:The PC 1 gradation could or not show Neolithic influence. I have already provided links that strongly suggest that it is very unlikely. Part of it could be Neolithic and part of it could be much more ancient. If it were Neolithic, it would have its lowest gradient in Atlantic Europe, where Neolithic was weakest and most tardy, yet it doesn't. PC 4 instead does. Whatever RR says, it's not so clear how to read some of these PCs, all but PC 3 (likely IE) and PC 5 (clearly Basque) rise more questions than give clear answers. 
Neolithic genetic influence doesn't need to be not European in origin. European Neolithic started in Thessaly and the alleged links with West Asia (particularly beyond Turkey) are rather unclear. So PC 1 could perfectly be part of the Paleolithic European inheritance, maybe reinforced with new Neolithic input too. 
PC 4 is weakest precisely in the less "Neolithized" areas of Europe: Britain, Britany and Basque Country. Greeks definitively did never colonize anything outside the Mediterranean shores, so the explanation of RR is very weak. It may not say who's "more European" (Balcanic peoples are clearly European however you look at it) but it may say who's more neatly Western European genealogically. It is very concordant with Y-DNA, btw. 
PC 3 (Indoeuropean probably) also shows a gradient and this shows who is more Western European too (in this case Basques and Iberians). This pattern is curiously inverted by PC 5. 
PC 1 and PC 2 instead show less clear patterns, what surely implies they are older and have hitchhiked other migrations if anything. They do show some correlation with SW Asia and NW Asia respectvely and they make up the 50% of European genetic pool (while the other three together only add up to 23%). 
PC 2 patterns show as much Asian influence as PC 1 and they can well be seen as a complementary, one centered in NW Asia and the other in SW Asia, both decreasing towards the west, the same that happens with PC 3 and PC 4. All 4 show historical Asian or Eastern European influence "against" a nearly invisible Western core, best represented (maybe) among Basques. The pattern is pretty clear, the explanations maybe not so much. 
On the other hand the "Basque" PC 5 is still strong in Eastern Europe but weakest in a central strip from Balcans to Scandinavia. 
So you tell me: which of these 5 components is more distinctly European if any? The more I think about it the more confuse it seems...
Why do you defend one tentative explanation of European genealogies over others? Do you have good reasons? Studies maybe? 
The only thing we know for sure is that all European lineages of all sorts, autosomal or halpoid, have links to West Asia. The weakest ones those that are +/- exclusive of Basque and Atlantic Europeans possibly. 
All European components are strong in West Asia. You want to make a one sided view of what is European but what those maps show if anything is that there are at least five sides and all are strongly present in Western Asia. 
Now it's your turn: show me what makes Europeans so distinct. You owe me that explanation and proof since long ago.
You have been obstructing this article from a viewpoint that you still are unable to prove beyond a most questionable dictionary quote. Give evidence or yield to reason.