LIBRARY
The WHG, EEF & WSH Origins of Europe
The three groups that modern Europeans descend from are listed by the geneticists as the Western Hunter Gatherers (WHG), the Early European Farmers (EEF) and the Western Steppe Herders (WSH).
They do their best to give us the impression that we are very mixed, of course in an attempt to make us accept their "anti-racist" agenda; more mass immigration to Europe and more admixture.
One thing I find puzzling is how many relate to this info as if the WHG lived in that part of Europe, the EEF in another, and the WSH came from today's Ukraine and spread out. As if they just popped out of the ground there. In the background looms the "Out of Africa" theory, suggesting that Africans migrated to Europe during the height of the last Ice Age and out-competed the Neanderthals already living there – a theory so utterly ludicrous it is only worth mentioning, because so many believe in it. But no, we already have evidence of mankind being present in Europe before, in today's Bulgaria, and there are no evidence suggesting the Neanderthals came from Africa – or that their forebears, the Heidelbergensis, came from Africa. Any such claims are purely speculative. Remember that.
Also, the idea that these three groups were so very different from Each other is rather flawed. In reality all these groups, the WHG, the EEF and the WSH, are the descendants of the proto-Europeans; the Neanderthals. The EEF were somewhat hybridized already, at least with homo sapiens (Africans), the WSH too were somewhat hybridized, at least with proto-Asians (Denisovans) and the WHG were probably not hybridized at all, or only had some slight admixture from the Ice Age before the last one.
When a certain percentage of a population in modern Europe can be traced to the different groups, it doesn't mean that that population is a very hybridized population though. The percentage of EEF in a population, for example, doesn't actually mean that this is the percentage of non-European blood in that population. No, it only means that this is the percentage that population has from that particular Neanderthal population, the EEF, and that particular Neanderthal population probably had only a small percentage of non-Neanderthal blood to begin with.
E.g. Fictional Example Population made up of:
WHG 50%
EEF 20%
WSH 30%
If the EEF and WSH population was e. g. 10% non-Neanderthal this means that only 5% (2% + 3%) of the blood in that fictional example population is non-Neanderthal. Also, if that population lived in the North of Europe, where the Neanderthal genes will be the most useful, if might well mean that of the EEF and WSH blood, only the Neanderthal part of it would survive and stay there. So in fact, my fictional example population above here, could well be like that, and still be 100% Neanderthal in origins.
Even if we say all of Europe used to be one large population, a mix between WHG, EEF and WSH, then we can easily explain how the different modern populations ended up looking so different, even if we disregard historical admixture. The populations living in Southern Europe would have had much less "weeding out" of non-Neanderthal blood after the last Ice Age ended, and the populations living in Northern Europe would have much more, perhaps a total, weeding out of any non-Neanderthal blood – and therefore ended up perfectly Nordic looking, with a 100% blue- or grey-eyed and blonde and fair skinned population. Even with ancestry back to the hybridized EEF and WSH, they would themselves not have any non-Neanderthal admixture in them.
The claim that "we are all mixed" is simply… wild speculations. And yes, what I say here is less speculative than that, because it would make sense, from what we know about vitamin D deficiency and our natural adjustment to the environment. Any "dark" genes would not survive in the North before modern medicine, even in the warm periods in between the Ice Ages. The only reason such genes survive in Northern Europe today, is because of modern medicine; vitamin D supplements in particular.
To those who now will argue that the Neanderthals were not "Nordic looking" I will simply make a claim, that yes, I cannot prove that using any scientific sources, but still: they were obviously Nordic looking. First of all, we can claim that they were because we, their descendants, are Nordic looking, secondly because if the Africans they claimed moved here became (as they claim) fair-skinned, blonde and blue-eyed after only 10.000 years in Europe, why would the Neanderthals, who lived here for 500.000 years, NOT become fair-skinned, blonde and blue-eyed? If we include their forebears, the Heidelbergensis, we can go even further, and say: why would they NOT become "Nordic" after 1.000.000+ years in Europe if black Africans supposedly became "Nordic-looking" after only 10.000 years of life here? Or if you like, 30.000 years?
The amount of non-Neanderthal admixture in a European population can be measured using simply by looking at them: how many non-Nordic features do they have? If they for generation after generation have a purely Nordic look, then we can assume that they have no admixture at all. If they look like Middle Easterners, we can assume that they have much admixture. If they look overwhelmingly Nordic, but have a few non-Nordic features, we can assume that they are overwhelmingly Nordic, but have some (almost no) admixture.
We don't need the politicized "science" of genetics to understand this.
Finally, yes, today we don't look exactly like the ancient Neanderthals did, but… of course we don't. We have changed with time, with changing climates, with agriculture, with civilization: with auto-domestication. We are still Neanderthals though, only modern ones. And yes, the Nordic looking modern Neanderthals have close to no or even no non-Neanderthal admixture.
They do their best to give us the impression that we are very mixed, of course in an attempt to make us accept their "anti-racist" agenda; more mass immigration to Europe and more admixture.
One thing I find puzzling is how many relate to this info as if the WHG lived in that part of Europe, the EEF in another, and the WSH came from today's Ukraine and spread out. As if they just popped out of the ground there. In the background looms the "Out of Africa" theory, suggesting that Africans migrated to Europe during the height of the last Ice Age and out-competed the Neanderthals already living there – a theory so utterly ludicrous it is only worth mentioning, because so many believe in it. But no, we already have evidence of mankind being present in Europe before, in today's Bulgaria, and there are no evidence suggesting the Neanderthals came from Africa – or that their forebears, the Heidelbergensis, came from Africa. Any such claims are purely speculative. Remember that.
Also, the idea that these three groups were so very different from Each other is rather flawed. In reality all these groups, the WHG, the EEF and the WSH, are the descendants of the proto-Europeans; the Neanderthals. The EEF were somewhat hybridized already, at least with homo sapiens (Africans), the WSH too were somewhat hybridized, at least with proto-Asians (Denisovans) and the WHG were probably not hybridized at all, or only had some slight admixture from the Ice Age before the last one.
When a certain percentage of a population in modern Europe can be traced to the different groups, it doesn't mean that that population is a very hybridized population though. The percentage of EEF in a population, for example, doesn't actually mean that this is the percentage of non-European blood in that population. No, it only means that this is the percentage that population has from that particular Neanderthal population, the EEF, and that particular Neanderthal population probably had only a small percentage of non-Neanderthal blood to begin with.
E.g. Fictional Example Population made up of:
WHG 50%
EEF 20%
WSH 30%
If the EEF and WSH population was e. g. 10% non-Neanderthal this means that only 5% (2% + 3%) of the blood in that fictional example population is non-Neanderthal. Also, if that population lived in the North of Europe, where the Neanderthal genes will be the most useful, if might well mean that of the EEF and WSH blood, only the Neanderthal part of it would survive and stay there. So in fact, my fictional example population above here, could well be like that, and still be 100% Neanderthal in origins.
Even if we say all of Europe used to be one large population, a mix between WHG, EEF and WSH, then we can easily explain how the different modern populations ended up looking so different, even if we disregard historical admixture. The populations living in Southern Europe would have had much less "weeding out" of non-Neanderthal blood after the last Ice Age ended, and the populations living in Northern Europe would have much more, perhaps a total, weeding out of any non-Neanderthal blood – and therefore ended up perfectly Nordic looking, with a 100% blue- or grey-eyed and blonde and fair skinned population. Even with ancestry back to the hybridized EEF and WSH, they would themselves not have any non-Neanderthal admixture in them.
The claim that "we are all mixed" is simply… wild speculations. And yes, what I say here is less speculative than that, because it would make sense, from what we know about vitamin D deficiency and our natural adjustment to the environment. Any "dark" genes would not survive in the North before modern medicine, even in the warm periods in between the Ice Ages. The only reason such genes survive in Northern Europe today, is because of modern medicine; vitamin D supplements in particular.
To those who now will argue that the Neanderthals were not "Nordic looking" I will simply make a claim, that yes, I cannot prove that using any scientific sources, but still: they were obviously Nordic looking. First of all, we can claim that they were because we, their descendants, are Nordic looking, secondly because if the Africans they claimed moved here became (as they claim) fair-skinned, blonde and blue-eyed after only 10.000 years in Europe, why would the Neanderthals, who lived here for 500.000 years, NOT become fair-skinned, blonde and blue-eyed? If we include their forebears, the Heidelbergensis, we can go even further, and say: why would they NOT become "Nordic" after 1.000.000+ years in Europe if black Africans supposedly became "Nordic-looking" after only 10.000 years of life here? Or if you like, 30.000 years?
The amount of non-Neanderthal admixture in a European population can be measured using simply by looking at them: how many non-Nordic features do they have? If they for generation after generation have a purely Nordic look, then we can assume that they have no admixture at all. If they look like Middle Easterners, we can assume that they have much admixture. If they look overwhelmingly Nordic, but have a few non-Nordic features, we can assume that they are overwhelmingly Nordic, but have some (almost no) admixture.
We don't need the politicized "science" of genetics to understand this.
Finally, yes, today we don't look exactly like the ancient Neanderthals did, but… of course we don't. We have changed with time, with changing climates, with agriculture, with civilization: with auto-domestication. We are still Neanderthals though, only modern ones. And yes, the Nordic looking modern Neanderthals have close to no or even no non-Neanderthal admixture.
Varg Vikernes
01.06.2020