What an amazing lecture, so much info given in a visible form that made its understanding so much more accessible. Thank you very much Professor Reich.
My maternal haplo (h6a1b2) has been found in remains from various Yamna sites. I always wondered how my foremother ended up in the British isles - You always hear about the male lineages, moving westward, replacing the original WHG male lineages. This new information helps me visualize how the Yamna LADIES fared - because we were there too fellas! Looks like we were given in marriage/trade/left behind with the Corded Ware tribes - And we know they ultimately pushed into the British isles themselves. This is so interesting! Thank you for sharing this presentation! I saw David Reich’s name and clicked on the link so fast, I’ve been anticipating a discussion about the latest paper ❤
You should then read a real study about the ancient Europeans from a real scientist, Mario Alinei. While phylologist and linguist, he was deeply involved in study of ancient history as a part of his linguistic studies. And he had demonstrated scientifically that your haplogroup is native to Europe. Look up "Theory of continuity". It is a slowly but surely growing theory of deep history of Europe. Yamnaya group is but a small piece in the actual puzzle of white Europeans' history, not the main part of it. Renfrew was the first to oppose it and suggest that there are multiple problems with the "kurgan" and "yamnaya" theories because they were simultaneously present in C. and W. Europe as well as in the steppe of modern-day Russia. Impossible if "yamnaya" people came to Europe for the first time. Mario Alinei, and a number of archaeologists and other linguists have provided ample evidence to support and expand on Renfrew's suggestions. This guy here is out of his depth. Severely. He is not even a molecular biologist but an incompetent veterinarian. Why is he being given any attention is a mystery.
@@user-mh7ek6ud8eexactly! "Indo-Europeans" is made up propaganda by the monitored jewcademia. Real researchers know humanity began near the Agean region.
Ямная культура (this is the original) translates into English as "Pit (burial) culture" as the specific pit burials were its characteristic trait. This pit burial/kurghan (mound) culture replaced (allegedly - opinions differ and no wonder because it looks like our ancestor(?) just exterminated them; very little genetic admixture) the Cucuteni - Tripolye. This other older culture, something you might be interested in, was an extremely peaceful, matriarchal formation building clusters of villages of very egalitarian character. An intriguing thing about the C-T culture (apart from there being no remarkable halls for gathering or residences of chieftains in villages, maybe some shrines here and there, [no strict hierarchy means a big village and not a city] in villages as big as 3 - 4 thousand dwellings) was that every 60 - 80 years they were burning their villages wholesale and in an extremely thorough manner. It must have been a very deliberate exercise as modern experiments with such fires of wooden raw clay clad villages did not produce nearly as much sintering and vitrification as observed on the archaeologic sites of the culture. I, personally, can't imagine it happening otherwise as through stacking piles of hey and timber both in the houses and on the streets. After so many words a different remark. Never mind this haplo-group or another. We are all (and I mean all genetic variations of humans) able to internalize any other culture. The barrier is internal, rather than external; the carriers of the culture want to keep other out rather than the newcomers not willing to adopt new culture.
If the cline has unknown EHG related languages on one end and NW Caucasian on the other what language would they bring to Anatolia if they had moved there?
@@apo.7898 The question is if the (eastern-central) Anatolians were 30% CLV and 70% Mesopotamian, what language would they speak ? And what about Mycenians and western Anatolians ?
@@user-sm2du3su1e Theoretically a Mesopotamian language or a language from the CLV cline, which includes IE according to their views but it should include at least NW Caucasian. So it can be anything even a language related to Sumerian.
@@apo.7898 Well the problem is that it was not anything as both the Hittite and the western Anatolian languages were IE already at the time mentionned in the video (e.g ~ 2k BCE)
A pop filter would be more useful… and maybe a speech therapist. He has the weirdest speech impediment I’ve ever heard - he uses the Welsh (and Greenlandic) sound they spell ‘ll’ in all sorts of places instead of ‘sh’ and in ‘ch’.
south caucasus is higher , ( the term was created during Russian empire on 18th century) , under caucasus mountains , but not so south at the place of Armenian Highlands ... I suppose that scientifics must be more exact in their terminology
Basically the Sredny Stog who were 80% Euro-Siberian hunter gatherer were ancestors of all Indo-Anatolians. It’s impressive he mentions the much more mixed “Levantine” influence as one group but fails to mention the word “Europe” once….
Ha a "dniepr-donetz" vadász-halász műveltségre gondol akkor inkább a nyugati-vadász-gyütőgetők voltak azok (i2a): széles és szögletes arc, barna bőr és gyakran kék szem.
@@Ponto-zv9vf So Ukrainian Eastern Hunter Gatherers are Western Hunter gatherers then? Or a mix of the two like the Scandinavian Hunter Gatherers? There are only the WHG and EHG original populations.
Ridiculous. Some of the linguists, anthropologists and whatnot they cite have speculated that Maykop could have been NW Caucasian. Even if Yamnaya and Sredny Stog were PIE a movement from the 'CLV cline' could have brought non-IE languages to Anatolia like unkown EHG related languages or NW Caucasian at least. The Mesopotamian component makes the possibility of Kalehoyuk etc speaking non-IE languages probably higher. The samples are within the HATTIAN speaking area. From Wikipedia: "According to Alexey Kassian, there are also possible lexical correspondences between Hattic and Yeniseian languages, as well as Burushaski language; for instance, "tongue" is alef in Hattic and alup in Kott, "moon" is kap in Hattic and qīp in Ket, "mountain" is ziš in Hattic and ćhiṣ in Burushaski (compare also with *čɨʔs - a Proto-Yeniseian word for "stone")." And it is said the Hittites (Nesites) conquered Hattusa around 1650 BC.
It is a fishy business because the group R has only been found once outside of Europe, in Mal'ta, in Siberia, as a generic R and an unresolved U mt DNA. The results are highly suspicious. Meanwhile R1a and R1b have been confirmed to have lived all over Europe. But that is an inconvenient and grossly politically incorrect issue that the "out of africa" proponents want to asphyxiate and let die quietly. Meanwhile, a Venetian historian Mauro Orbini wrote back in 1605 a very detailed book calle "Il Regno degli Slavi" in which he cited a number of previous sources confirming that Germanic and Slavic groups have the same - and they do - roots in Scandinavia where they had lived for thousands of years as one people, speaking one language, before they had to head down south due to the ice age 30 000 years ago forcing them out of Scandinavia. A number of european linguist and archaeologists, led by the most famous linguist of our times Mario Alinei, had investigated and back in the early 1990s formulated the Continuity theory where they suggested that Orbini may had been right. The Germans and the Slavs are one and the same nordic people divided by the incoming ice age. The amount of ice, reaching up to 2 km in height across the northern Europe would have destroyed the evidence of our ancestry and explain why the landscape seems blank and archaeologically sterile. It would have crushed and then grinded it when it began melting and moving.
Not really, Corded ware were descendants of Steppe herders and Globular Amphora farmers. Western Europe was more Bell Beakers and R1b, Corded Ware was in the North and Northeast, and the males mostly R1a.
It's always, always about the hunther-gatherers in Caucasus and Anatolia..." They mixed with west farmers.." Well, why not, for once, talk about these farmers and their ancestors? Where did they come from? Or did they emerged in Western Europe? Cro Magnon, from 32000 bc? (Nobody still knows anything about). Or more likely Homo Heidelbergensis, from 800.000 bc?...
Well spotted, We actually know a lot about it, and it is in stark contrast with the babble this guy keeps regurgitating.He is a part of the group that wants to hide and destroy the "continuity theory" by Mario Alinei, famous linguist whose revolutionary work proved the "kurgan" and "yamnaya" hypotheses wrong. That was first suggested by Renfrew, well-known archaeologist from the UK, but he did not have much in view of evidence, back in the 1970s and 1980s. It was when Mario Alinei and a number of other linguists and archaeologists stumbled upon the facts about the true history of Europe that whole heck broke loose. See, if the Continuity theory is correct - and Mario Alinei and other scientists have provided ample evidence to support it - then a lot of our current consensus on what is "history of humans" falls flat on its face and dies. No one came out of africa, White Europeans are native to Europe - Venetian historian Mauro Orbini claimed that back in 1605, in his "Il Regno degli Slavi" - Asians are native to Asia, Africans are Asians who repopulated Africa some 15 000 years ago (that is now well-documented and confirmed fact), and American tribes have been in Americas for at least 130 000 years. Not hing of this is posible within the "out-of-africa" hypothesis, but it works perfectly in Multiple regions/centres of origin hypothesis. That is why this guy keeps talking nonsense and in very generic terms, never addressing the actual cultures. But then, he is actually a failed veterinarian and has nothing to do with molecular biology and DNA. Nothing he says is worth a dime. That is why neither he, nor most of archaeologists will ever actually talk about the "hunters-gatherers and "farmers". There is not a shred of evidence that that "history" had ever happened. The evidence is overwhelmingly distancing itself from the construct and is pointing at the continuity, not "arrival". We, the Europeans were always here and it was the asians who kept intruding. These are characterised by y-haplogroups I and G in all of their sub-groups and variations, and female haplogroups N, K, T, J, with sub-divisions.
@@user-mh7ek6ud8e you dropped your tinfoil hat, let me hand it to you... There is a lot we do not know, and the presence of good chunks of neanderthal show that mixing old populations happened, but inventing things without scientific basis, without peer reviews, is just guessing. These studies may still end up being wrong at some level, but the amount of "wrongness" gets smaller and smaller with more actual data.
@@user-mh7ek6ud8eamen. White Europeans were native to Europe. Ancient greek scholars knew that already from their own ancient sources. Tribes like the Arcadians existed before the great flood of 12.000 years ago. Indo-European fairytale is a smear campaign against the white Pelasgians to promote multiculturalism.
@@peterfireflylund Take yhour globalist multicultural "language" with you to the toilet next time you feel the urge to go, not here. And do us all a favour to look up the continuity theory, at least so that you can see why you are a globalist slave.Capisci "genius"?
Ungarischer kniefall vor dem R1a Amenmärchen research mtdna and you'll see the maternal lines representing IE better than anybody else when and if languages were given strictly by men to their offspring - and the R1 men were so uniqly poweful - why have I1 men grown equally together with R1-U106 . I2a are still there. G havent gone entirely and what weighs alot more : their women make 80 or 90 % of all IE
I don't think it is like that; more about what is the majority language. Think of the Franks occupying Roman Gaul. They where the rulers, formed the nobility, they where the warriors. But eventually they adopted a form of Vulgar Latin. If the Scandinavian men with I1 dominated Scandinavia but belonged to a small population compared to the "Battle Axe Culture" they could have adopted the Indo-European language, but maybe add some words to form the Germanic languages.
@@apo.7898 What about Irish, English, French, Spanish and Portuguese? Exceptions do not invalidate general priciples. Ancient DNA work has shown that the Etruscans were genetically indistinguishable from their Italic speaking neighbours and had similar levels of steppe ancestry. DNA and language are not necessarily stapled together.
@@urseliusurgel4365 What about them? The point is BB Culture could have been non-Indoeuropean and most Western Europeans adopted IE languages from the expansions of other groups (which had R1b individuals among them). But if you believe early PIE was R1b-M269 related you should explain why they were so willing to forget their languages in multiple cases.
@@apo.7898 My point is that the Basques and Etruscans were local oddities, where steppe ancestry, presumably arriving with Indo-European speakers, did not displace earlier languages. The opposite is true of the Sardinians, who speak Sard (Indo-European), a language closer to Latin than is Italian, but who have almost no Steppe ancestry at all. Picking on exceptions, while curious, does not disprove a general truth.
@@urseliusurgel4365 In reality there's no such thing as 'steppe ancestry'. The term was created to support a flawed theory. You make an assumption that Basque was being spoken in Spain before the BB expansion but it is possible it was the language of the BB culture. And maybe not native in Spain but e.g. in Central Europe. But there would be two cases of R1b majority populations shifting languages either way and that is in Europe only.
I thought this was settled - IE speakers entered Anatolia from the east (probably initiating movement of Palestinians southwards & Etruscans westwards).
@@Nastya_07We don't know that - evidence is mounting that the IE dispersal occurred earlier than previously thought - I have long been convinced that it was about 5750BC, as a result of the Black Sea being inundated by the collapse of the Bosphorus barrier
@@Nastya_07 It was dated that because they didn’t know how else to reconcile it with the genetic data they had. Now they know for certain that some groups were migrating thousands of km in just a generation or two.
David Reich is a poor speaker, he hasn't improved considering how many of these presentations he has done. I found it boring, all that time and money spent on finding more about the Steppe herders who are 50% of the ancestry of NW Europeans. Well I am not NW European, and have much less of that ancestry, and of less interest to me. The researchers seem quite adept at making a mountain out of a mole hill. Indo-European languages seem to be the blue eyed boy of these researchers, no other language families mean less than nothing to those researchers. The fact that English is a world language and all those other I.E languages like Swedish, Italian, Bulgarian, Polish, you name it, are pushed to the outer is of no concern.
It's sloppy, I agree. However this guy is a serious scientist. If I get it right, it's about the people who spoke a language that constitutes the basis of today's Indo-European languages and their descendents' (who were often of mixed heritage) migrations. There is supportive data for the theory that the (initial) spread of Indo-European languages (and culture) throughout Eurasia was at a substantial number of points accompanied by the migration of quite a sizeable number of people, resulting in the replacement of, or substantial admixture with existing populations, according to the circumstances. If used correctly genetics can help to bring light to the past. But I agree with you, one should under no circumstances compress it the way it is done in the title, as this gives rise to dangerous misleading equations between genes and culture.
@@aaron.aaron.v.b.9448 It seems to me that all new languages are the offspring of at least two parents - the two(+) populations that used to speak different languages but now want to communicate. If you agree that makes sense, then saying we are all descendants of "proto Indo Europeans" is a bit like saying we are all descendants of Abraham. What about all the other people (and languages) equally involved? I don't understand why people are so blind to the pragmatic logic of language creation, nor why people blithely assume speaking similar languages is evidence of similar genetics, when you only have to look at the world today to realise that speaking a lingua franca like English tells you nothing about the genetics of the person speaking it. I don't believe it has ever been otherwise. O well, I'm sure someone will tell me common sense has nothing to do with it and the experts are never wrong...
@@kubhlaikhan2015 you make too many assumptions of how things allegedly are without caring about the empirical side of the story. one won't find out a lot about the world, if one makes up all the data in one's head.
It's not even that. When king Dionysius went to india 8000 years before Alexander the Great, he brought his civilization to these people.. they didn't have concept of family. So the word frater (brother), mater (mother), which had the same root in indian and Sanskrit and Sumerian etc, where all given by the Pelasgians. Human history is just Pelasgian global spread history.
@@aniketanpelletier82 No they weren't. If you look at the genetic samples, they were all predicted to have dark hair and eyes. Blonde hair didn't even start with the Yamnaya, it started with the ANE. Do your research.
@@freepagan The Yamnaya were not blonde, but the CW often were thanks to their Globular Amphora admixture and probably also drift and sexual selection. I never said the Yamnaya were blonde. The ANE sample you're referring to, Afontova Gora 3, had one of the major alleles for blonde hair, but probably did not have blonde hair herself.
Very small sample, ignoring the main Indo Europeans from the Ethiopia/ Somalia regions. Yamnya people/culture who entered India had names like Jammu or Jamuna that are synonyms.
“No accident”? Well, not a big enough youtube population to make them feel it is worth it. Trying to find a nice way to say, insignificant from the UA-cam perspective. You might change that if you lobby them.
@@gyulaerdei3180 28k views in 2 months = fewer than 500 views per day = NEGLIGIBLE. UA-cam is a business. Its business-model is attracting views to advertisements. A video that gets 28k views in an HOUR is worth youtube’s automated services. P.S. Obtuseness is not an effective rhetorical device, it’s a childish form of bad-faith debate.
Romanians. As in Carpatho-Danubiano-Pontic people around 5508 BCE / Black Sea Flood = Phase 1 (the original PIE "Urheimat") Phase 2 of indoeuropean spreading = Kurganic migration (Yamnaya people)
Either this is European or Indic, but it can't be both. Drop the Indo- prefix from these kinds of crazy delusional analyses. If it's just European, let it be just that.
There were no Indo-Europeans. That's pseudoscientific jewpaganda to erase the pelasgic/agean/Hellenic origins of our species. Show us one settlement or one pottery of this fabled tribe
Lol, what? But the Indo-Europeans aren't foreign, they're European. Hellenic origins? Take a look at most Greeks and tell me why you think they're indigenous Europeans.
You are partly right... the term Indo-European actually denotes a geographical area, which was named in the opposite direction of the spread of a real ancestral language... European-Indo would actually be the correct name. But as above so below. The most ancient language is hidden under this false doctrine, and if I told you which one it is, you wouldn't believe it either. Because science is actually religion. After all, you don't have to know, it's enough if you just believe you know. But it's not the people you mentioned who do this, their names can only be written since 1524, so that identity has existed for exactly 500 years, since the letter "J" has been there. Their story is also just a fairy tale. Anyway, we can call it Pelasgian, but it's not, and like the Greek language and every other language... this language is actually the origin, and based on the findings and genetic research... We speak and preserve this language for approx. 40,000 years already. Officially, there are still 14 million of us who speak this language as our mother tongue. In its current form. At one time all the people of the world spoke the same language and used the same words. As the people migratedan to the east, they found a plain in the land of Babylonia and settled there. - Genesis 11,1-2 ( NLT )
@@freepagan Cope. R1a/R1b are unrelated to Europeans. They're ANEgritos from Southeast Asia. They're called """West Eurasian""" and """European hunter-gatherer""" for political reasons.
The truth is obvious, and the writing is on the wall; proto-Indo European language is just proto-proto-Vedic Sanskrit. It originated in Northern India. There were waves of migrations from Northern India upward. One set of migrations saw the people of Northern India migrate up to the steppe, possibly mixing in with the Steppe people and forming the "Kurgan" Yamnaya culture; these people would eventually overtake Europe all the way to West Europe with their R1b, and also migrated to southern China (hence Tocharian, R1b)...Meanwhile, in Northern India, that proto Indo-European language (which was just proto-proto Vedic Sanskrit) developed into proto-indio Iranian, there were migrations into Iran. In Northern India, that proto-indo Iranian (which was just proto Vedic Sanskrit) developed into Vedic Sanskrit. Later, there were migrations (probably with the drying up of the Saraswati River in Northern India) of people up to Eastern Europe (hence R1a distribution and similarities between Lithuanian and Sanskrit). There were also separate migrations from Northern India into Anatolia (hence Hittite).....Thus, in summary, the proto-Indo European language was just proto-proto Vedic Sanskrit and it originated in Northern India. The distribution of Indo-European languages are the result of waves of migration from Northern India. It's as simple as that...This explains R1a and R1b distribution, the Tocharian language, the Satem vs. Centum differences, the reasons why there are similarities between Hittite and Sanskrit and Lithuanian and Sanskrit, etc....Remember, migrations are unidirectional, never really bilateral; thus it's much more likely that those migrations occurred from a certain region as opposed to symmetrical migrations from the Steppe in a westward and eastward direction (with a gap of 1,000 years as purported by the Kurgan hypothesis).... It's time that Euro-centric scholars disband their racist lens and apply common sense to this problem; with a newfound clarity of thought, they will reach the aforementioned conclusion.
Actually the out-of-India hypothesis does not have supporting evidence. On the contrary, it seems thoroughly debunked. Of course to the displease of Hindu nationalists, but you cannot make myth believers happy, with facts, for any stretch of time. Like the Jewish learning that the Bible is basically a mix of Levant myths for anything prior to 600BCE, and that they are just another Cannanite group. Myths and origin stories are nice as culture, but arguing that they are convincing evidence is not useful. For that you need evidence like the one collected for some myth stories in Australia, and even that is thinly supported.
Sorry, I hate giving ups and downs to anybody, but when I read your claim something that irrational, I just could not stop myself. Feel free to give me a negative to even out the scale. Just bear in mind that that will still not make your claim any smarter. To the contrary. As to why, find the work on continuity theory by Mario Alinei, the greatest linguist of our time, who explains the roots of Europeans, and our languages, in great and very scientific detail. The grammar is what differentiates one language from another, not the words, which are exchangeable - can be acquired without the grammar being affected in any way. If European and "indian" languages were to come from the same source, the way Slavic and German languages do, we would see the same, or similar, grammar at work. European and "indian" languages have absolutely no grammatical similarities that would suggest common ancestor.
What an amazing lecture, so much info given in a visible form that made its understanding so much more accessible. Thank you very much Professor Reich.
I’ve gotten to the point in my life where I am excited to listen to all of this.but more importantly, understand it. Thanks so much!
Thank you for uploading this. Fascinating.
My maternal haplo (h6a1b2) has been found in remains from various Yamna sites. I always wondered how my foremother ended up in the British isles - You always hear about the male lineages, moving westward, replacing the original WHG male lineages. This new information helps me visualize how the Yamna LADIES fared - because we were there too fellas! Looks like we were given in marriage/trade/left behind with the Corded Ware tribes - And we know they ultimately pushed into the British isles themselves.
This is so interesting! Thank you for sharing this presentation! I saw David Reich’s name and clicked on the link so fast, I’ve been anticipating a discussion about the latest paper ❤
You should then read a real study about the ancient Europeans from a real scientist, Mario Alinei. While phylologist and linguist, he was deeply involved in study of ancient history as a part of his linguistic studies. And he had demonstrated scientifically that your haplogroup is native to Europe. Look up "Theory of continuity". It is a slowly but surely growing theory of deep history of Europe. Yamnaya group is but a small piece in the actual puzzle of white Europeans' history, not the main part of it. Renfrew was the first to oppose it and suggest that there are multiple problems with the "kurgan" and "yamnaya" theories because they were simultaneously present in C. and W. Europe as well as in the steppe of modern-day Russia. Impossible if "yamnaya" people came to Europe for the first time.
Mario Alinei, and a number of archaeologists and other linguists have provided ample evidence to support and expand on Renfrew's suggestions. This guy here is out of his depth. Severely. He is not even a molecular biologist but an incompetent veterinarian. Why is he being given any attention is a mystery.
@@user-mh7ek6ud8eexactly! "Indo-Europeans" is made up propaganda by the monitored jewcademia. Real researchers know humanity began near the Agean region.
Through Saxony and Friesland
Ямная культура (this is the original) translates into English as "Pit (burial) culture" as the specific pit burials were its characteristic trait. This pit burial/kurghan (mound) culture replaced (allegedly - opinions differ and no wonder because it looks like our ancestor(?) just exterminated them; very little genetic admixture) the Cucuteni - Tripolye. This other older culture, something you might be interested in, was an extremely peaceful, matriarchal formation building clusters of villages of very egalitarian character. An intriguing thing about the C-T culture (apart from there being no remarkable halls for gathering or residences of chieftains in villages, maybe some shrines here and there, [no strict hierarchy means a big village and not a city] in villages as big as 3 - 4 thousand dwellings) was that every 60 - 80 years they were burning their villages wholesale and in an extremely thorough manner. It must have been a very deliberate exercise as modern experiments with such fires of wooden raw clay clad villages did not produce nearly as much sintering and vitrification as observed on the archaeologic sites of the culture. I, personally, can't imagine it happening otherwise as through stacking piles of hey and timber both in the houses and on the streets.
After so many words a different remark. Never mind this haplo-group or another. We are all (and I mean all genetic variations of humans) able to internalize any other culture. The barrier is internal, rather than external; the carriers of the culture want to keep other out rather than the newcomers not willing to adopt new culture.
I'm stuck with U4 as my x haplo and I really don't want it😭
Zseniális videó! 😍
Great video. The discovery of CLV component in Anatolia is quite surprising and will need some more explaining.
If the cline has unknown EHG related languages on one end and NW Caucasian on the other what language would they bring to Anatolia if they had moved there?
@@apo.7898 The question is if the (eastern-central) Anatolians were 30% CLV and 70% Mesopotamian, what language would they speak ? And what about Mycenians and western Anatolians ?
@@user-sm2du3su1e Theoretically a Mesopotamian language or a language from the CLV cline, which includes IE according to their views but it should include at least NW Caucasian. So it can be anything even a language related to Sumerian.
@@apo.7898 Well the problem is that it was not anything as both the Hittite and the western Anatolian languages were IE already at the time mentionned in the video (e.g ~ 2k BCE)
@@user-sm2du3su1e My personal opinion is that Anatolian is native in South Anatolia but I don't follow the steppe model.
This is great content. Only one small complaint. Soft speakers should really speak up or turn the microphone up.
He knows that he is talking nonsense - he is a veterinarian, not a molecular biologist, hence hiding from microphone.
A pop filter would be more useful… and maybe a speech therapist. He has the weirdest speech impediment I’ve ever heard - he uses the Welsh (and Greenlandic) sound they spell ‘ll’ in all sorts of places instead of ‘sh’ and in ‘ch’.
Try 2xing it. Use headphones and CC. Then his voice will change and you can still try get a 100% refund for your customer complaints.
@@peterfireflylund one man's speech impediment is another man's contribution to language evolution
The guy is Harvard -professor in genetics. He's doing just fine without your stupid remarks about his speech.
Best video on the subject. TU
south caucasus is higher , ( the term was created during Russian empire on 18th century) , under caucasus mountains , but not so south at the place of Armenian Highlands ... I suppose that scientifics must be more exact in their terminology
No, Armenia proper is what he is referring to.
Basically the Sredny Stog who were 80% Euro-Siberian hunter gatherer were ancestors of all Indo-Anatolians. It’s impressive he mentions the much more mixed “Levantine” influence as one group but fails to mention the word “Europe” once….
Do we know if the CLV was originally composed of WHG or CHG (and some ANE element) or all three?
Is the Ukrainian Eastern Hunter Gatherers the same as Eastern Hunter Gatherers?
Ha a "dniepr-donetz" vadász-halász műveltségre gondol akkor inkább a nyugati-vadász-gyütőgetők voltak azok (i2a): széles és szögletes arc, barna bőr és gyakran kék szem.
@@belagyanta7 Thanks they use the term "Ukrainian Eastern Hunter Gatherers" in the video.
According to those clines, they are separate.
@@Ponto-zv9vf So Ukrainian Eastern Hunter Gatherers are Western Hunter gatherers then? Or a mix of the two like the Scandinavian Hunter Gatherers? There are only the WHG and EHG original populations.
I think they where mostly EHG with some WHG admixture. If you look at the map here. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_hunter-gatherer
Volume way too low. Disturbing.
you don't have headphones? You can use CC also.
Ridiculous.
Some of the linguists, anthropologists and whatnot they cite have speculated that Maykop could have been NW Caucasian.
Even if Yamnaya and Sredny Stog were PIE a movement from the 'CLV cline' could have brought non-IE languages to Anatolia like unkown EHG related languages or NW Caucasian at least.
The Mesopotamian component makes the possibility of Kalehoyuk etc speaking non-IE languages probably higher.
The samples are within the HATTIAN speaking area.
From Wikipedia:
"According to Alexey Kassian, there are also possible lexical correspondences between Hattic and Yeniseian languages, as well as Burushaski language; for instance, "tongue" is alef in Hattic and alup in Kott, "moon" is kap in Hattic and qīp in Ket, "mountain" is ziš in Hattic and ćhiṣ in Burushaski (compare also with *čɨʔs - a Proto-Yeniseian word for "stone")."
And it is said the Hittites (Nesites) conquered Hattusa around 1650 BC.
Tolkien would be so proud!!! This is great stuff on early indo Europeans when they lived among dwarves and elfs
I'm glad people are waking up to that unscientific Indo-European nonsense
I don't think the Eurasian Steppes is Middle Earth, maybe Mordor.
The narrative seems to support and supply a tentative date to the precipitating marriage tournament events described in the Mahabharata epic.
Really, I thought it all about warfare with the tall light skinned and pointy noses against the short dark skinned with pudgy noses.
@@Ponto-zv9vf Seeing civil society or race war....
if R1b is missing in CWC, and CWC brought PIE into Western Europe, how come R1b is predominant in WE; what was it's vector of spread then?
It is a fishy business because the group R has only been found once outside of Europe, in Mal'ta, in Siberia, as a generic R and an unresolved U mt DNA. The results are highly suspicious. Meanwhile R1a and R1b have been confirmed to have lived all over Europe. But that is an inconvenient and grossly politically incorrect issue that the "out of africa" proponents want to asphyxiate and let die quietly. Meanwhile, a Venetian historian Mauro Orbini wrote back in 1605 a very detailed book calle "Il Regno degli Slavi" in which he cited a number of previous sources confirming that Germanic and Slavic groups have the same - and they do - roots in Scandinavia where they had lived for thousands of years as one people, speaking one language, before they had to head down south due to the ice age 30 000 years ago forcing them out of Scandinavia.
A number of european linguist and archaeologists, led by the most famous linguist of our times Mario Alinei, had investigated and back in the early 1990s formulated the Continuity theory where they suggested that Orbini may had been right. The Germans and the Slavs are one and the same nordic people divided by the incoming ice age. The amount of ice, reaching up to 2 km in height across the northern Europe would have destroyed the evidence of our ancestry and explain why the landscape seems blank and archaeologically sterile. It would have crushed and then grinded it when it began melting and moving.
Not really, Corded ware were descendants of Steppe herders and Globular Amphora farmers. Western Europe was more Bell Beakers and R1b, Corded Ware was in the North and Northeast, and the males mostly R1a.
@@Ponto-zv9vf so Bell Beakers are not descendants of CWC? Where did R1b come from, I assume it's not WHG or ENF either?
@@user-ie3wm5yv6u Bell Beakers are partly CWC but there is an Iberian branch as well.
It's always, always about the hunther-gatherers in Caucasus and Anatolia..." They mixed with west farmers.." Well, why not, for once, talk about these farmers and their ancestors? Where did they come from? Or did they emerged in Western Europe? Cro Magnon, from 32000 bc? (Nobody still knows anything about). Or more likely Homo Heidelbergensis, from 800.000 bc?...
Well spotted, We actually know a lot about it, and it is in stark contrast with the babble this guy keeps regurgitating.He is a part of the group that wants to hide and destroy the "continuity theory" by Mario Alinei, famous linguist whose revolutionary work proved the "kurgan" and "yamnaya" hypotheses wrong. That was first suggested by Renfrew, well-known archaeologist from the UK, but he did not have much in view of evidence, back in the 1970s and 1980s. It was when Mario Alinei and a number of other linguists and archaeologists stumbled upon the facts about the true history of Europe that whole heck broke loose.
See, if the Continuity theory is correct - and Mario Alinei and other scientists have provided ample evidence to support it - then a lot of our current consensus on what is "history of humans" falls flat on its face and dies. No one came out of africa, White Europeans are native to Europe - Venetian historian Mauro Orbini claimed that back in 1605, in his "Il Regno degli Slavi" - Asians are native to Asia, Africans are Asians who repopulated Africa some 15 000 years ago (that is now well-documented and confirmed fact), and American tribes have been in Americas for at least 130 000 years.
Not hing of this is posible within the "out-of-africa" hypothesis, but it works perfectly in Multiple regions/centres of origin hypothesis.
That is why this guy keeps talking nonsense and in very generic terms, never addressing the actual cultures. But then, he is actually a failed veterinarian and has nothing to do with molecular biology and DNA.
Nothing he says is worth a dime. That is why neither he, nor most of archaeologists will ever actually talk about the "hunters-gatherers and "farmers". There is not a shred of evidence that that "history" had ever happened. The evidence is overwhelmingly distancing itself from the construct and is pointing at the continuity, not "arrival". We, the Europeans were always here and it was the asians who kept intruding. These are characterised by y-haplogroups I and G in all of their sub-groups and variations, and female haplogroups N, K, T, J, with sub-divisions.
@@user-mh7ek6ud8e you dropped your tinfoil hat, let me hand it to you...
There is a lot we do not know, and the presence of good chunks of neanderthal show that mixing old populations happened, but inventing things without scientific basis, without peer reviews, is just guessing. These studies may still end up being wrong at some level, but the amount of "wrongness" gets smaller and smaller with more actual data.
@@user-mh7ek6ud8eamen. White Europeans were native to Europe. Ancient greek scholars knew that already from their own ancient sources. Tribes like the Arcadians existed before the great flood of 12.000 years ago. Indo-European fairytale is a smear campaign against the white Pelasgians to promote multiculturalism.
@@user-mh7ek6ud8emisinformation. You might as well call the Earth flat or say that pi is rational.
@@peterfireflylund Take yhour globalist multicultural "language" with you to the toilet next time you feel the urge to go, not here. And do us all a favour to look up the continuity theory, at least so that you can see why you are a globalist slave.Capisci "genius"?
Ungarischer kniefall vor dem R1a Amenmärchen
research mtdna and you'll see the maternal lines representing IE better than anybody else
when and if languages were given strictly by men to their offspring - and the R1 men were so uniqly poweful - why have I1 men grown equally together with R1-U106 . I2a are still there. G havent gone entirely and what weighs alot more : their women make 80 or 90 % of all IE
I don't think it is like that; more about what is the majority language. Think of the Franks occupying Roman Gaul. They where the rulers, formed the nobility, they where the warriors. But eventually they adopted a form of Vulgar Latin. If the Scandinavian men with I1 dominated Scandinavia but belonged to a small population compared to the "Battle Axe Culture" they could have adopted the Indo-European language, but maybe add some words to form the Germanic languages.
A Kurgan - Szkita temetkezési mód !
*
A temetkezésnél, felhúzott láb ... szintén Szkita - (sumer.)
😊
So, R1b is the bearer of the Indo-European languages....aha...
That's why they ended up speaking Basque in Spain, Etruscan in Italy and Chadic in Africa.
@@apo.7898 What about Irish, English, French, Spanish and Portuguese? Exceptions do not invalidate general priciples. Ancient DNA work has shown that the Etruscans were genetically indistinguishable from their Italic speaking neighbours and had similar levels of steppe ancestry. DNA and language are not necessarily stapled together.
@@urseliusurgel4365 What about them? The point is BB Culture could have been non-Indoeuropean and most Western Europeans adopted IE languages from the expansions of other groups (which had R1b individuals among them).
But if you believe early PIE was R1b-M269 related you should explain why they were so willing to forget their languages in multiple cases.
@@apo.7898 My point is that the Basques and Etruscans were local oddities, where steppe ancestry, presumably arriving with Indo-European speakers, did not displace earlier languages. The opposite is true of the Sardinians, who speak Sard (Indo-European), a language closer to Latin than is Italian, but who have almost no Steppe ancestry at all. Picking on exceptions, while curious, does not disprove a general truth.
@@urseliusurgel4365 In reality there's no such thing as 'steppe ancestry'. The term was created to support a flawed theory.
You make an assumption that Basque was being spoken in Spain before the BB expansion but it is possible it was the language of the BB culture. And maybe not native in Spain but e.g. in Central Europe.
But there would be two cases of R1b majority populations shifting languages either way and that is in Europe only.
I thought this was settled - IE speakers entered Anatolia from the east (probably initiating movement of Palestinians southwards & Etruscans westwards).
The Philistines and (possibly) Etruscans migrated much later during the Late Bronze Age collapse
@@Nastya_07We don't know that - evidence is mounting that the IE dispersal occurred earlier than previously thought - I have long been convinced that it was about 5750BC, as a result of the Black Sea being inundated by the collapse of the Bosphorus barrier
@@paulbennett772 Early PIE itself is usually dated to 4500 BC
@@Nastya_07 It was dated that because they didn’t know how else to reconcile it with the genetic data they had. Now they know for certain that some groups were migrating thousands of km in just a generation or two.
@@Nastya_07 Etruscans didn't migrated much later during the Late Bronze Age collapse. They were already in Etruria since neolithic times.
David Reich is a poor speaker, he hasn't improved considering how many of these presentations he has done. I found it boring, all that time and money spent on finding more about the Steppe herders who are 50% of the ancestry of NW Europeans. Well I am not NW European, and have much less of that ancestry, and of less interest to me. The researchers seem quite adept at making a mountain out of a mole hill. Indo-European languages seem to be the blue eyed boy of these researchers, no other language families mean less than nothing to those researchers. The fact that English is a world language and all those other I.E languages like Swedish, Italian, Bulgarian, Polish, you name it, are pushed to the outer is of no concern.
Indo-European is a language family. Looking for the "genetic roots" of a language is as absurd as it sounds.
It's sloppy, I agree. However this guy is a serious scientist. If I get it right, it's about the people who spoke a language that constitutes the basis of today's Indo-European languages and their descendents' (who were often of mixed heritage) migrations. There is supportive data for the theory that the (initial) spread of Indo-European languages (and culture) throughout Eurasia was at a substantial number of points accompanied by the migration of quite a sizeable number of people, resulting in the replacement of, or substantial admixture with existing populations, according to the circumstances. If used correctly genetics can help to bring light to the past. But I agree with you, one should under no circumstances compress it the way it is done in the title, as this gives rise to dangerous misleading equations between genes and culture.
@@aaron.aaron.v.b.9448 It seems to me that all new languages are the offspring of at least two parents - the two(+) populations that used to speak different languages but now want to communicate. If you agree that makes sense, then saying we are all descendants of "proto Indo Europeans" is a bit like saying we are all descendants of Abraham. What about all the other people (and languages) equally involved? I don't understand why people are so blind to the pragmatic logic of language creation, nor why people blithely assume speaking similar languages is evidence of similar genetics, when you only have to look at the world today to realise that speaking a lingua franca like English tells you nothing about the genetics of the person speaking it. I don't believe it has ever been otherwise. O well, I'm sure someone will tell me common sense has nothing to do with it and the experts are never wrong...
@@kubhlaikhan2015 you make too many assumptions of how things allegedly are without caring about the empirical side of the story. one won't find out a lot about the world, if one makes up all the data in one's head.
It's not even that. When king Dionysius went to india 8000 years before Alexander the Great, he brought his civilization to these people.. they didn't have concept of family. So the word frater (brother), mater (mother), which had the same root in indian and Sanskrit and Sumerian etc, where all given by the Pelasgians. Human history is just Pelasgian global spread history.
@@keylanoslokj1806 Pretty sure human history began a couple of million years earlier and nobody invented family.
Lot of ethnonarcissist Greeks and Indians triggered that PIE came from blonde corded ware europeans - sad!
Is your name Aniket ? Just asking since it is an Indian Maharashtrian name.
They weren't blonde and Greek doesn't derive from Corded Ware, but from Late Yamnaya
@@Nastya_07 u r actually right about Greek, doesn't excuse the pseudoscience about how Indo-European came from the Aegean or whatever. CW were blonde.
@@aniketanpelletier82 No they weren't. If you look at the genetic samples, they were all predicted to have dark hair and eyes. Blonde hair didn't even start with the Yamnaya, it started with the ANE. Do your research.
@@freepagan The Yamnaya were not blonde, but the CW often were thanks to their Globular Amphora admixture and probably also drift and sexual selection. I never said the Yamnaya were blonde. The ANE sample you're referring to, Afontova Gora 3, had one of the major alleles for blonde hair, but probably did not have blonde hair herself.
Very small sample, ignoring the main Indo Europeans from the Ethiopia/ Somalia regions. Yamnya people/culture who entered India had names like Jammu or Jamuna that are synonyms.
There were no Indo-Europeans originating in the Horn of Africa.
What sort of pseudo-scientific nationalist PIE theory are you parroting?
Ugy gondolom...hogy a Magyar - nyelv ... Nem véletlen van kihagyva, az automata - forditásból ! *
😢
“No accident”? Well, not a big enough youtube population to make them feel it is worth it. Trying to find a nice way to say, insignificant from the UA-cam perspective. You might change that if you lobby them.
15 000 000 ember - miért van kihagyva ! ?
"jelentéktelen " *
?
@@gyulaerdei3180
28k views in 2 months = fewer than 500 views per day = NEGLIGIBLE.
UA-cam is a business. Its business-model is attracting views to advertisements. A video that gets 28k views in an HOUR is worth youtube’s automated services. P.S. Obtuseness is not an effective rhetorical device, it’s a childish form of bad-faith debate.
ORIGIN - INDOEUROPEANS =
= MAGYAR -- ! ! !
* (Szkíta...)
❤
Romanians.
As in Carpatho-Danubiano-Pontic people around 5508 BCE / Black Sea Flood = Phase 1 (the original PIE "Urheimat")
Phase 2 of indoeuropean spreading = Kurganic migration (Yamnaya people)
Nem. Bullshit
@@RazvanMihaeanu - ..... Romaniens .....
zagyva irás... egybevesz mindazt ami nem tartozik össze .... ! *
Uh, uh, uh unlistenable.
Only if you are unequipped to comprehend and do not have a volume control.
Either this is European or Indic, but it can't be both.
Drop the Indo- prefix from these kinds of crazy delusional analyses. If it's just European, let it be just that.
There were no Indo-Europeans. That's pseudoscientific jewpaganda to erase the pelasgic/agean/Hellenic origins of our species. Show us one settlement or one pottery of this fabled tribe
Lol, what? But the Indo-Europeans aren't foreign, they're European.
Hellenic origins? Take a look at most Greeks and tell me why you think they're indigenous Europeans.
You are partly right... the term Indo-European actually denotes a geographical area, which was named in the opposite direction of the spread of a real ancestral language... European-Indo would actually be the correct name. But as above so below. The most ancient language is hidden under this false doctrine, and if I told you which one it is, you wouldn't believe it either. Because science is actually religion. After all, you don't have to know, it's enough if you just believe you know.
But it's not the people you mentioned who do this, their names can only be written since 1524, so that identity has existed for exactly 500 years, since the letter "J" has been there. Their story is also just a fairy tale. Anyway, we can call it Pelasgian, but it's not, and like the Greek language and every other language... this language is actually the origin, and based on the findings and genetic research...
We speak and preserve this language for approx. 40,000 years already. Officially, there are still 14 million of us who speak this language as our mother tongue. In its current form.
At one time all the people of the world spoke the same language and used the same words. As the people migratedan to the east, they found a plain in the land of Babylonia and settled there. - Genesis 11,1-2 ( NLT )
@@freepagan Cope. R1a/R1b are unrelated to Europeans. They're ANEgritos from Southeast Asia. They're called """West Eurasian""" and """European hunter-gatherer""" for political reasons.
you just can't hold your antisemitism, whatever the subject matter
@@lukistrela Jews are ok. Israelis aren't. Imo.
The truth is obvious, and the writing is on the wall; proto-Indo European language is just proto-proto-Vedic Sanskrit. It originated in Northern India. There were waves of migrations from Northern India upward. One set of migrations saw the people of Northern India migrate up to the steppe, possibly mixing in with the Steppe people and forming the "Kurgan" Yamnaya culture; these people would eventually overtake Europe all the way to West Europe with their R1b, and also migrated to southern China (hence Tocharian, R1b)...Meanwhile, in Northern India, that proto Indo-European language (which was just proto-proto Vedic Sanskrit) developed into proto-indio Iranian, there were migrations into Iran. In Northern India, that proto-indo Iranian (which was just proto Vedic Sanskrit) developed into Vedic Sanskrit. Later, there were migrations (probably with the drying up of the Saraswati River in Northern India) of people up to Eastern Europe (hence R1a distribution and similarities between Lithuanian and Sanskrit). There were also separate migrations from Northern India into Anatolia (hence Hittite).....Thus, in summary, the proto-Indo European language was just proto-proto Vedic Sanskrit and it originated in Northern India. The distribution of Indo-European languages are the result of waves of migration from Northern India. It's as simple as that...This explains R1a and R1b distribution, the Tocharian language, the Satem vs. Centum differences, the reasons why there are similarities between Hittite and Sanskrit and Lithuanian and Sanskrit, etc....Remember, migrations are unidirectional, never really bilateral; thus it's much more likely that those migrations occurred from a certain region as opposed to symmetrical migrations from the Steppe in a westward and eastward direction (with a gap of 1,000 years as purported by the Kurgan hypothesis).... It's time that Euro-centric scholars disband their racist lens and apply common sense to this problem; with a newfound clarity of thought, they will reach the aforementioned conclusion.
😂
Actually the out-of-India hypothesis does not have supporting evidence. On the contrary, it seems thoroughly debunked. Of course to the displease of Hindu nationalists, but you cannot make myth believers happy, with facts, for any stretch of time. Like the Jewish learning that the Bible is basically a mix of Levant myths for anything prior to 600BCE, and that they are just another Cannanite group.
Myths and origin stories are nice as culture, but arguing that they are convincing evidence is not useful. For that you need evidence like the one collected for some myth stories in Australia, and even that is thinly supported.
Bro your own mythology admits it was the Pelasgians of king Dionysus who brought you civilization. Lol
True
Sorry, I hate giving ups and downs to anybody, but when I read your claim something that irrational, I just could not stop myself. Feel free to give me a negative to even out the scale. Just bear in mind that that will still not make your claim any smarter. To the contrary.
As to why, find the work on continuity theory by Mario Alinei, the greatest linguist of our time, who explains the roots of Europeans, and our languages, in great and very scientific detail.
The grammar is what differentiates one language from another, not the words, which are exchangeable - can be acquired without the grammar being affected in any way. If European and "indian" languages were to come from the same source, the way Slavic and German languages do, we would see the same, or similar, grammar at work. European and "indian" languages have absolutely no grammatical similarities that would suggest common ancestor.