Realizations

i'm rather lacking in my knowledge of european anthropology

That first image you linked is actually pretty interesting, but I would reclassify the bottom value into risk factor. That captures the idea a lot better imo.

Ones on the right are more likely to take risky decisions, possibly resulting in death (cultural or otherwise) but also possible great wealth and rewards, while ones on the left are more likely not to take risks, resulting in more likely survival (cultural or otherwise) but less rewards. Not to be confused with conservative/liberal or traditional/progressive

...

Weak bait shill.

The Aryans never successfully displaced the ancient middle-eastern farmers from southern Europe, they only replaced their ruling classes. The majority of Southern Europeans were never truly white.

Portraits of Romans, by Romans

I have to say, I've felt at times Italians look Indian.

What's your point?

sage

All of their portraits look like this.
And they had one of the largest empires in the world.

These folks are kebabs. For some reason, Northern Italians didn't make portraits, or at least, their portraits haven't survived.

Nordist-cuck detected.

Yamnaya/Aryans (Indo-Europeans) looked mostly like Southern Europeans but they were more darker pigmented in skin and eyes than contemporary Southern Europeans according to genetic studies.

dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/03/natural-selection-and-ancient-european.html

dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-story-of-69-ancient-europeans.html

Yamnaya Indo-Europeans received blonde hair and blue-eye traits after mixing with Eastern European hunter-gatherers and their cousin Scandinavian hunter-gatherers, who were non-Indo-Europeans.

"If anything, it seems that the "fairest of them all" were the Scandinavian hunter-gatherers, and a combination of light/dark pigmentation was also present in Neolithic farmers and Western Hunter Gatherers in various combinations."

sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin

More Nordist-cucks twisting genetic studies to suit their propaganda.

Southern Europe had advanced civilization before Indo-European invasion. They even had writing system unlike Indo-Europeans. They laid foundations to European civilization while Northern Europeans were bunch of hunter-gatherers, you were not Indo-Europeans either you stupid nordcuck.

Look into : Vinča civilization, Minoan civilization, Sicanian civilization, Basque civilization and Iberian civilization

Again, you were not Indo-Europeans either, you stupid nordcuck. Just another population who mixed with them. Indo-Europeans don't exist in "pure" form anywhere but if ancient Indo-Europeans existed today, they wouldn't look that different from Southern Europeans.

nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/abs/nature14317.html
dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-story-of-69-ancient-europeans.html

Yamnaya were genetically closer to the European hunter-gatherers than the middle-eastern farmers were. They already shared many phenotype characteristics.

This is misleading phrasing. The Yamnaya were still whiter than the farmers.

Poland is the most Aryan lol

This is true, but Southern Europeans are objectively genetically inferior to Northern Europeans. You must take into account the fact that Southern Europeans have outnumbered northern Europeans by a factor of 10-to-1 until the heavy plow was introduced into northern Europe during the late middle-ages, massively increasing the agricultural productivity of the rocky soils of Northern Europe and for the first time allowing the north to become demographically competitive with the south. Once the population density of Northern Europe caught up with that of Southern Europe, Northern Europe rapidly overtook the south in every category of civilizational complexity.

Yamnaya Indo-Europeans were Caucasus hunter-gatherers who later mixed with Eastern European hunter-gatherers, I never said they were Neolthic farmers.

Only reason Nordic/Baltics show up closer to ancient-Indo-Europeans is because of Caucasus hunter-gatherers in Yamnaya ancestry.

nature.com/ncomms/2015/151116/ncomms9912/full/ncomms9912.html

They came to share Nordic characteristics because they mixed*** with Eastern European hunter-gatherers and Scandnanvian hunter-gatheres.

Yamanaya Indo-Europeans did not have any genetic allies for blue eyes or blond hair (HERC2/OCA2), only Scandinavian hunter-gatherers did.

Northern Europeans already had those traits before Indo-European invasion from steppe.

sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin

That's bullshit but I believe it.

This is Semantics. The Aryans were descended from Eastern European hunter-gathers who had conquered an Armenian-like farming population somewhere near the Caucasus.

All built on foundations laid by Southern Europeans aka Latin/Hellenic civilizations.

Only reason you know anything about existence of your ancestors is because of Hellenic, Roman and later Christian records since your Germanic ancestors din't know how to record their own history, let alone write literature and philosophy that led to modern civilization.

The mustard race

To be fair, the Roman language and most of the Roman elite were Aryan, and the Latin alphabet was a derivative of the Phoenician script.

Man-for-man, the Northern European was always superior to the Southern European. It was not until relatively recently that Northern European agricultural technology had developed to a point were dense urban populations could be supported in the North. After this point, Southern Europe ceased to be competitive with Northern Europe.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carruca

Regardless of what they were, Aryans "looked" like Southern Europeans, not Nordics according to 2015 genetic studies.

"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.: - 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. Surprisingly, given their pastoral lifestyle, there was little evidence of lactase persistence.

I repeat

"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."

biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433

Pics related : Get back in your huts now, nordic-supremacists.

Snownigger peddling nordicism fantasy.

Only reason Germanics have organised literature and society today is because Holy Roman Empire took pity on you in 11th century, or else you would be no different than refugees coming to Southern Europe today, because that's exactly what your Germanic ancestors were trying to do through out history.

Pic related : your ancestors only contribution to Europe.

Dumb swede.

Huh?

Germany == Holy Roman Empire

pic related : This is how you would still be living if Southern Europeans din't civilize you.

Holy Roman Empire = Civilized Latin Culture

There is no such thing as Germanic culture, it does not exist, they din't record their own history.

Skin and hair color are just useful proxies for Aryan traits such as; physical strength, warrior spirit, bravery, chivalry, nobility, discipline, restraint, stoicism, agency, honesty, creativity, intelligence, compassion, thrift, industriousness and orderliness. In contrast, Southern Europeans are relatively small-bodied, garrulous, corrupt, dumb, lazy, cowardly and disorganized. Skin color in itself is completely irrelevant, if Nords had skin color darker than the darkest nigger, they would still be superior to Sicilians and modern Greeks.

And southern Europeans were in turn "civilized" by middle-easterners. Useful technologies and institutions tend to radiate out of densely populated regions, more people = more innovation. Just as Southern Europe supplanted the middle east in terms of civilizational complexity, so did Northern Europe supplant Southern Europe.

The northern climate in general and practicing northern agriculture in particular, has an extremely eugenic effect on a population. Even northern Japanese are taller, smarter and less violent than southern Japanese.

evoandproud.blogspot.com/2013/10/japan-north-south-cline-in-mental-and.html

Northern Japanese women are also considered to be the most beautiful. Akita province is basically the Scandinavia of Japan.

tokyobling.wordpress.com/2011/11/05/akita-beauty/

jpninfo.com/44317

HUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUE

what's wrong with that? looks cozy

Brennus did nothing wrong.

lol

You are living in germanic civilization. The machine you are posting on the website you browse the medicine you use. We outdid the Roman's hundreds of years ago.

mfw I realized the British are not trustworthy because they declared war on the one man that tried to stop Jewish supremacy.

See how this works, you faggot?

Both misconceptions.

Long before the collapse of Roman civilization, the Romans imported enormous numbers of slaves from Barbary/Egypt/Syria. Then when these area fell to Muslims, many refugees fled to Europe. So Mediterranean Europe was dark before the raids started.

But the original Aryan replacement was pretty total (outside of islands like Sardinia). You can see in the yDNA that after the Aryan culture entered, the pre-Aryan yDNA distribution disappears and is replaced with the common Indo-European haplotypes

I was under the impression that European Neolithic farmers are genetically distinct from contemporary middle eastern peoples. Do you have any genetic data which suggests that population movements within recorded history have significantly effected the gene pools of contemporary southern Europe? (other than sicily and southern Spain/Portugal)