Markup /brabant/6810

Comment
The origins of the present-day european light hair and eyes must be sought in the Globular Amphora culture (GAC), which in racial categories was 70% Mediterranean (ANF) and 30% Paleo-European (WHG). It was the last 30% that caused episodes of blondism and blue eyes in the population, and their further spread among representatives of that culture was due to sexual selection, which clearly tells us not only about the advantage of light hair, but also that the Neolithic admixture found in modern Europeans, associated with the GAC, is more valuable and "higher" than other related cultures of Neolithic Europe. With the arrival of CWC, which subsequently absorbed this culture, the Indo-Europeans received and preserved these light features, further spreading them as they conquered, as can be seen in the example of the Indo-Iranian tribes. So, it turns out, that we have found some pattern, that Eastern Europeans are "eugenically worse" than Western ones, and that some farmers were "qualitatively better" than others. So, it also turns out that one of the sources of differences between the Balto-Slavs of the North-East and the Celto-Germans of the North-West is a possible difference in the admixture of Neolithic populations in their genome? Yes, we come to approximately this conclusion, studying the development of Indo-European cultures in Europe, be it the Bell Beakers or the Unetice culture (all genetically close to modern Germanics, although in fact they are the ancestors of the following Celtics and Italics), because they are somehow connected with the western part of the CWC, where interbreeding with farmers was quite widespread (and the main farmer population, increasingly encountered further west of the known culture, were the Globular Amphora). Genetic data confirm our thoughts — the Celto-Germanic peoples of the North-West are mostly descended from Neolithic groups associated with the globular amphora, while the Balto-Slavic North-East is almost not related to it (apparently, having received most of their fair features through a specifically Indo-European source). Thus, the hypothesis is confirmed, that, even having an equal number (or even more) of Northern European components (including local HG populations*), NEEs are inferior to NWEs in the quality of Neolithic components, which explains the superiority of the last over the first.
Summarizing, we come to the following conclusion about the hierarchy of European ethnic groups:
1. a. Germanics.
     b. Celtics (including French).
2. a. Baltics.
     b. Slavics (Eastern, Western) and also nations of Central Europe (Hungarians, Slovenes, Croats).
3. a. Western Mediterraneans (Spaniards, Italians, Portuguese).
    b. Balkans (Romanians (?), Albanians, Greeks, Serbs).

And remember what Lapouge had said: the taller the height, the larger the head, the more developed the skull on all sides, especially with light pigmentation - the higher the position and status.
*Understanding this fact also explains why most EHGs have some Mongoloid features, while the Yamnaya and other IE have none at all: they, like the Tarim mummies, come from the branch of ANE-related genetics that didn't receive an infusion of East Asian populations, but received a little Basal. Which is actually logical, considering the remoteness of East Asia from the PIE "Urheimat".