The spread of Slavs. Proto-Slavic ancestry percentage. Detailed Edition: Every Year 400 - 2023
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 окт 2024
- This map shows the spread of the Slavs from dense Polesie to the most of Europe and northern Asia.
In this map were fixed bugs from the previous release and added new details.
Music:
Slavic Battle Music
Музыка для RUclips Avexer ex PaperCut Music Prod Spirit Of The East
Farewell of Slavianka Instrumental
Financial support:
Card:
Mastercard
5168 7422 4123 3489
Russians make up the majority in 72 (out of 85) federal subjects.There is not a single region of Russia where Slavs would not live. The entire map should be colored from very saturated (mostly) to very pale areas (there are a few). But there are no empty white areas. If you need to see the percentage, then see the wiki "Численность русских". Redraw again)
hell, even me a "pure tatar" has got 80 percent of the east slavic genes, yet the tatarstan area is as white as my palm, curious...
@@LeoKADR Of course, but the author of the video, apparently, is very far from our realities)
Russians have more "Mongolic" genes than Slavic.
On this map, I have drawn the average percentage of Slavic ancestry genetically in the Russian population of Siberia. It does not show the percentage of Russians among the local population. In fact, each area shows the most numerous nation in the region and not the percentage of this nation among other nations.
Here is the source from which I drew Russians in Siberia
www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/2201473X.2011.10648802
@@LeoKADR Of course, there is a mixed population in the same Tatarstan. However, in general, Tatars do not have a genetic contribution from Russians. If they had it, I would give them a color like to the Aleuts and Tlingit
Are you sure that Siberian Russians too homogeneous? Because there are some mixed populations between Russians and Native Siberians(Kamchadals, Dolgans, Gurans, Karyms, Russian old-settlers etc). And some Siberian Russians are related with Russians of Northern Europe.
I'm not sure. The fact is that only the European part of Russia is genetically known, while the genome of Russians of Siberia is completely unknown.
So it remains only to study the origin of Russians of Siberia only according to the sources and the number of settlers.For example, the origin of the Russians in the Sverdlovsk oblast is not very well known. In the 17th century it was probably settled by Russians from the Russian North. However, since the 18th century, when mining was founded, Russians from Moscow and the surrounding regions began to settle here. From who Russians of Sverdlovsk oblast are descended mainly i dont know.
As for Kamchatka, the modern Russian population there is mostly newcomer, moreover, from Soviet times. So you can compare the number of Russians in 1917, which was 35,600 people, with 1991, which was 478,541 people. Thus, the average heritage of the local population in the Russians of Kamchatka is unlikely to have any amount.
Although we do not know the heritage of the native inhabitants to the Russians of Siberia, we can assume its percentage from a similar Russian colonization of Volgograd and Nizhny Novgorod. so from the Turks or the Finno-Ugrians they have 5% - 10% of ancestry. It can be assumed that the legacy from the local population to the Russians of Siberia is approximately the same
actually the most of siberian russians are of european russian origin, even more, siberian russians have more polish and german blood than the of the native siberians.
Russijans in sibirija are effectively a russijan speaking mix of the people of the Europian part of the Russijan Empire.
Great vid. The intro music is a real headbanger.
hey i just subscribed yesterday and then you made this. This is an incredible concept and I think you should do this for other ethnolinguistic groups. Maybe germanics next time
I work as hard as I can!
What fascinates me about the slavs is how late their arrival is to the historical theater compared to other nations like the germans and the celts, yet they are the most succesful in spreading their bloodline from Berlin to Vladivostok. I wonder what are the reasons ethic expansion and migrations happen in quick successions one after the other(celts-germans-slavs) anyone had any ideas?
I don't know. Maybe the fact that eastern europe was relatively empty and did not have any already great group. Western europe had germans, celts and other groups fight for dominance. Eastern europe was barren and empty. Not to mention that siberia was right next to them.
@@Veriox22 Not only that, but Eastern Europe was also populated by Germanic tribes. When they left to the west, the vacuum created was filled by Slavs
@@Veriox22 Siberia was not vacant however - and fierce against Russian invasions, thing is, Slavs had access to steady agriculture that Siberians lacked - thus Slavs could rise up in numbers and dominate the Turks/Yeniseians/Mongols easily.
Cossacks settling colonies all across Siberia/Central Asia didn't helped things
Considering how far spread the Germanic / Celtic people are, they literally spread over the whole US, Canada, Austrlia, New Zealand and large parts of Southern Africa not to mention Argentina and South Brazil. I'd say they were probably the most widespread followed by the Spanish, Italian and Portuguese and then Slavs.
@@mdl2427 interesting that you group germanics and celts together. Is this because the fall of the roman empire made these 2 peoples mix and form a unique celto-german group of nations stretching from Iberia to Britain to France?
This is a much improved version compared to the previous one!
Firstly, there are no "Russians" in the video in 1200 (which was absurd and + made Ukrainians and Belarusians supposedly descendants of Russians). And also much more accurately indicated the resettlement of Russians in Siberia, along the southern border of Russia.
"Russian" is a term derived from Ruś which means Ruthenian. Belarus means white ruthenia and ukrainians are red ruthenian. Russia is Rossiya and mostly muscovites. Belarussian and Ukrainians r actual "Russians". Russia stole the term and again is rewriting history.
@Rōnin Eastern Slavs never called themselves "Ruthenian", in the literature of Ancient Rus' you will find many mentions of "Rus'" or its genitive case - "Russkie", "Russkiy" or "Rous'kyi" but never "Ruthenian". The word "Rus'" itself is a loanword from the Finnish "Ruotsi" (which means "Swedes" in modern Finnish) which in itself derived from the Norse "röpsmann", literally translated as "oarsmen", which means "seafarers", a word used by Finnish tribes to designate Northern Germanic seafaring traders and warbands. The word was adopted into the Eastern Slavic language following the same phonetic rules other Finnish words follow when adopted by Slavs, for example Suomi became "Sum', Komi became Kem' and Jäämi became Yem', therefore Ruotsi=Rus' is the most likely etymology of this word.
Thus the Finnish name for Vikings became the name of the entire group of Eastern Slavic tribes as a Norse warband supposedly led by one named Rurik established the political control over the territories along the Baltic-Black Sea trade route. Initially the word Rus' was used to refer to this new ruling warrior class consisting of rapidly slavicizing Norsemen and local nobility who joined them, later it became associated with just the Rurikid dynasty and its descendants, the majority of population were reffed to as "Russkie" which is the genitive case of the word "Rus'" and literally means "one of Rus'" or "one who belongs to "Rus'" depending on the social context. Thus, in the medieval times an Eastern Slavic commoner who would call himself "Russkiy" would indicate that his liege is one of Rus' and a noble calling himself "Russkiy" would indicate that he is a descendant of Rus' and therefore of noble birth. Eventually both meanings blended and lost their original connotations and this "dynastic" identity replaced the old tribal ones, somewhat similar to modern Chinese "Han'" or old Korean "Han" where the name of a prominent dynasty became the name for their subjects.
Also if the name and history of Ukrainians was "stolen" from them it seems strange how they just swallowed and accepted this insult without any resistance, otherwise why don't they call their country Rus' and themselves Russian? Aren't those are their true names which they must wrestle from the hands of the thieves?
@@egorkoshevoy6694 The area was dominated by Poles for centuries. Ruś is a Polish word. Belorusian and Ukrainian languages are grammatically more similar to Polish than Russian. Again, They are the real Russians. In all these languages Russia is Rossiya (Rosja).
@@ronin36963 excuse me, but could you provide at least some linguistic or historical evidence that could prove the Polish origin of this word? I heard my share of ludicrous theories from history freaks about the etymology of the word "Rus'" but yours is frankly unheard of.
You can repeat that the Ukrainians had their true name stolen but their quiet acceptance of it is as pathetic as it is puzzling, if we consider it as truth of course.
@@egorkoshevoy6694 the word itself is Polish. Look up Ruthenia and learn. It's not a theory. Its history. And the name of Ukraine literally means "here in our country/land" and Belarus is white ruthenia. I believe it was Ivan III, tsar of Velikoye Knyazhestvo Moskovskoye or Grand Duchy of Moscow that stole the word and declared himself great tsar of all Russia. The lands of Poland named Ruś had different names such as Ruś Halicka (Galicia), Ruś Biała (White Ruthenia, now in Belarus), Ruś Czarna (Black Ruthenia, part of modern Belarus), Ruś Czerwona (Red Ruthenia, now part of southeast Poland and western Ukraine), and Ruś Podkarpacka (Subcarpathian Ruthenia). Again, dont go by the Russian version as they oppressed these people after invading their lands and stole the term.
Thank you for showing the truth, there were no "Macedonians" before '45!
LoL, Lmao even
Do you have an email address where I can contact you privately?
Where did you get percentage of ProtoSlavic ancestry in East Germany?
One thing I must mention is that the "Seven Slavic Tribes" who lived in modern day North Bulgaria were resettled by the early non-slavic bulgarians into what is modern day South Romania. They were resettled there to serve as guards of the mountain passes through the Carpathian mountains by khan Asparukh around 681 AD. Another slavic tribe that also lived in modern day North Bulgaria were the Severi and they too were resettled around that time to the Balkan Mountain range to the south of the Khanate of Bulgaria to serve as guards of the mountain passes there. We don't really know what slavic tribes existed in Moesia post-bulgarian invasion. The territory itself was part of the inner-country, the "sarakt" which was under the direct centralized control of the bulgarian khan unlike the outer country which was made up of autonomous tribal entities called "slaviniy", led by a slavic chief "knyaz" and a bulgarian governor "tarkan". The slaviniy were removed by Khan Omurtag who centralized the khanate into something of an absolute monarchy with governors called "komita" being placed directly by the khan to rule certain administrative regions, with any trace of the slavic tribal identities basically gone by that point as they were assimilated into the bulgarian society.
Interesting, nitpicking aside, this is very good.
1. You shown modern Bulgarians with 30 pct. P-Slavic ancestry, what's the other 90 pct. is composed of?
2. How Bulgharic/Oghuric (P-Turkic/Pre-assimilation Bulgars) are Bulgarians now?
I've found a source claiming M Bulgarians had 3 pct. or less Bulgharic ancestry, but if you have admixture data on Slavs, it'd be better if you came and tell us.
3. It'd be in your favor if you shared the admixture/PCB data in the description
I calculated that the Bulgarians are at 27% Proto-Slavs, 11% Proto-Germans, 52% Paleo-Balkans, 10% Bulgars.
Modern Southern Slavs genetically stand between Albanians and Kashubians. But the Bulgarians are directed right in the PCA.
i.imgur.com/nRovN6H.png
The genome of the Bulgars was probably similar to the genome of the Khazars, who belonged to the Saltovo-Mayaki culture
media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-018-0094-2/MediaObjects/41586_2018_94_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Their genome shows almost the same identity as the modern North Caucasians. In other matters, even the late Avar genomes show a connection with the North Caucasus, apparently from the Oghurs
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35366416/#&gid=article-figures&pid=figure-s1-uid-4
And if we draw a line from the Macedonians to the North Caucasians, we will notice that the Bulgarians stand in a wedge between them and consist at 92% as the Macedonians and at 8% as the North Caucasians, that is, as the Bulgars.
i.imgur.com/bYBQ9cy.png
drive.google.com/file/d/1AX1hEzeM1dRjYu21F6je2GNwo5j8Q_1j/view
drive.google.com/file/d/14Th31AHdvb9IN5VPj5zkGnDPD38okYTS/view
P.S.
I'm going to put on the community of my channel the genetic composition of modern Slavs and non-Slavic peoples that has Proto-Slavic ancestry.
@@The_Geographer_Maps Thank you for the reply. A quarter Slavic and the remainder being Thracian/Turkic is understandable, but where did the Germanic admixture came from? Perhaps from Viking/Varangian traders settling in?
Similarity to M Northern Caucasus is very intriguing. You have merit, hopefully your channel will reach to more people.
@@amacsizbirkisi Although it is generally believed that the Slavs entered the Balkans both via the Dniester and the upper Danube, Genetic evidence suggests that only one road via the upper Danube is considered more likely. Before reaching the upper Danube, the Slavs assimilated the remaining Germanic tribes after the great migration period in Poland and Czech and Slovakia.
Archeology says that from 200 CE, from modern Ossetia, the Alanian tribes spread throughout the Pontic-Caspian steppe, at least as far as Rostov-on-Don
@@The_Geographer_MapsCould you tell me what populations contriubted to romanians in that 60%? Im really curious
Very cool update
And regarding this video, these completely white areas in Russia are indeed a massive mistake. There are literally Russian majority of Slavic ethnicity living in the areas you painted as completely white...
With that massive mistake honestly I don't trust the rest of this video and that one Indo-European spread video is doubtful considering this as well, making me think what are your sources, that are for real saying there are completely 0 slavic genes in areas surrounded AND inhabited by Russian majority.
In this case, do not trust ethnic maps.
qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e6c035e0b9681f3f20f73621c30a7d7f
www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/2201473X.2011.10648802
If you are not satisfied with the fact that the far northern Russians have 0% of Slavic ancestry, then this is scientifically proven
qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-1bd682d8e9743b047d0ecd8cd2a24962-lq
Or you can not trust at it
@@The_Geographer_Maps I mostly of course meant the Republic of Tatarstan and surrounding areas.
@@Kokonut-er4tk Maybe in Tatarstan it was necessary to designate 6% as shown in the latest study
ruclips.net/video/bhjMlRlIA7w/видео.html
These are obviously not Slavs on the map, but Uralic.
what?
What were the changes here?
Ruthenians instead of russ8ans all the time
Ah
Weakly noticeable corrections in Europe (except "Russians") and a detailed map of the settlement of Siberia in the 20th and 21st centuries
That is not accurate, it seems you based this on an old research that did not take into account latest genetic breakthroughs. Poland has the highest concentration of R1A which is the gene of Slavs also known as Aryans. Slavs were inhabiting these lands for centuries before the fall of Rome.
This map is not based on haplogroups but on PCA. Here is the source
i.imgur.com/nRovN6H.png
In addition, Germans lived in Poland during the Roman Empire.
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/Roman_Empire_125.svg/1024px-Roman_Empire_125.svg.png
@@The_Geographer_Maps Recent DNA evidence disproves this. Germanic tribes possessed R1b haplogroup. Territory of Poland was inhabited by R1a haplogroup.
There are multiple articles regarding the R1a in Nature magazine but I'm unable to link them.
@@piotrjasielski Just give the name of the article
@@The_Geographer_Maps I don't remember the exact names, but there where multiple articles on this matter. You can search terms such as 'R1a', 'Yamnaya', quite interesting reads. There are some YT channels discussing the topic as well.
@@piotrjasielski Would you mind giving the names of the yt channels?
I feel like a saw this vid recently. Did the old one get deleted?
It's just a new version
Who were the peoples in the white dots in the territory of the Vlachs?
Today in Poland live about 500,000 silesians.
Remake your video about Indo-European spread please, there are fixes to be made, as said by most liked comments.
P.S. I really like it and it is still my favorite video of that kind.
I do not argue that the video turned out to be pretty bad, and from the very beginning I planned to make a high-quality version of this video, but this requires much more knowledge that I gain by making maps about individual peoples. If I had strived to make it detailed, then I would not have released it this year either
Slav must be united not separated by ota'n te great divider
Are u slavyanin?
The Rus' (Old East Slavic: Роусь; Belarusian, Russian, Rusyn, and Ukrainian: Русь; Old Norse: Garðar; Greek: Ῥῶς, romanised: Rhos) were a people in early medieval eastern Europe.[1] The scholarly consensus holds that they were originally Norsemen, mainly originating from present-day Sweden, who settled and ruled along the river-routes between the Baltic and the Black Seas from around the 8th to 11th centuries AD. In the 9th century, they formed the state of Kievan Rusʹ, where the ruling Norsemen along with local Finnic tribes gradually assimilated into the East Slavic population, with Old East Slavic becoming the common spoken language. Old Norse remained familiar to the elite until their complete assimilation by the second half of the 11th century,[2] and in rural areas, vestiges of Norse culture persisted as late as the 14th and early 15th centuries, particularly in the north.[2]
This is not based on the new genetic and antropological findings. The Europe up to the Rhine River was settled by R1a slavonic aryan groups for at least 6 thousand years (french and german males are mainly non arian R1b haplogroup). The realy old R1a1a7 haplo is most prevalent in central Poland and Belarus (up tp 2/3 of males have it).
If it was 6000 years ago, those genes were not slavonic, but Indo European
@@Maus_Indahaus Slavs are Indo-European branch of R1A, the one that spans from central Europe to India. He is correct.
There is no doubt that those people whom you call "Slavs" were the ancestors of the modern Germans, the Celts and the Romans. Only they were a kindred people to the Proto-Balto-Slavs and Proto-Indo-Iranians, but not Slavs at all. There has simply been an increase of a minority of R1b-bearers among the Corded Ware due to the spread of the Bell Beaker culture, a descendant of the Corded Ware culture.
@The Geographer How R1b (that one branch wandered into subsahara) could produce older R1a Aryan haplogroup? There are slavonic names in Bavaria, including the river Lech. Numerous language evidence shows that old slavonic predates germanic languages. It is hard for aspiring Aryans to acknowledge that they are NOT and to be more related to Celts.
@The Geographer Most germans males belong to R1b haplogroup similar to Celts and Gauls. They COULD NOT produce the Aryan R1a Slavonic offspring. The nazis are turning in their graves as it completely contradicts their racial rumblings.
Data?
Do proto greek ancestry
After the Romance
Where is Kyiv Rus? They had access to the sea in the 11 and 12th centuries. (Prove me wrong.)
Despite the fact that the Eastern Slavs were under Kievan Rus, for a long time they were called not so much as Ruthenians but were called as their own tribes, therefore Rus' is not visible at that time in this map.
Although there were some ports in Black sea settled from Kievan Rus, the main population of the steppe was first Pecheneg and then Polovtsian
@@The_Geographer_Maps Wasn't Kievan Rus formed by the Vikings, and also included some Ugro-Finnic and other non-Slavic tribes? How can you then show Russians/East Slavs as 90-100% Slavic? That is just incorrect in many ways. Also, as they spread, they came into contact with many other nations. Cossacks even extensively mixed with nomadic tribes, especially their women.
@@Maus_IndahausDo you think that the small "Scandinavian" princely elite (who were culturally assimilated by the Slavs) and the small Finnish-speaking tribes that lived on the outskirts of Rus' were able to influence this? Or further conquest of large territories? There are many studies on this issue. If you are interested in this and you know Russian (one video has English subtitles), then I recommend watching these video essays, where the author uses scientific works on anthropology, ethnology and genetics: 1.ruclips.net/video/fhuXaw4m4Q4/видео.html 2.ruclips.net/video/L-6a6z1e9G4/видео.html
The Russian ethnic group does not genetically differ from other East Slavic and even West Slavic populations. And the influence of other peoples is either very low, or practically non-existent. So the map that was made is very reliable.
Hungarians are more slavic than Czechs? !
they do preserve more slavic ancestry but most of them dont speak a slavic language so they aren't slavs.
Russia language slavic-Mongol two remix
the % are too high in most of Russia, I saw studies shwoign, that central western russians are much closer to Poles and Slovaks than any other russians, beacuse Russia is a lot Slavic, but also very many people are russified and slavicized ugrofins, turkics, and many more peoples.
Nonsense map
Exactly! That guy showed uralics like first Slavs.
do germanic ancestry percentage next.
Everyone is asking for the Germans, gotta do it!
There is no Slavic DNA. Slav is a linguistic and cultural term.
Just made it worse. If you are scared of butthurt Ukrainians just call it Rus', why make a sudden Ruthenia in the 13th century? Why is half of Russia white when Russians are the majority in almost all regions? Also slavic presence in the Baltics has been there for like a milleniium now. Just weird and inconsistent. Your map makes it look like Alaska has more Russian ancestry than Karelia whis is like 90% ethnically Russian lol.
This map is a bit wrong. It shows "ruthenians" as one ethnicity, spead from the lands of ukranians to the lands of russians.
In reality north territories of today's Ukraine and southern ones of today's Belarus were called Rus with people, living there, called "ruthenians".
North territories of Rus were called "Zalissia" and in todays terms they can be considered as a colony. I am not saying that there weren't slavic tribes, but you should consider aswell the fact that lots of finn tribes inhabited that area. So the population of that territory was more of a mix between slavs and finns.
People in modern Russia were also called "Ruthenians", for example, the Tver merchant Afanasy Nikitin called himself "Ruthenian".
Many Finnish tribes were assimilated by the coming Slavs and make up an average of 5% - 15% in the region. So you can call the central and southern Ukrainians a mix between Slavs and Turks, since they have 5% - 10% of Turkic ancestry, since the Turks lived there.
ruclips.net/video/bhjMlRlIA7w/видео.html
qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-1bd682d8e9743b047d0ecd8cd2a24962-lq
There also people indo european à little turc 5per cent about
Are you talking about Ukrainians and Russians of the steppes?
Such a BS Chanel!
Bruh, Ruthenians are Ukrainians and Belarusians, by no means Russians
And how then did the Russians call themselves at that time?
@@The_Geographer_Maps There was no national identity among population at that time.
@@The_Geographer_Maps Firstly, Rus is only its southern part, all other territories are ordinary colonies that paid tribute, this is confirmed by the annals. Secondly, this term was used only in relation to the population living in the territory that is currently located in the west of Ukraine.
@@nazzyyoo1192 Then why did the 15th century Tver merchant Afanasy Nikitin call himself "Ruthenian"?
Antes not slavs
Non-Slavic people with noticeable Slavic ancestry are included as well.
Very interesting. I love the history of Slavs❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥