamna being the last population to make up modern-day Europeans.
Give this paper a read. You’re wrong. The Nordic phenotype didn’t appear until ~5kya. As I said, it’s a Nordicist fantasy that Nords were ‘Aryan’. It’s 2016 bro, the data is out there for you to read to see that you’re wrong and not hold on to these fantasies. Moreover, Nordic traits are recent so ancestry is less important than you think. Are you a race-realist or a race-mythist?
LikeLike
“superiority is a retarded notion biologically speaking right”
The individual and group that is best suited for the present environment is “superior.”
LikeLike
What you’re talking about is arbitrary. Then when the environment changes, that group is no longer ‘superior’ and it either has to change phenotypically or die. Organisms are either fit or unfit, not ‘superior/inferior’. The fact that environments constantly change and an organism will change based on the environmental changes or die out shows that superiority does not exist between organisms. It’s just organisms surviving, that’s it. And they will survive if and when the environment changes.
Would you say that ‘best suited’ for the present environment would be biological fitness?
LikeLike
“Would you say that ‘best suited’ for the present environment would be biological fitness?”
Are baby daddies the most fit?
LikeLike
The purpose of evolution is not production but reproduction (van den Berge, 1981). So evolutionarily speaking, they are the fittest as they’re making more copies of themselves.
LikeLike
So, we should look at politics as a debate over whether we should manipulate the social and economic environment, and if true, then a debate over which traits should be favored.
LikeLike
I agree. Like giving incentives for women to have children would be a good start. Say a tax break? Something along those lines. I believe our environment should be as close as possible to our ancestral environment–while still having the comfort of modernity of course. Though that’d need some delicate balancing.
LikeLike
Yamnaya are one of many Indo-European groups. The main scholar on PIE, the Lithuanian broad, suggested PIE was most likely Khvalynsk/Sredny Stog. Yamnaya are simply one of the first mass graves to be studied, they were one of the IE groups who likely had heavy contact with Makyop and Caucasus people, and were not around when significant IE invasions/events may have happened. Look up Bell Beakers, Unetice, Urnfield, Sintashta, Andronovo if you want IE groups that were actually around when European civilizations started forming.
LikeLike
Read this.
Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe
LikeLike
None of that claims Yamnaya is PIE, nor does it address my second point…
If you think Yamnaya were the Italics who moved from the north into Italy and spread R1b there subjugating the native Sardinian-like farmers, you have your time lines all mixed up.
LikeLike
Yes it does. Read it. The competing hypothesis is the Anatolian hypothesis.
The Yamna are related to those cultures.
I never said this.
LikeLike
To the Italian retard. Yamnaya are identified as LATE PIE according to the Kurgan hypothesis. Stredny strog and Khvalynsk are early PIE…they domesticated the horse but they didnt have wheeled vehicles like Yamnaya did. The wheel is ubiquitous in Indo European vocabulary and is considered by linguists to be crucial to late or classical PIE culture. As for proto Italics theyre dated to like 800 BC well more than 2000 years after late Proto Indo European existed. So no one knows their phenotype or ethnic or ancestral composition. But regarding the late proto Indo Europeans we know they were darker eyed and skinned than present southern Europeans, they were genetically tall, and they were roughly a 50/50 ancestral mix of local Eastern European Hunter Gatherers and newly arrived Caucasus Hunter Gatherers.
LikeLike
To Arch Hades:
Yamna, as I keep saying (and have provided the citation for) are responsible for a lot—if not most—PIE languages. See page 461-2 of this book excerpt:
The Yamnaya horizon exploded across the Pontic-Caspian steppes about 3300 BCE. With it, probably went Proto-Indo-European, its dialects scattering as its speakers moved apart, their migration sowing the seeds of Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Italian, Celtic, Armenian and Phyrigian.
Why don’t you ask EvolutionTheorist who the PIE speakers were.
Oops, Looks like it was People, not Pots
Does the Bronze Age Herald a Major Transformation in Human Dispersal Patterns?
The Indigenous People of Europe
Haak et al’s full graph
When did Whites Evolve?
LikeLike
quite interesting – do you reckon stonehenge was built by black people?
LikeLike
No.
LikeLike
I think it was. I am white BTW. All the DNA indicators suggest that the European neolithic was black
LikeLike
Source?
LikeLike
max planck institute
LikeLike
Oh NTW …. source for your ‘No’?
LikeLike
Can you provide the source? I can’t find it.
Britain’s neolithic farmers constructed Stonehenge.
LikeLike
The European neolithic was not white
https://www.mpg.de/8277380/menschheitsgeschichte-krause
You provide no sources BTW
LikeLike
To Simon,
And the link you gave proves nothing at all regarding the genetics of Europe’s Neolithic population by Genetics.
I HAVE found articles saying Mesolithic were dark skinned….but that doesn’t translate to Black automatically as they also has blue eyes, Neolithic Europeans were lighter.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29213892
The Skin type excluded, like in this article, was of the N. European variety.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/dna-study-unveils-secrets-sardinians-unique-ancestry-1615945
The closest modern people to Neolithic Europe are modern Sardinians.
As for the appearance of neolithic people being lighter than Mesolithic ones, replications of the observation.
http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/summer-2015/article/common-origins-of-neolithic-farmers-in-europe-traced
“Analysis of the genome from Cova Bonica has made it possible to determine the appearance of these pioneer farmers, who had light skin and dark eyes and hair. This contrasts with previous Mesolithic hunters who, as the man from La Braña in León (Spain)—recovered in 2014 by the same research team—has demonstrated, had blue eyes and a darker skin than current Europeans. ”
This was also Observed in a later study.
“Sequences in and around genes underlying the phenotypes hypothesized
to have undergone positive selection in Europeans indicate that
the Neolithic Aegeans were unlikely to have been lactase persistent
but carried derived SLC24A5 rs1426654 and SLC45A2 rs16891982
alleles associated with reduced skin pigmentation. Because our Aegean
samples predate the period when the rs4988235 T-allele associated
with lactase persistence in Eurasia reached an appreciable
frequency in Europe, around 4 kya (12–14), and because this allele
remains at relatively low frequencies (<0.15) in modern Greek,
Turkish, and Sardinian populations (15), this observation is unsurprising.
However, despite their relatively low latitude, four of the
Aegean individuals are homozygous for the derived rs1426654
T-allele in the SLC24A5 gene, and four carry at least one copy of
the derived rs16891982 G-allele in the SLC45A2 gene. This suggests
that these reduced-pigmentation–associated alleles were at appreciable
frequency in Neolithic Aegeans and that skin depigmentation
was not solely a high-latitude phenomenon (SI Appendix, SI12.
Functional Markers).”
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are right that the closest surviving DNA is in Sardinia. But that doesn’t mean they looked like Sards – the Sards have a big mix of genetics.
LikeLike
Purely out of interest – which is the later study mentioned in the last paragraph by you.
LikeLike
Phil, as far as I know, the farmers had dark skin relative to today’s Europeans. This holds true for the Yamna.
Simon, correct that the Neolithic farmers probably didn’t look like Sardinians. However, they do show the closest affinity to Otzi, for instance, and since they were genetically isolated on the island they hardly had gene flow from outside populations. So they are the best representative we have.
White skin evolved around 6500 years ago by the way. East Asians and Europeans diverged about 20 to 40kya as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My issues is not with whether white skin evolved 6.5k ago, it is when it got to Britain
LikeLike
I showed that Farmers built Stonehenge. Do you have a citation for Africans building it? I wasn’t able to locate one.
LikeLike
I certainly did not say ‘Africans’ built it
LikeLike
Excuse me. Do you have any evidence for the speculation? I strongly doubt that Africans built it. Why do you ask?
LikeLike
?
LikeLike
I don’t believe they did it. I don’t see the evidence that they did. I’m happy to be proven wrong with sufficient evidence however.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To Simon, Sorry I forgot to add the link.
Click to access 6886.full.pdf
LikeLiked by 1 person
To RR,
The Paper probably meant light relative to Mesolithic people, however that was just with Skin.
In terms of hair and eyes, they were dark in pigment.
Otzi was Actually Mesolithic, one of my papers shows that the Sardinians also absorbed mesolithic acestry as well which makes sense that they would regardless be the closest to Otzi.
Simon,
When you say “black” in regards to genetics, many people think that means “african”. I used Sardinians to show that the neolithic people are overall closer to Eurasians than Africans. I understood that tells us only so much on their appearance, hence why I used the allele studies.
If by “Black” as in dark skinned then technically yes either Mesolithic or Neolithic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am interested in learning more
LikeLike
The conundrum of Mesolithic people being Dark skin with blues eyes while Neolithic were light skin with Dark eyes tells me, and my more recent study hints at it, that it was positive selection adapting to the temperate climate of Europe from Anatolia.
Mesolithic people, in comparison, possibly only had alleles for blue eyes without light skin to aid them.
In Sardinia selection for both dark traits may’ve preferred for the low latitude.
BTW RR, you were right, it was Brown.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/03/pictures/110304-otzi-iceman-mummy-reconstruction-face-eyes-science-oetzi/
LikeLiked by 1 person
To Simon,
This link gives the basic history, as well as showing that a gradient existed between different hunter gatherers based on latitude in how light their genes were, as ones in ancient Sweden were lighter.
The light Skin Genes were in greater Frequency in Neolithic Farmers, but they were darker in hair and eyes as said before, and they were still darker than modern Europeans.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3028813/Europeans-dark-skinned-8-000-years-ago-Pale-complexions-brought-Europe-Near-East-study-claims.html
The Modern levels as seen today occurred with recent Bronze Age selection as RR’s article here points out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To Simon,
Just some recent speculation, that if Stonehenge was recreated by Neolithic Farmers in Briton then it would be be represented in Modern Inhabitant phenotypically by the “black irish”, people who appear to be phenotypical legacies of the neolithic invaders who were of Tall Meditteranean type similar to the basic “stock” of Spain, Portugal, and N. Italy.
Phenotype data on Med- types in Ireland
http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/Race_Face_Plates.htm
http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/3407518/1/
And supporting modern genetic data with supporting archaeology.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-12-30/dna-solves-mysteries-ancient-ireland
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/dec/28/origins-of-the-irish-down-to-mass-migration-ancient-dna-confirms
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/2/368.abstract
LikeLike
ah ok – thanks for this.
and all these links which I will look at tonight (work gets a bit fussy!)
LikeLike
I’m coming from Elf’s blog with links.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14615
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.br/search?q=yamnaya
https://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-genetic-architecture-natural-history-of-pigmentation/
http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/autosomaladna.shtml#pigmentation
You’re not a dumb guy, I know you can expand even further from here.
LikeLike
Thank you for the references. I’ll review them and get back to you by the weekend.
LikeLike
Here I cover the topic of contemporary Nordicists not being “Aryan,” physically or psychologically:
https://nordicistconfessions.wordpress.com/2021/10/15/why-nordicists-are-not-aryan/
As a former Nordicist, I agree with this well-cited post.
LikeLike