The history of spread of Indo-Europeans with the pertcentage of ancestry
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2024
- This map shows the distribution of the currently most widely spoken language in the world, and the genetic distribution of Proto-Indo-European speakers.
Music:
Slavic Battle Music
Hampus Naeselius - Hitman-s Inn
Battle Of The Creek by Alexander Nakarada
Financial support:
Card:
Mastercard
5168 7422 4123 3489
The guy right here in 3775 BC who woke up and said "hey let's go out" fathered the greatest conquest in history and perhaps, symbolically, conqueror of the world.
This video is false this migration happened out of india. Genetics, languages pottery all point to the same. This false history of aryan invasion is debunked now which was constructed by colonial west who couldnt except the fact that indians are the original aryans who conquered whole eurashia spread hinduism(later knows as pagan religions) and sanskrit the mother of all eurashian laguanges there and there wasnt just one out of india migration.
@@prafful_sahu I would try to learn some more if I were you. The evidence is overwhelming that the migration happened out of the Pontic-Caspian steppes, and Sanskrit is not the mother of all "eurashian" languages but is rather a descendant of Proto-Indo-European.
@@adamhutchings4023 no, migration happened out of india. They were danav clan worshiper of river godess Danu. Conquered whole eurashia named every river they came across as danu. Most eurashian rivers are corrupted form of word danu. Danube, dipper and probably 100 more. Places like ireland mother goddess is danu. They lived for few centuries in steppe region stopped following the dharma and became barbabric which led to genocide of local male polpulation in Europe called yamnaya invasion.
It is not what archeological sources says
@@adamhutchings4023 @Prafful_sahu's sources is one of these 3:
1. Fiction is my favorite kind of history.
2. Just trust me bro.
3. I made it the f... up.
Fun fact
Irish celtic godess Danu and godess Danu from Sanscrit texts not only share name but also domaian. Both being a water/river godess of fertility that lead it's children to new home.
Whoa can you give me more info about this
@@sahilsingh6048 It's on wikipedia. She's the most prominent godess of irish myths.
In Slavic mythology there is a Div's
Div before Christianisation used to meant just DIVine creature,
But after Christianisation,
It means just Demon
@@notfound9816DIV in today's Croatian means GIANT
See also all the river names starting Don/Dan
Some errors: 1. Proto-Anatolian shown two millennia too late at time after Hittite is already attested, 2. Tocharian branch not shown til after Andronovo despite us knowing the Tocharians split off well before the Aryans who are known to be the producers of the Andronovo culture, 3. You have the Vedic people just popping up at the time when the Rigveda is estimated to have been composed despite the fact that its language is full of archaicism from a time earlier than that. Mitanni already had an Indo-Aryan superstratum in the 1400s BCE which was much less linguistically archaic than the Rigveda. The Indic speakers were more likely to have entered modern Pakistan by around 1800 BCE.
Another error?
Metallurgy. I suppose he means metal working, and this did not start with the proto indo europeans
1. False. Anatolians appear at 4:22.
@@frenchimp Thats actually a lot worse, as the video makes them appeal 2 millennia too late as a proto language despite it being centuries after the first attestation of Hittite.
Great fact checking! This video is horribly littered with errors to the point it is basically misleading.
If you want more info on metallurgy see my comment but basically metallurgy is attested much much earlier in basically all the ancient centres (middle east, China, Egypt, india) well before indo Europeans.
@@caesumcrimson6381 Thanks! If I remember correctly metallurgy first pops up in the neolithic Levant.
Very underrated. Might be the best mapping video I've seen. Using movement in diverging strings and exclaves is one of the better methods I've seen used in this type of thing despite the lack of fluent animation. Well done. I'd love to see more mapping videos based by archaeology
Thank you! I continue to make archaeological maps. I also continue to work on animation.
This video still uses the now-outdated "Celts = Hallstatt and La Tene" theory when no academic defends it anymore. See Patrick Sims-Williams "An Alternative to Celtic from the East and Celtic from the West". Patrick is the president of the International Congress for Celtic Studies, the body that regulates all academic Celtic Studies.
It is also incorrect in that the genetics of western Europe (and probably all of Europe) have not changed after the Bell Beaker phenomenon of 2,400 BCE. Source: Origin and mobility of Iron Age Gaulish groups in present-day France revealed through archarogenomics. Therefore, e.g. Iberia and southern France should have been a final 30% blue color from 2,400 BCE onwards.
@@jboss1073 I know it's not 100% correct. no historical linguistic information can be. the concept of the video is still unique, which is what I praise. It's not about the fact he handpicked theories, it's about the fact he made historical linguistics into a map video.
@@jboss1073 The topic is really complex. The genomes of France from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age really shows no change.
article:
"Ancient genomes from present-day France unveiled 7,000 years of its demographic history"
And apparently it was the Iron Age France that influenced to the genome of Britain for millennia.
article:
"Large-scale migration into Britain during the Middle to Late Bronze Age"
Also apparently the Celts of Spain are genetically identical to those of Iron Age France.
article:
"The genomic history of the Iberian Peninsula over the past 8000 years"
Thanks for the clarification!
Fascinating. It's crazy how Tocharians, one of the easternmost groups, actually have among the most Indo-European ancestry.
makes sense, it's hilly and isolated, India is a geographial flat terrain, providing room for mixing to happen
@@niranjansrinivasan4042 I'd have to disagree there. The Tarim basin has a circuit of very fertile oasis' where the Tocharians lived and formed a key component of the silk road.
@@gorgon6680 yes but an oasis itself tells us that the population thrives around a certain area
I feel bad for Tocharians.
but I have to thank Uyghurs who saved their DNA
The Tocharians must be the actual core group, and more accurately located to the place of origin. They are farther east than anyone else, and yet pure relative to the western group. The Tocharians did not get assimilated or diffuse into their nearby neighbors as happened other places. The western expanded placements are only preemptive geographic agendas. The Tocharians were the purest, and also the furthest east. Isolated. Original.
This was well made,a mapping video containing genetic infos is a very original idea,however I have to point out that celts were present in the Po valley for many years by the end of the video,there are other inaccuracies but overall a format that I'd love to see again
In the following maps I will not allow myself to do inaccuraties
@@The_Geographer_Maps Don't be harsh to yourself,it is an hard topic after all
@@The_Geographer_MapsPlease tell me which people started migration from near Tocharians in 4:21 and ended in south Ukrain in 4:27 (those white migrations), tell me pls
@@The_Geographer_Maps We are humans, bond to errors. The remedy is to acknowledge them.
The Proto-indo-europeans were not the first metallurgists. That would be the Early European Farmers (EEF) inhabitants of the Balkans and Asia Minor, who probably first developed copper and gold smelting arround 6000 BCE.
There is an error here. No mention of BMAC - Bactria. The BMAC settlement existed from at least 2000BCE or earlier. The Rigvedic people did not fly into India as this map suggests from Yaz or somewhere. The BMAC had a long history of trade with the Indus valley, the Elamites, Hurrians and Sumer. The settlement of Jiroft in Iran has items belonging to all these cultures, indicating a trading post with both local and non-local traders. Most certainly BMAC traders had already settled in the Indus valley for trade, as well as the other way around. The settlements of BMAC were a well-settled, non-nomadic urban settlement with some traditions and the ruling elite derived from nomadic IE culture. It also had a substratum, an indigenous culture that was not pure IE.
Bactrians are listed and show up over a 1,000 years BC. And scholarship shows the language was not initial Indo-Euro by the way until later in their timeline.
@@YukonGhibli I have mentioned that the language was not initially IE. It was probably layered, with commoners speaking one language, and the elite speaking another. The structures of the Puras or cities, the rituals etc. match descriptions in the Rgveda, whereas they do not match the Indus valley. Also, later Bactria was Iranic. It still doesn't answer the question - how did the vedic people fly there? Also, no mention of Gandhara etc. the intermediate cultures. Anyway, I'm out of touch of the latest history in this field, so you may be right.
@@kurtakursi7931 right kid, keep telling yourself that and one day folks might believe you!
BMAC was a CHG-descended civilization, not an indo-European one. They skirmished against Sintashta and later Andronovo raiders coming in from the north, but eventually collapsed after having parts of their administrative capital forcibly abandoned and suffering political fracturing as a result, allowing the steppe raiders to defeat the remnants.
@@allsoover I'm now curious about the source of your information. It's quite detailed, I didn't know we have so much information about the politics of the BMAC at that time. I'm not doubting your info, I'm just curious.
Some might say you used a lot of your imagination to fill in what we don't know but I see what you did there! You followed the European landscape and let Indo-European spread along rivers and through grasslands where the Yamnaya could use their horses better. Great video! And 100% percentage around the black sea sounds about right too... It's also the point of origin of blue eyed people
R1a (51.5%),R2a(15%) H (16.2%) and L (15.8%) were the major haplogroups present throughout the country and accounted for more than three-fourths of the indian population.
Nice pfp
Video is wrong theres no such thing as indo iranian european whatever. All languages are descandants of sanskrit and the so called migration happened out of india not other way around. The lost indian clans who were expelled out of india conquered whole eurashia and spread hinduism which later became separate pagan religions in different places. Sky god dyauspitra and the thunder god Indra the king of gods became zeus, zupiter, thor etc. They worshiped danav/asuras etc and were known as malechcchas while the winning clan bharat worshiped devas.
@@prafful_sahu braindead hindutva knuckle dragger spotted.
Yes, but remember that this does not show how close related are you to other indo-european speaking people. It only shows that for 51% of Indians there is an unbroken father-to-son chain starting from a single man living 15.000 years ago - way before PIE was even a thing. That man was for some reason very succesful in producing male offspring who produced their own male offspring. His cousin started his own haplogroup R1b which produced unbroken male chains in most Western European countries.
Since this man lived 15.000 years ago you have virtually zero of his DNA in you except for that Y-DNA part. You are a product of over 500 generations for the last 15.000 years. Millions of very different people were your ancestors that were not related to the R1a man in any way.
@@prafful_sahu found the Hindu nationalist
Thanks to the Yamnaya for giving us beautiful women.
lol
Lmao The Yamnaya were known for taking other cultures w0men after killing their men. All the modern Indo-Europeans are born out of such unions . Their maternal dna is native
I'm really impressed with this video, ive been watching it a lot recently. Thank you for putting this together.
you got some insane mapping skills
great work
Thanks!
i wish every frame was a real map and didn't include weird lines
My grandmother was born just at the place where Indo Europeans started - near Ulyanovsk (former Simbirsk). Recently I have visited the village where she was born. It is fascinating to imagine that our ancestors walked just at the place where you are. But there exist also other scientific theories and other maps. One of the theories is that R1a and R1b had been formed near Baikal lake ("Mal'ta boy") and from there moved to the West (why?). Then R1b moved to Anatolia and from Anatolia further to Iberian peninsula (now Spain). Meanwhile R1a stayed on the Russian plain. Warlike R1b started to move from Iberia to the East, killed all tribes living there, who were people with elaborate culture and matriarchate. Finally R1b have met R1a on the territory of contemporary East Germany. There west Indo Europeans were stopped by their East Indo European brothers. It was 13 century BC battle near Tollense. And till now the genetic boarder goes between East and West Germany through Austria towards Adriatic sea. Perhaps in the future scientists will study migration of our ancestors in more detail. And one more thing - "Indo Europeans" Is a pure linguistic category. It doesn't reflect culture. Many Chinese or Tohars and Kyrgiz have R1a haplogrops but they are not Indo Europeans because they speak Chinese and Turkic languages.
You see this guy or girl knows what he or she is talking about.
Very interesting
They have R1a because the Indo-Europeans went there. Tocharians were Indo-Europeans. Chinese and Kyrgiz were not. Uyghurs then absorbed the elements that were left by the Tocharians, hence why some of them resemble Europeans.
@@drengr811 Hello again friend. R1 has migrated from northeast asia to central asia (mutated to R1b in Turkmenstan), mesopotamia, anatolia, balkans, north italy and even further. I have also talked with an hungarian scientist. He also told me about Tatarlaka (tatar tablets) in balkans dated 6.5k BC much before Yamnaya. Those tablets are in agglutinative language like uralic and altaic languages and could be read by hungarian language.
Also, there is a reality: Sumerians who have spoken agglutinative language %53 similar to hungarian and %37 similar to turkish. Sumerians have called themselves as Sağgir/Saka as who came from northeast asia and central asia (also told as foreigner in persian inscriptions of I. Darius in later ages). Ancestors of R1 haplogroup is P haplogroup who are mostly modern turkic people of northeast asia.
In another research, it is proven that they have started to migrate 25-30k years ago with their special stone forming culture from northeast asia to central asia and mesopotamia. They were ancestors of sumerians who came much before. Yes, scythians were speaking iranic language after they have assimilated by west asian J2 M172 persians and G caucasian arians during their journey from central asia to euroasia over persia and caucasia after ice age.
Real arians are G and/or J2 M172 haplogroups of west asia like persian I. Darius (persian of persians, arian of arians as he told). Also, there are J2 M172 indoeuropeans in central asia, I accept it. They were iranian farmers spread to fluid plains of central asia. But, R1 is another haplogroup which do not have any genetic connection with F, G, H, I, J, L proto-indoeuropeans.
N, O, P haplogroups have passed southeast and east asia and settled to southeast asia as O1, O2 (assimilated by tibetan D and austronesian C); to east asia as O3 koreanic, japonic and han chinese; to north asia as N finnic, uralic; to northeast asia as P hunnic, turkic, ugric. P has separated as mutations to Q and R 20-25k years before in ice age.
Q are native americans including minor R and R1 are central asians including minor Q (Kets) near Yenisei river. R1 mutated to R1a in central asia and later to R1b in Turkmenstan in ice age. Later migrations continued to east and north europe as tatar, magyar hunnic; to west europe as etruscan and basconian saka; to south and southwest asia as hephtal, mughal huns (and maybe R2 tamil dravidians), but they all have assimilated time by time except tatars, magyars and basq people remained agglutinative. Language changed but genetics remained.
Look at those ancestors, they were speaking mostly uralic and altaic languages and had nomadic, pastoralist culture. They were not city constructors (except China), they were living outdoor and getting well with nature. They domesticated animals like wolves and horses for their safety benefits. This also improved their animalist, shamanist (summonist) religions in elder ages. Almost different than ancient sanskrit, persian, greek cultures of indoeurope. Even their gods were about farmery, happiness, peace etc of civil cultures. But at last, all humanity have met real prophets of monotheism religions later.
No archaeological evidence of continental 'Celts' has ever been found in Ireland. The 'Irish' genome was established about 3,500 - 4,000 years ago, so your dates are a bit wrong. Recent DNA evidence also suggests that Gaels took the Southern route rather than through Central Europe. Apart from that, a wonderful mapping and animation.
Asia Minor became Indo-European as early as in the 1st half of the II millenium B. C.
Very good and detaield video that just proves that ancestry cannot predict how similar culture and language can be.
it's kind of confusing because indoeuropean is a language family not a genetic one
@@arthurmoran4951 ?
@@treninjector2245 sorrynot a genetic term
@@arthurmoran4951 Yeah, but there was a population that spoke the original ancestral language. The question is who’s descended from that population and to what degree?
@@arthurmoran4951 You can call them the blonds if you like, theres no reason to play games here
It's very interesting how the IndoEuropean aristocracies of Myceneae and Rome managed to control and assimilate the large percentage of the populations that previously lived there linguistically, even though the genetic makeup of Greece, Spain and Italy remained largely the same as before the IndoEuropean migration. Usually, the aristocracy is assimilated to the majority language, not the opposite
Another couple of examples of this are the Magyars in the Carpathian Basin and the Ottomans in Anatolia.
Mythic enduring grand aristocracy. Sponsors of all the great works in antiquity. Inbreeding was never a problem as happened later to Spain. Not through ancient Rome, not through ancient Greece, and certainly not through ancient Egypt's golden age.
For example massacring the male population in battle, marrying the women left... it results in genetic mixing but culturally maybe not so much.
I wouldn't say it's "usually" happens otherwise. Especially with Indo-Europeans, it was actually most often that it was the population being assimilated. I wonder how though, was it with nothing but military might and violence, or something else? How did they manage to do that?
Cream will always rise. Dominant genetics. Purity must be built into the genetics, certainly. 😁
Интересно, что в российских школах вопрос прародины индоевропейцев не является инструментом имперского сознания. Собственно, это вообще особо не освещается. Видимо, сказывается еще советская фобия термина "арийцы". Например, про Ямную культуру в контексте прародины европейцев я узнал только в университете. Хотя если разобраться, из этого можно было слепить неплохой повод для гордости за свою родную землю
Чел курганная гипотеза и вообще вся история с индоевропейцами стала популярной только благодаря генетическим исследованиям начиная с 2000-х.
Во времена совка это очень нишевая тема для лингвистов
As an Indian i feel that India still has a lot of pre-Indo-European influence (because of the caste system being a thing, although at the time of the vedic peoples, the caste system was much less rigid than it became later down the line). Which is also why we see the difference between the peoples from the North-West of India (From Kashmir to Rajasthan), and the peoples of either the East and the South.
I don't believe in Aryan theory but There is a tribe in kerala called thiyya which shows a jentics and linguistics origin in the thian sha mountains of central asia according to the linguistics the Iranian word deva is first mentioned in Sanskrit in 2 century BCE and it originated from proto indo European language 'dievo' many proto indo european language has this word with same meening which meens in english as 'shining' or divine this word changes in to thiya in central asia thiyan sha mountains that meens mountains of god/deva and one particular hindhu caste in kerala called thiya meens 'divyan' in native language malayalam wich meens in english shining or divine also practices theyyam/ daivam or god as their religious rituals and their oral folk storys and songs clearly mentions they came from somewhere else meening of the word thiyya is divine and the first place where genitics and linguistics both meet together is the beginning of the tian Sha mountains and indo-sythrians religion is an ancient greek religion and buddisam mixture and thiyyas shows an almost same mixture with hindhuism and thiyya have a rich marshel treditions in recorded history and their folk songs and fougrin records from 16th century onwards clearly shows they are the one who practiced and developed kalaripayattu to the world and thiyyar is the only hindhu warrior caste in entire india which formed 3 European colonial army regiments in their own caste name with Britishers they formed thiyya regiment and with french they formed french thiyya pattalam and with dutch they formed dutch chegons the chekars are a warrior section among thiyyas who's duty is to fight in wars and they are ethinically from Malabar north kerala and all this units are started to form in 1730s onwards and all royal force in kerala before Indian indipendance had thiyya soldiers in their force and in entire south india there is no other hindhu caste ever had a caste based army regiment with any colonial European powers but in north India Britishers started few other warrior caste army regiments also and latest gentical study from Indian government institutions like center for cellular science and molecular biology in Hyderabad also clearly shows thiyyas have central asian anciant Iranian ancestry and in sre lankan history srilankan people also consider thiya/Divya as indo sythrians and devas even german nazi seintists before Indian indipendance also came this area to study these groups but indian government is now trying to eliminate this caste people from history now all their historical records are only getting from outside sources and trying to mix with a south kerala caste called ezhava a native caste which never even allowed to take a sword or never ever participated in a royal army or a war before Indian indipendance according to the recorded history and they blocked all thiyya Wikipedia pages from 2013 and blocked remaining thiyyar pages in 2022 even the smallest caste in india has their own wiki pages thiyyas are the biggest hindhu caste in Malabar kerala and with the support of government they are changing all thiyya warriors as ezhavas and because of thiyyas fougrin origin government also trying to eliminate thiyya community from all records to localise or indianise Indian history even more deeper
@@sreenarayanram5194 do you have an authentic source
@@random_shit_online6104 it's all in Google but some in malayalam government blocked all their Wikipedia pages
Yamnaya were the super-spreaders basically becoming the third major race in Europe after the original Hunter-gatherers of 40000 BCE mixing with Anatolian farmers of 8000 BCE. The Sintashta and their descendants Andronovo, moved south into Iran and India with their skills in horses, spoked-wheel chariots and metallurgy. I hadn’t heard of Srubnaya before. The Scythians were the true heirs of the Yamnayans with excellent horse riding, shooting arrows, nomadic, fantastic gold works, etc.
When modern human beings left Africa around 70000 years ago they took three paths: NW through Anatolia, north through Caucasus Mountains (tough) and through the land between Persian Gulf & Caspian Sea.
I would include mountain ranges as they were instrumental in paths and limits of migrations: Carpathian Mountains, Caucasus Mountains, Ural Mountains, Altai Mountains and the Himalayas.
Books & Articles:
* Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past by David Reich
* Neanderthal Man: In Search of Lost Genomes by Svante Pääbo
* The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World by David W. Anthony
* Telling Humanity’s Story through DNA: Geneticist David Reich rewrites the ancient human past. | Harvard Magazine July-August 2022
The people of the Srubnaya culture were apparently Proto-Indo-Iranians and later displaced by the Iranian Cimmerians and Agathyrsians, and the Taurians and Meots were apparently the full-blooded heirs of the Srubnaya.
By the way, I'm working on creating a map of the distribution of the Indo-Iranians.
I'll think about the advice of adding mountain ranges on maps.
And new genetic data suggests that modern humans did not leave Africa, but lived in Asia, and from there settled Africa.
Thank you for such a great amount of scientific material!
Article:
*The reversal of human phylogeny: Homo left Africa as erectus, came back as sapiens sapiens by Ulfur Arnason & Bjorn Hallstrom.
@@The_Geographer_Maps There must have been multiple migrations back and forth out of and into Africa. There are modern humans (Homo sapiens) and then there Neandertals and Denisovans. Of course, there are also Homo erectus which are the common ancestors.
The scientific field of Ancient DNA & Paleogenomics together with archaeology and other disciplines is sure to give us more answers soon.
“The age of the oldest Homo sapien discovered, Omo One, is at least 230,000 years old. When it was first found under volcanic ash in Ethiopia in the 1960s, it was believed to be nearly 200,000 years old. A team from the University of Cambridge has cleared up the age by dating the volcanic rocks above it. They found the samples were related to the Shala volcano, which erupted 230,000 years ago. Since Omo One was found below that ash layer, it must be older than that. Though earlier forms of humans have been found in Africa, Omo One is the oldest with modern characteristics, such as a tall, spherical cranium and chin.”
@@RamZar50 The most ancient Homo sapiens lived, I suppose, in the Middle East. But the earliest waves of Homo sapiens migrations were to Africa, and they were about 250,000 years ago. Homo sapiens migrations to Europe and East Asia were many later and they were somewhere 50,000 years ago.
There were numerous bottlenecks in the Middle East that did not occur in Africa. And it turned out that the oldest haplogroups in the Middle East were forced out, unlike modern Africa, where haplogroups are later than in Middle East of 250 000 BCE, but more ancient than in Middle East of 50 000 BCE.
@@The_Geographer_Maps it always made sense that humans came from asia as the oldest civilizations and writing and known history comes from there.
@@ayzmalo5553 Right. And in Asia ( middle east being more specific ) .it is the area with the greatest number of different haplogroups being dispersed elsewhere in Eurasia, and secondarily to Africa itself. See haplogroup E
I would like to add a criticism: Scythians. While the area they are in is semi correct, they moved from east to west and the saurmatians pushed them into Thrace. The cimmerians were subdued by the Scythians and that’s where they came to sit as in the video. As for the saka and other Scythian language speakers, they came from around the caspian with the Scythians and didn’t move near the tocharians until the Huns arrived almost
When will people stop shilling the "Celts assimilated non-Celtic Bell Beakers in the Isles and Gallia" theory? Celtic placename density correlates with Bell Beaker ancestry almost perfectly, there is no evidence of a Indo-European substrate language in any surviving Celtic language (and on the contrary, there are many words from a non-IE substrate language, exactly what you would expect if Celts in Britain were conquering non-IE speakers), and there is no archeological evidence of a cultural break between the Bell Beakers and the early Celts, whereas there is an obviously cultural shift in the record with the arrival of distinct foreign groups, such as the Romans and the Saxons. The most parsimonious explanation is that the Western Bell Beakers (here called Atlantic Bell Beakers) are Celtic peoples.
What are you saying exactly? Celts have always been in Britain and their language isn't Indo-European?
@@JoeDower101I'm saying the Western Bell Beakers were Celtic, and thus Celtic people arrived when Bell Beakers arrived. I stated this fairly clearly in my original comment.
amazing how anatolians spoke indo european languages without having much ancestry.
As a Bangladeshi when I was a kid i used to wonder why primary numbers in English sounded so similar to primary numbers in Bengali compared to something like Arabic which sounded totally different from Bengali. Now I know why.
Primary numbers in all indo-germanic languages are similar, not just English. ❤
رائع رائع
اتمنى أن تصنع فيديو عن الساميون وسيطرتهم على الشرق الأوسط وشمال أفريقيا
semites did not conquer north africa
There were no Proto-Germans, though? The language formed as a creole of three substrates: Pre-Indo-European language of Scandinavian HGs (Y-DNA hg: I), Proto-Balto-Slavic of the initial conquest (Y-DNA hg: R1a), and Proto-Itelo-Celtic of the subsequent conquest (Y-DNA hg: R1b). This hypothesis explains the tripartition of the Y-DNA haplogroups, as well as the distinct features of the Germanic languages.
Corded Ware -> Nordic Bronze Age
crazy how the music sounds good no matter how high the playback speed is
Whenever I look at the video like this, I think that the progenitor of the R haplogroup could not even imagine that his children would spread so widely around the world, build powerful states, create many cultures and stories that would live for centuries.
Damn as a biologist a serious amount of work must have done into the genetic mapping wow
The Tocharians were the first that "left the chat"
Actually Anatolians, it's just that op believes they weren't Indo European because they split at an early stage so he didn't put them in the map.
Isnt it funny that the origins of "Aryans" is somewhere near Stalingrad and Hitler got his first major defeat and turning point of war over there? Such irony.
Yes, he went to destroy us all because we are subhuman, an inferior race, and they are supposedly Aryans. While the true Aryans are us, and he himself is generally a Jew (ppl say)
What is the relation of the lower Volga with India?
What is shown in the map of the video are the peoples of the step, that later became the Rus and other Germanic tribes in Northern Europe.
You also mention that "Indo-Europeans" moved south west from the lower Volga steppes round 3750BC, in Greece, there is a Neolithic settlement, to the south of Athens on Vouliagmeni street, dated at 25 000 BC, so the place was already inhabited long before the dates you mention.
Athens itself was first inhabited at 3500BC and in the Aegean islands and Crete were the Cycladic and Minoan civilizations already in place at the times shown in your map.
Maybe the Bronze Age Achaeans and later the Iron Age Dorians moved south into the lower Balkan peninsula, according the Indo-European theory.
The term Indo-European was introduced in 1816 by Franz Bopp of Germany and referred to a family of languages in Europe and Asia (including Northern India, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) that were found to have a remarkable structural relationship.
The basic problem with this theory is that mr. Bopp examined the contemporary languages of his time, in these areas, and ignored possible cultural interactions between these people that caused them to evolve their indigenous languages by adopting the structural commonalities found much later.
To my knowledge, there are no archaeological finds to show a common Indo-European culture or religion, things that are usually found among people with common roots.
IMAO the Indo-European theory is a big blunder, too big to be admitted as a mistake, because the only thing supporting it, is the idea of a common linguistic structure.
Also the celts only started to expand out of central Europe after the 6th century BC
0:07
Lower Volga you say?
What's the evidence of that if I may ask?
Because I seem to recall there still being some debate about the Indo-European urheimat last time I checked (that was quite a while ago however, but it would surprise me if there's already a consensus on a location like this?)
Also, is there evidence of the Repin culture being speakers of a Indo-European language?
16:14
Sorry, but when did Finno-Ugric languages start being considered Indo-European?!?
While I like your maps there's a lot of speculative connections there.
At least linguistically, genetically the connections to the Yamnaya is probably a lot more accurate in this map.
5:30
There's a big difference between North Germans and North Germanic speakers.
Denmark has never been proto-germans, they used proto-germanic.
German only exists once you start mixing Germanic peoples with Celtic and the other groups in what's today Germany.
They interacted with the local cultures and where changed by them to some degree.
Just like northern germanic speakers where changed by the peoples we encountered.
6:11
Indo-European isn't a language spoken by anyone.
It's a language *family* being spoken by most people.
The Repin culture is often associated with the early phase of the Yamnaya culture.
The Yamnaya culture spread to the east, creating the Afanasevo culture (the ancestor of the Tocharian languages), and spread to the west, where it came into contact with the Sredny Stog culture. There, the people of the Yamnaya culture borrowed cord ornament and battle axes, light appearance, Y chromosome haplogroups and also 25% of Sredny Stog ancestry. It is likely that it was from the territory of the Sredny Stog culture that the Corded Ware culture was spread throughout northern Europe and the Coțofeni and Usatovo cultures spread across the Balkans.
i.imgur.com/CHWjC9u.png
If we look at the genome of the modern Finno-Ugrians of this region and pre-Slavic population of the Oka River, the probable descendants of Netted Ware, we will notice that they stand in a wedge between the Balto-Slavs on one side and Nganasan with an admixture of Botai and in some cases with EHG on the other. Netted Ware appeared in 1900 BC, and genetics and linguistics show that East Asian admixture and Finno-Ugric languages appeared in the region in 1300 BC. So it's likely that Netted Ware was originally Indo-European, and later it was Uralized
How did the ancient Indo-Europeans control the majority of the world? The answer is simple: the horse
They used to ride horses when raiding.
What’s the source of this video? Because I think numbers (especially at the end of video) is pretty exaggerated. Central europeans like germans today only are around 25% yamnaya while scandinavians are 40% on average. Southern europeans like greeks are way below than what is portrayed in this video. I think the reason of that is the genetic data used in this video is not purely yamnaya, but ANF (anatolian neolithic farmer) shifted. That’s why percentages show higher than what it is supposed to be.
So Hellenic, Albanic, Iranic, Indic and Romance (especially) speakers are barely Indo-European, whereas others are fifty fifty mix of IE and EEF-WHG👀
Hintlilerde Sintashta oranı %40ı geçen bile var.Etrüskler ve Romalılarda %30 Yamnaya genetiği var.Bu arada ben bagaturun sunucusundaki anti-popcornson hani Azeri(Shakili) olan var ya ha o işte benim:d
Pamiriler ve Yagnobiler de epey bir oranda Sintashta genetiği alıyorlar.Fenotiple alakalı değil bu karışımlar.Ona kalırsa Yamnaya Mtebid,Corded Ware Nordid,Corded Ware %75 Yamnaya.Geri kalan Funnel Beaker(%80 Erken Avrupalı çiftçi,%20 İskandinavyalı avcı-toplayıcı).%2 gibi de İskandinavyalı avcı-toplayıcı genetiği de var:d
Şimdiye kadarki en komiği kesinlikle Ermeniler olabilir.Doğru düzgün Yamnayası yok.Asimile Kafkaslar sadece😂.Anadolu yerlileri de %5 gibi Yamnaya var,geriye kalansa Anadolu kalkolitik😅.Mikenleri falan hatırlamadım şimdi.Ama onlarda da aşırı derece az olmalı:d
Just same as turkish people claiming to be turk ;)
Depends on which community you are talking about. Linguistics doesn't necessarily correlate with genetics. In India alone, some communities have about 70% Steppe Aryan ancestry and they can be easily distinguished from a common Indian person. Such communities rarely marry outside their community. I think the same applies to other Indo-European speakers.
Long live all the people of Aryan heritage from New Zealand🇳🇿❤🇩🇪🇮🇪🇮🇹🇬🇷🇦🇱🇷🇺🇮🇷🇮🇳
You can find it in your search engine somewhere.. But there was a study done by Russian geneticists that basically debunks this entire hypothesis.
Conclusion: All Yamnaya males belonged to haplogroup R1b-Z2103. All Corded-ware samples belonged to R1b-L51 (as well as I2a2a).
Problem: R1b-L51 is nearly 10 thousand years older than R1b-Z2103 (Yamnaya) .
Infact R1b-Z103 directly descends from R1b-L754 (Western Europe).
This indicates that the Yamnaya's ancestors migrated eastward FROM Europe at some point during the Holocene, NOT the Eurasian Steppe.
(Infact, the very oldest sub-branches of R1b-M343 are found ONLY in the Iberian Peninsula, some over 25 thousand years old , indicating its origin place...)
Most important, is the fact that the previous genetic study was the very premise for the "Steppe origin of IE languages". Thus, this subsequent study from Russia essentially rules that entire theory (and all speculative histories correlated with it) baseless.
Given modern academics is so thoroughly corrupted with ideological agendas, these contradictory results went deliberately unpublished.
My advice to you is never trust sources on wiki for unbiased information when it comes to subjects of identity.
R1b-L51 is closely related to R1b-Z2103 and shares an early Bronze Age ancestor R1b-L23 with it. That is, R1b-L51 must have been part of the Yamnaya culture. I don't know where you got thousands of years from.
qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-194737ab6180f2bc49e84e16563ff137-pjlq
Of course, at Yamnaya, R1b-Z2103 was the majority, but there was also a minority of R1b-L51, which through the bottleneck became dominant.
There is no evidence to suggest that R1b has been absent in eastern Europe since the Mesolithic. The oldest R1b could penetrate into the Middle East and Western Europe from Eastern Europe. But if they were found only there, this does not mean that they were absent in Eastern Europe. They must have been present in some percentage, they just weren't found.
The common ancestor of R1b and R1a, R lived near Baikal 25,000 years ago, and his ancestor P1 lived in Yakutia 30,000 years ago
Your this study must recognize as unfounded dozens of studies that have been done over a decade
Articles:
Dynamic changes in genomic and social structures in the third millennium BCE central Europe
Genetic ancestry changes in Stone to Bronze Age transition in the East European plain
Do you think that it is ideologically advantageous for Western scientists to consider that their ancestors originated from Russia?
This tree is riddled with mistakes and false information. And seems to be based upon genetic testing of of modern Caucasian immigrants (or perhaps tourists) to countries such as the United States, Singapore,
South Asia ect.
R1b of any kind has never been found in endemic South Asians ( another gaping hole in the Steppe theory as no South Asians share decent from the Yamnaya)
Secondly; L23 R1b1a1a2 has never been recorded from the Pontiac Steppe (False Information)
Only Z2103 R1b1a2a2 has .
The phylogeny is also flawed.
R1b1a2a2 does not descend from
R1b1a1(a2). ( Or it would read R1b1a(1)a2a ect. It 'branches' Y in descending order of digits, its not rocket science.
R1b1a2a2 descendes directly from
R1b1a2- (a2). Which branches from
R1b1a* (The (2) represents a secondary branching from R1b1a*, distinct from R1b1a(1) )
Nonetheless, R1b1a* predominates in Western Europeans is recorded there from as early as 15K bc. (Villabruna 1).
So regardless of exact timing, the conclusion is valid. The Yamnaya 'descend' from a movement of a Western European population eastward (not vice versa).
R1b1a(2) V88 for instance is found in West Africa. NOT the Levant (False Information)
It looks right for the European part but not for the Asian migrations. For instance, Asia Minor and Iranian Plato were filled with Indo/Europeans migrated peoples from 1500 b.c.
Most indo Europeans migrated to india , only some migrated to deserts of middle east
@@Deepak_Dhakad do you have any Idea about the geography of the middle east? Indo-Iranians are mostly settled in mountainous regions and the flat lands are mostly lush lands during the year and get dry in summer.
Bro really said that Proto-Anatolian isn't the first language separated from proto-IE 💀💀💀
I’m Kurdish love my indo European brother and sisters ❤️💚💛
Really great and underrated work! The cherry on top would be a declaration of the sources you use, to increase its credibility.
Nice, but it has many mistakes (for example the map shows the celts emigration in central asia minor at around 600-500 BC which is incorrect as they settled 300 years later forming Galatia, also western Balkans should be tagged Illyrians.
Yes, I must admit this map is not exactly dated, because I tried to make this map faster. I did not add the Illyrians out of inattention. And I want to definitely make some day a map of spread of the Indo-Europeans with exact dating and with all the details, but this takes a lot of time, so it will not be released soon.
Anatolia was IE far before you showed, as well.
If we had just reached Mongolia. We were so close.
Wot no Hittites? Wikipedia has the Hittite language attested from c.1900 BC, but you only had IE languages in Anatolia from 1(three)15 BC.
Its funny how people come up with maps for a theory that has absolutely no basis in hard science. Just recently the steppe hypothesis has been undermined by the Southern arc papers.
Considering that there is no definitive evidence older than Hittite, all dates are hypothetical. I am curious about languages and their origins, but every video I watch and every source I read confuses me a little more. I think there are not enough sources about the birth of languages, and I have begun to think that every hypothesis about language is full of mistakes and a little biased. Just like the theories produced about the universe in ancient times when there was not enough data about the universe are now falsified. Maybe in the future, what we know today will be wrong!
@@user-jh8gz1lo4e vedic is pre iron age. Most certainly
Hello from Ukraine
Most powerfull nomadic tribes always try to hold Chernozem belt, most fertile soil type at world, most fertile steppes, they easy can feed 10-15 kids there and overpopulate too fast so they move and spread.
Also there was Tritipilya-Cucuteni cities with 50-100k population, London and Paris reach this number at 13-14 centuries thousands years later
It is interesting to see that Indo-Aryans have a comparatively small amount of PIE ancestry.
The video is technically speaking, very well done and I can understand it had alot of traffic; unfortunately both the periodisation and what's supposed to be indo-european and what not is often wrong and misplaced, to the point the whole thing is very missleading and shouldn't be considered as reliable source of datas, not even for mundane use. Let's start from the beggining : "This map shows the distribution of the currently most widely spoken language in the world, and the genetic distribution of Proto-Indo-European speakers" these are two very different source of datas and I don't see how they can be mixed togheter without taking in account other layers such as archeological findings and even litteraly sources on the occasion. But even doing so you misplaced the timeline of entire cultures of hundred and hundred of years if not more; you considered italic indo-european cultures as barely part of that world and ignore completely the develops of their language which are in certain cases very well known and documented. Hittites are most certanly an indo-european culture and they have been not even displayed on the map, along with many anatolian and caucasian cultures. Ever heard of Rome and Latin language? And Persian and Indian cultures were strictly related, they both come from an Indoeuropean branch calledIndo-iranians with a proper ethogenesis. This could continue for hours, litteraly every pannel should be corrected.
This has got to be the best video on Indo-European migration I’ve seen so far.
It definitely is. This is one that is well done, as well. ruclips.net/video/d48bhkOiEuA/видео.html
@@acaydia2982
True I thought it was a rickroll but it’s an actually good video
@@ianeons9278 Glad you liked it.
There is even a Indo Europian people native to China (Tajik Etc)
It’s very well done mapping. Although, one thing we know from Y chromosome with the British Isles is that their R1b Subclade entered from the South somewhere around Spain, whereas the mapping shows it coming from the North / East
There is no reason to believe that haplogroup R1b entered Britain through Spain. Steppe component in Bronze Age Britain is much larger than in Bronze Age Spain and France, therefore people brought the haplogroup R1b and steppe component not through these regions but through Belgium and the Netherlands. In addition, the coincidence of chromosomes in British people and Iberians can be explained not by the origin of the British Y chromosome from the Iberia, but by having a common ancestor belonging to the Bell Beaker culture, which spread the haplogroup R1b both in Britain and in Iberia, apparently somewhere from central Germany. Probably before the expansion of the Germans, haplogroup R1b was spread over Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium much more widely than now.
Articles:
The Beaker Phenomenon and the Genomic Transformation of Northwest Europe;
The genomic history of the Iberian Peninsula over the past 8000 years;
Ancient genomes from present-day France unveil 7,000 years of its demographic history.
@@The_Geographer_Maps There are two main components of Indo-Europeans - The Beakers ( Tautas)and Aryans.
@@The_Geographer_Maps INGLATERRA ES HISPANA!
@@kimrizo1938 Well thats a dejavu, in my tongue tautas means of the people.
@@kungszigfrids1482 Yes its the root of the german name, but no "Aryans" they were the indoaryan branch of the PIE nomadic migration.
Bravo! Excellent video. I could watch these type of map videos all day.
PIE is originated in Carpatho-Danubiano-Pontic area (basically, Romania, mostly SW of it...at Danube Gorge; also Serbia and Bulgaria of the same area).
Phase 1 of PIE migration was after 5508 BCE.
Phase 2 of PIE migration is after 3200 BCE (Kurganic migration). You're making the same mistake, thinking that Phase 2 is Phase 1.
delusional romanian as always
This is literally the best video of such kind I've ever seen. Gonna share it with people on every occasion. Thank you.
though the fact that there are no Hittites and some other things mentioned in the most liked comments kinda spoils it :\
Interesting that the slavs have so much Indo-European ancestry and the Romans had so little. The 20th century fascists got pretty much everything wrong.
What the hell man, this is so good!! Props to you for the innovative technique and relentless efforts!!
This is some amazing work. I have never seen a map showing their migration patterns in such great detail. I do have a couple of questions to ask though -
• What is that migration of Non-Indo-Europeans into Indo-European territories in Northern Asia around 1300BC? Can you please elaborate on them and link some articles if possible?
• Also, I have read that the Indo-Aryans arrived in India in 19th century BC, about 300 years before you display them on the map. Please clarify my doubts.
• How are you able to show migration patterns in such great detail? Are you using the age of archaeological site to estimate the time of settlement? Or is it something else?
Nonetheless, excellent work.
•Somewhere since 1300 BCE, Uralic-speaking peoples began to penetrate into the region of forest-steppe Asia. One of them are the Proto-Magyars.
Article:
The genetic origin of Huns, Avars, and conquering Hungarians
•Indo-Aryans came to India between sometime between 1900 and 1500 BCE. There is no exact date.
Article:
The formation of human populations in South and Central Asia
•Good software and a large number of maps helps. I dated this map approximately and the maps of archaeological cultures shown here are mainly from the site Indo-European.eu. But now I will make maps with the exact dating of archaeological cultures.
Thanks for the comment!
Thanks a lot for the clarifications. Would love to see more content from you on this subject. Edit: Subscribed
@@kushagrasingh7381 Thanks a lot!
@@kushagrasingh7381 You ask some really intelligent questions. Indo-European immigration into northern India is a hot political discussion these days. The only thing that scholars of all nationalities seem to agree on is that languages like Hindi and Bengali are linked to ancient Sanskrit and are Indo-European languages. Indian nationalists dispute the invasion theory and claim all Indo-European languages developed in northern India then spread out west over time. Western scholars support the Indo-European languages were introduced through invasion (and here they tend to overplay the “lightness” of the invaders).
The “invasionists” will point to things like the complete destruction or disappearance of the earlier Indus Valley civilisations c.1600 as supporting evidence. The nationalists claim things like climate change and how could illiterate nomads give rise to the complexities and splendour of ancient Indian civilisation? Climate change gets blamed on everything these days, but the latter argument carries some weight. It may be that there is little DNA evidence supporting the invasion theory, too.
“Invasionists” will point out the continued invasions of the Indus and northern India region by nomads and other Indo-Europeans like Persians, Greeks, Sakas, Kushans, and then a host of Turkic type people such as the White Huns, etc., as evidence of a trend.
I suspect there is no real answer to this.
Speaking of the spread of language, the Romanians speak a Romance language based on Latin, but the DNA record does not suggest anything much in the way of Romans, to whom they claim they are descended from. So where did the Romanian language come from? It may be that as a concept, the Roman type language had a prestige that survived when peoples didn’t. Who knows, ancient Sanskrit, may be in this category?
This concept probably won’t satisfy anyone, so the problem remains unsolved.
@@penguinvic4188 you can make many theories as you wish but sanskrit texts and literature suggest only out of India if you study them from traditional scholars but people nowadays don't want to go to basic but make theories on past theories.
I hear it becomes more an more likely every day that the Indo-European languages represented here, they are basically alphabetic Akkadian. Now, Proto-Indo-European? No body knows
As far as I know Anatolian languages were first to branch off from other Indo-European languages in 4000 BCs but you only show them in 1000 BC this is clearly wrong
I made this map quickly, and had never before studied Indo-European languages. I admit my mistake. The main purpose of this map was to show ancestry from the Proto-Indo-Europeans
@@The_Geographer_MapsWhich is also wrong
Impressive! Much easier to visualise this event with this time-lapse, thank you!
So according to this theory and video, the Glorious ie Slavs are pure Indo-Europeans in Europe.
Not really, the video ends at 395BC, the Slavs had done a lot of mixing after that, especially with non-IE people such as WHG, Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, Tatars etc. Also I am extremely sceptical of these ancestry statistics, they are completely baseless and basically impossible to establish especially for such a large number of people in such a large period of time, seems largely made up...
Did Indo-European DNA arrive on the Iberian Peninsula before the Indo-European languages?
LONG LIVE THE LEGACY OF INDO-EUROPA!!! PROUD TO BE INDO-EUROPEAN!!!
*lendʰdetewtéh₂
While many others have pointed out factual inaccuracies, I will point out design inaccuracies. Specifically, I believe you used unnecessary detail in this video. The issue with this of course is you show more specific information than is actually known, which is making stuff up for aesthetic purposes. Unless you can actually provide sources for the specific "spindles" of migration displayed, all you're doing is misrepresenting the level of accuracy truly known. At the very least a disclaimer should be added.
Also, there's a typo in your title, not sure how that has gone unchanged lol.
greeks be like:
h e l l o
Alright, liked and subscribed. Let's see what more do you put forward.
Cheers.
I've been looking for a video like this for a long time, very impressive. I think however that it is likely that the Tumulus culture is Italo-celtic
4:17 why is there a sudden change in colour, why did all the Indoeuropean cultures in 1350 BC sudden increase their IE ancestry ? It seems weird
Pls do about finno-ugrics spread
I'd be surprised if there exists enough data.
A map about the distribution of the Uralic peoples is my most likely next work
The Volga Caucasus placement of origin is probably a myth being perpetuated strongly connected to linguistic relatedness and spreading. There are many groups with varying degrees of mixed ancestry involved. The more likely source and place of origin is indicated by the Torcharians in the far eastern region. The Torcharians are rhe strongest signal and furthest east in isolation. All the western groups, including the Volga Caucasus, are only false signals and grasping at diffused straws. The unique isolated location and reported purity of the Torcharians is a strong indication that they were the core original people in this subject matter.
Many inaccuraties but in general its the right idea.
That was definitely one of the coolest things I have seen lately on youtube. Instant subscribe.
Man, you are a legend.
The area of Sindh shouldve been much more blue as it has one of the most r1a in south asia
beautifully done, both in terms of the accuracy and detail of the data, as well as the overall presentation of the map. thank you for taking the effort to create this video! it would be very interesting to see the spread post-300BC
This is great. Apart from some things you forgot to add, that other commentors already mentioned, this video is absolutely amazing.
A very good video apart from some mistakes mostly in West Asia that I spotted.
-> Proto-Anatolians were the first group that spread from the original IE with a possible route from the Suvorovo culture. Their genetic origins were mysterious but you should show them. Also, from the Iron Age to Antiquity, Anatolians had around 5%-10% IE admixture.
-> The Southern Caucasus had steppe-rich groups - around 25% - and those groups affected other groups such as Hurro-Urartians, Caucasus Albanians and, most importantly, Proto-Armenians. They were all related to Trialeti and indirectly Catacomb cultures. Armenians themselves were a mixture of Urartians and those steppe-rich Proto-Armenians.
-> Northeastern Caucasians are one of the most steppe-rich groups in Europe. They have %~40 direct admixture from Catacomb culture. Their genetic admixture is very old.
-> The name of the Yamnaya-Afanasyevo groups middle of Central Asia isn't right. There were Kumsay-related groups who were a mixture of Steppe Eneolithic and WSHG-rich populations at that time.
I will make an accurate map about the spread of Indo-Europeans. There are many more errors in this map than you indicated, because I made this map in a hurry, and now I see them. Sorry if this map is lying in many ways.
If it's not difficult for you, please provide a link about the 40% Catacomb ancestry in the modern North Caucasians, because I always doubt whether these 40% come from the Catacomb or from Indo-Iranians like the Scythians? Because if it is proved that the steppe ancestry in Armenians (like the language) comes from the Catacomb, then I did not find information about the North Caucasians.
Apparently, in Central Asia, until the arrival of the Indo-Iranians, were lived mainly people genetically identical to the Botai culture, whose ancestry in 10% was present among the first Indo-Iranians of this region.
Thank you for remark!
@@The_Geographer_Maps I wouldn't use the term 'lying' - some mistakes and shortcomings in maps like these are quite normal. I wish you the best of luck with your project.
The ~40% Catacomb ancestry is not present in all North Caucasians, but only in Northeastern Caucasians (NECs) of Dagestan. As you have mentioned, Northwestern Caucasians have most of their steppe ancestry from Scythian-related groups. However, NECs of Dagestan also have Scythian-related ancestry; most of their steppe ancestry is from the Catacomb culture.
Unfortunately, to my knowledge, there are no official archaeogenetic studies on the steppe origins of NECs. However, based on archaeological studies and models that utilize scientific and non-scientific admixture tools like qpAdm and Global 25, there is evidence to suggest that NECs have ancient and strong ties with the Catacomb culture. This makes sense given the location of the NEC region as a bridge between Catacomb and Trialeti cultures.
I'm not sure if you would consider this to be an another reliable information, but many Armenians and NECs share interesting paternal clades on Yfull.
The Trialeti culture, which is the most likely candidate for the place where Proto-Armenians originated, was part of a genetic cline in the Eastern Caucasus, and its aDNA samples show the strongest genetic similarity to modern NECs.
Here are some fast modelings done with Global 25:
Target: Dagestani_Avar
Distance: 1.3946% / 0.01394633
59.6 Armenia_Kura-Araxes_Berkaber
35.8 Russia_Catacomb
4.6 Russia_Nomad_Medieval_DA142
Target: Armenia_Lchashen_Late_Bronze_Age
Distance: 0.7908% / 0.00790813
47.2 Armenia_Kura-Araxes_Berkaber
27.4 Turkey_Arslantepe_Early_Bronze_Age
25.4 Russia_Catacomb
Also,
Target: Avar
Distance: 2.6482% / 0.02648234
40.8 Yamnaya_Russia_Samara
25.2 Georgia_Caucasus_Hunter-Gatherer
16.8 Turkey_Barcin_Neolithic
11.0 Iran_Wezmeh_Neolithic
5.4 Levant_Pre-Pottery_Neolithic_B
0.8 Russia_Devils_Gate_Cave_Neolithic
Lastly, the inhabitants of Central Asia prior to the Indo-Iranians were not very similar to the Botai. Roughly speaking, they were somewhere between the Yamnaya and the Botai.
@@sittingbull5570 Thanks for support, I'll try my best!
In fact, Northwest Caucasians shows a greater genetic difference between themselves than Northeast Caucasians, suggesting an older genetic origin of NECs. Global 25 reveals great mysteries. Thank you very much for the explanation, without you I would not have solved this mystery!
It is likely that before the arrival of the Indo-Iranians, people similar to Kumsay_EBA lived in Central Asia. However, I designated them as "Yamnaya-Afanasevo peoples" in my map because I thought that this population was formed due to the influence of these two. I just doubted whether people similar to Kumsay_EBA or people similar to Botai lived in Central Asia before the arrival of the Indo-Iranians. But still looking more closely, I think that the first is more likely.
There has been found very little to no steppe ancestry in hittie mummies, only Caucasus Hunter Gatherers, supporting the Southern arc theory, aka, the ancestor of proto-indo-european originated in southern caucasus, with one branch movning west into anatolia, creating the hittite language (and others) and the other one moving north, creating what we would today call proto-indo-european. Armenians were then descended from steppe populations that moved back south, meaning that the steppe DNA in the region is a much younger admixture event.
@@The_Geographer_Maps You're welcome for the additional information, and apologies for the delay. Pre-Indo-European Kumsay-like peoples can be represented by a mixture of Vonyuchka/Progress-like Steppe Eneolithic samples and Tarim Basin mummies which might represent the WSHG associated ancient Central Asians. These similarities with Yamnaya mummies have led some researchers to incorrectly label them as "Yamnaya." Perhaps this suggests a possible common origin from the Steppe Eneolithic.
Iranians and persians arent the same?
Very interesting to see the Baltic Finns take their place in southern Finland around 350 B.C. I had always heard their presence in the area was thousands of years older, that they were the first people to arrive as the ice sheets drew back, but those stories were always from Finnish sources (and I suspect Finnish nationalist). The way this video tells it the Indo-Europeans were in Finland first, and THEN the "Finns" came in. Fascinating.
Actually Finns have the highest Yamnaya (Proto-Indo-European) ancestry beside North Europeans (Scandinavians, Brits) and they score around 45%-50% of Yamnaya ancestry.
@@ilovegenetic Hmm, how? Finnish is not even an Indo-European language.
Baltic Finns couldn't be the most ancient people of their land at least because there are Saami people, who were there even before the land was created, according to Finish epos at least. Also there is another Uralic people, Komi, wich colonised modern Karelia and Kola peninsula before the Baltic Finns and then were devided by Finns for several population -- Uralic Komi (Komi and Perm' peoples) and Kola Komi (Zyryan). But the really interesting fact is genetecally both Baltic and Uralic Finns are Indo-European, although they speak non Indo-Europead languages of Uralic Family
@@Bayard1503 Modern day finns carry on average 4%-8% Siberian East Asian DNA or Uralic ancestry, before the settlment of Uralic speaking peoples, Corded ware cultural groups made their way to Finland.
@@Bayard1503 Because of assimilation. The language remained while genes became less and less "eastern". Although paternal lineages are majority those of the migrants who came from the east (roughly 60% of all Finnish men) and a small genetic component remains. But it's not like Proto-Finnic people who came to the eastern Baltic region and Finland were "Asian-looking" people, as they had already interacted with Proto-Indo-Europeans and Indo-Iranians around the Volga and assimilated western Eurasian people during their migrations west, as can be seen through maternal lineages, nearly all of which are not eastern in origin.
Fascinating!
But, I have a question: Wouldn't the Sea Peoples be appropriately mentioned in this video?
A lot (most?) of them came from north-western Mediterranean, so aren't they somehow related to proto-Indo-European...?
Ok so the northern Slavs are the purest "aryans" followed closely by Germanic peoples.
If only Hitler knew that.
And for the Indo - aryans: yeah I know that it means noble in your language but as it turns out your language is an European one so in a way it is not entirely unjustified for a European to take that title, after all your culture comes from us 😊
Slavs and Aryans are brothers 卐
You do realize that this video ends at 300 BCE, right? In Hitler's time Slavs were already mixed with Mongols and Tatars.
@@drengr811 Easily disproven by looking at Y-dna of: Poles, Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians
If any tatar influence did come it would certainly come from the male side(thus detectable in Y-dna) because of their raiding and conquering and women don't do that.
Russians are somewhat different because of their assimilation of Uralic peoples which can be seen in their high N halpogroup but highest N people in Europe are Finns and Estonians so you can see what kind of looks Uralic people had, certainly not tatar.
Other way to find out who is "aryan" is too search the term: yamnaya amixture.
@@dragasinbrankovic So you're just gonna deny 1500 years of racemixing of Slavs with Mongoloids then? It's not hard to see the non-European influence when you look at the average phenotype of an Eastern Slavic person, particularly Russians.
@@drengr811 Ok, so your eye is a better tool than genetic research, congratulations.
I guess part of your conclusion comes from the fact that ethnic Russians are 75% in Russia itself, and nobody has their ethnic background tattooed on their forhead.
Lavrov is Armenian, Shoigu is Chuvash, Kalashnikov was Tatar and many other prominent figures are non-Slavic so I guess you see them and precieve them as Russians, they are but not in ethnic sense.
I have told you already search yamnaya admixture or alternatively steppe admixture as it is called and look at the charts, that is science unlike "just look at them" method.
Funfact, slavic is in the same language family as iranian and parthian, so it does not make sense if both languages and cultures just popped up apart from each other, also there are no signs of 'proto-slavic' influence this early. In a timescale, all slavs are of a very young branch ethnicity of all indo-europeans with the ethnogenesis of most happening about 1300 years ago, so its a hard stretch to even think there were 'proto-slavs' in 810 BCE even before iranians.
Slavs are really young branch. But some lexic constructions in Slavic languages are older than in such old languages as Greek or Latin. The only Slavic language appeared approx. in 1-2 century on the territory of modern northern Ukraine. Proto-Slavs (Venedi in ancient sources) formed on the territory of Zarubintsy arch. culture (3rd cent.BC - 1 cent. AD in modern-day Ukraine and south Belarus). Zarubintsy culture was a mix of migrants from east La Tene culture (Bastarnae and Pommeranian tribes) and local Baltic tribes. As most of scholars consider, the invasion of Bastarnae to the Dnieper basin in 3rd century BC lead to separation of Slavs (Venedi) from the only Baltic group. We can answer the question of origin of Slavs only if we answer the question who Bastarnae people were (one of the general substrates within Zarubintsy culture).
@@TheOlgaSasha First accords of something like that stem from Plinius 23-79 AD mentioning eastern germanic tribes such as the Venetae and Sciri, Venetae in that specific manner describes people who live near the water and could not be sorted to any greater form of people. It included a number of diffrent tribes most of them either Baltic or Germanic in nature.
The zarubintsy culture was influenced by both the bastarnae people and the Sciri, both are considered to be eastern germanic tribes wich were located roughly at the same spot as the Scythians wich were a iranian tribe wich were ousted from asia by the Medes people.
The Scythians were slowly decimated by another iranian tribe the Sarmatians in the 3rd century BCE and then the remnants were slowly scatterd into europe by the huns in the 4th century.
The ealiest time wich I suspect any kind of 'proto-slavic people' could develop is the direct result of this wich would make it clear why there is a huge time gap between the ethogenesis of western slavs and southern slavs ... only thing I could think of is that the western slavs have a direct connection to the Aorsi the biggest sub-tribe of the Sarmatians slowly pushed into central europe by the huns and after the influence of the huns vanished already lived in todays belarus and mixed together with the Sclaveni(Sklavenoi in greek) while the southern slavs developed some hundred years earlier from the avars.
Looks very well-made, but I do wonder why you left northern Scandinavia empty (0%) when it was populated by Indo-Europeans
Northern Scandinavia had no Indo-European ancestry until the arrival of the Saami, before that there were lived people of the Asbestos Ware and Lovozero Ware cultures who were descended from the EHG and Nganasan, and they have 0% of Indo-European ancestry. An excellent example for this is the people of the Bolshoi Oleni Ostrov dated circa 1500 BCE in the north of the Kola Peninsula. They have half of their ancestry from the EHG and half from the Nganasan, and they didn't have any ancestry from the Indo-Europeans.
There was not much people living in northern Scandinavia
It's cold there 🤷♂️
Unfertile and non grassy to live there
Painter was wrong about the Slavs in his chapter 14.
Western scholars don't like the discuss the DNA of the Yamnaya people. Their DNA which is available, makes it pretty clear that they were a mix of Iranian farmers and native eastern european nomads. The Iranians moved into the steppes after the fall of mesopotamia and brought culture and language to the nomads, leading to the formation of Indo-Europeans.
Even today Europeans follow a middle-eastern culture (Christianity), same thing happened 5000 years ago.
I still believe that the full CHG was present in the steppe from the Mesolithic until it was assimilated by the eastern hunter-gatherers who came from the forest-steppe Volga, because the Yamnaya people lacked the Iranian Neolithic and Levant Neolithic components, unlike the ancient inhabitants of Mesopotamia, And the Khvalynsk culture that lived here earlier also lacked the EEF component that were present in Neolithic Caucasus. There was influence from the Caucasus Mountains from the Maykop culture from where bronze was brought to the steppe, but it was approximately 10% of the genome, in addition, ancient Indo-European languages were not found in the Maykop culture area, however, North Caucasian languages are present at this place which probably belong to the language of the Maykop culture.
@@The_Geographer_Maps en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamnaya_culture#Archaeogenetics
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus_hunter-gatherer
The DNA evidence is pretty clear. Even if the full CHG was present in the mesolithic, there is significant evidence for Iranian chalcolithic DNA in the Yamnaya people. Meaning, migration after the fall of Mesopotamia. It seems likely that people from already established civilizations like mesopotamia would bring language and culture to the nomads, not the other way around. It's the strangest logic ever. The DNA evidence is there to prove it, western scholars just don't like to discuss it.
Another interesting thing is that while the Yamnaya genetic component seems to have completely replaced ancient European genetics, the WSG component in the middle-east/south asia is more mixed with the native component. This could mean a lot of things. It almost certainly means that the WSG was alien to Europe but maybe not so alien in the middle-east.
what an levantine semitic religion has to do with iranians?
How exactly did you measure the genetic percentage of people living thousands of years ago? :)
Researchers have been extracting DNA from old bones. Google for "ancient DNA" and "David Reich" and "Narasimhan"
very poorly researched and misleading...
Ur mom herself is misleading you
Congrats for the video, this feels like a youtube cornerstone for me now
3:58 1555 BCE Rigvedians
4:18 1360 BCE
4:51 1045 BCE Indo-Aryans
4:54 1010 BCE
4:59 0960 BCE
5:22 0730 BCE
5:45 0500 BCE
6:02 0335 BCE
Thats false theres no such thing as indo iranian european whatever. All languages are descandants of sanskrit and the so called migration happened out of india not other way around. The lost indian clans who were expelled out of india conquered whole eurashia and spread hinduism which later became separate pagan religions in different places. Sky god dyauspitra and the thunder god Indra the king of gods became zeus, zupiter, thor etc. They worshiped danav/asuras etc and were known as malechcchas while the winning clan bharat worshiped devas.
@@prafful_sahu And more propaganda to spread to your friends and family.
@@prafful_sahu nope look at the tribals, we are much different from them, height and skin color also facial shape, look up the nuristani blondes
@@prafful_sahu nope languages is not descendents of sanskrit) and sanskrit is not from India originaly, aryans bring it when they conquer India
@Prafful Sahu how awful for you that 5000 years ago your culture had something to offer and now while the rest moved on and created the modern world, you have to get your pride from myths
4:50 the canaanites were not indo-european.
"Tokharian" is a long recognized misnomer.
These people were named serae by the romans. Their languages were not andronovan (satem languages). They were afanassievan.
Yuezhis are supposed to be of that group.
It's a fascinating history.
The rise of the xiongnus, who beated them, is seen by the turk army as their foundation.
Make a version of this of european religion please
There are already maps about religions in Europe, and I don't want to repeat them. I'd rather make maps about the spread of the ancestry of native speakers. for example, I am now making maps about the distribution of Proto-Slavic and Proto-Indo-Iranian ancestry, and I’m also thinking of making a map about the distribution of Proto-Uralic ancestry
@@The_Geographer_Maps Yes, but these maps about religion aren't well detailed.
0:00 A couple more mistakes: the domestication of the horse has already been done. The first to do so were the people of the Botai culture, who were not Indo-European.
6:00 Classify the Baltic Finns, Komi, and Proto-Hungarians, who are also not Indo-European.
Which softwares and map did you use?
I use softwares Paint Tool SAI and Windows Movie Maker. And I'm using the map from WikiCommons
really good work. Would you consider making a video with genetic ratio for other language families? Maybe Turkic
Of course! I make maps with genetic ratio for all language families. Right now I'm making a map about Indo-Iranian languages, but of course I'm also working on Turkic languages.
Wow, you were already working on Indo-Iranian languages.
Very informative, i see a great future for you.
But could you make it clearer? The name of these cultures cannot be read, the font is too small and blurry. Non-Indo-Europeans speakers should be marked with a different color.
How are you so confident Bell Beakers were IE speakers? I'm currently researching them and that's not the conclusion I'm drawing.
But the Bell Beakers were the only source of Indo-European ancestry and naturally languages in Western Europe, so whatever theories are, genetics shows that the Bell Beakers were Indo-Europeans.
Article:
"The Beaker phenomenon and the genomic transformation of northwest Europe"
There were no further migrations into western Europe after the Bell Beakers in 2,400 BCE, therefore they have to have spoken IE. What is making you draw different conclusions?
@@jboss1073 The earliest steppe admixture in Western Europe appears during the Bell Beaker culture. the Bell Beaker culture was the ancestor of the Germanic, Celtic and Romance languages. It's genetically proven
Articles:
"The Beaker phenomenon and the genomic transformation of northwest Europe"
"Ancient genomes from present-day France unveil 7,000 years of its demographic history"
@@The_Geographer_Maps So you agree with me then. Bell-Beakers brought IE.
@@jboss1073 Yes i agree with you