What Happened to the Last European Hunter Gatherer: Some farm girl thought he looked muscular and hot, with his bow and all, married him, and turned him into a sad little farmer...
This is so cool. Learning about the advent of agriculture has come in stages for me. In high school it's like "growing your own food means people can stay in one place and store food, leaving free time to develop specialized crafts." Then I read something by Jared Diamond about "actually early agriculture sucked, most people worked harder and were slightly malnourished." Which begs the question of how it caught on. This is a much more inclusive take that gets at the nuance of it. For a while they'd coexist, and by virtue of producing more people, eventually farmers win out and absorb the less populous hunter-gatherers, but since their way of life came with such advantages, they join farmer society in a privileged position. And the spread of genes and customs bares this out. Neat!
Yeah, it isn't even necessarily just producing more people, but that the farmers can support more on each square kilometre, so the hunter gatherers can't push them out militarily even if individually the hunter gatherers were healthier and stronger.
It is assumed that the transition from Hunter Gatherer in the middle east the result of women produced more food by gathering corn, than men by hunting animals. This led to a change of lifestyle from a hunter dominated society to an agricultural society. Maybe from there comes the tale of Adam and Eve. Agricultural lifestyles mean less protein more hydrocarbons. Our digestive system was not made for that. People had problems with their teeth's, had to work hard to change woodland into farmland and the surplus population was always forced to migrate to new lands. Maybe the people remembered the good old times as paradise and the new lifestyle as the punishment of God for eating the forbidden fruit. ;-) Also, people grow smaller with mainly grain nutrition. Farm women could get pregnant every year. While Hunter-Gatherer who need to follow the animal migration could only have 1 toddler per woman. Means women could have only every 3 - 5 years a new baby. The reason why Hunter Gather took over in the Neolithic, could be caused by the invention of the Bow and Arrow. Before a fight between two groups took place in close combat and there numbers play a bigger role than skill.
Agriculture had other advantages. 1) Brewing beer. Some say that was the first reason to grow crops. In Central Sweden still during the Bronze Age archaeologists believe crops where mainly used for that, since each farm had very small fields; but large grazing areas for animals. They had fences around the fields to stop the livestock to enter, not fences around the animal herds. 2) Hunter Gatherers most of the time moved with the seasons, meaning long travels by foot. Old people, sick people etc. where probably left behind to die. You could also have more tools and equipment to make life easier; hunter gatherers can only have what they can carry.
Excellent! About the best video on these matters I have watched probably ever, and this is a qualified opinion from a formerly referential blogger (by the nickname Maju) on these issues, which have fascinated me for decades. I'm absolutely delighted that it becomes finally apparent and hopefully mainstream that there were two stages in the main European Neolithic, which I call Vasconic-1 (with Sardinian-like genetics, older) and Vasconic-2 (with Basque-like genetics, admixed of V1/EEF and WHG, more recent but until now of obscure roots). It's also great that it seems now apparent that Y-DNA R1b-Western is acknowledged as of WHG origin and not Indoeuropean, an issue which was obvious to me but not to many others and on which I've engaged on endless online debates. There are two such lineages: R1b-U106 seems related to the North European admixture you mention first, probably of Danish or nearby roots, while the more widespread R1b-S116 is clearly from an Aquitanian or nearby origin. My take would be that (maybe among other reasons) after the Neolithic climate optimum, early farming was not so good for Western and Northern Europe anymore and thus pastoralists and fishermen, with stronger WHG ancestry almost naturally: those are professions more fit for recycled hunter-gatherers than "nekazari" (i.e. "farmer" but literally "efforter", "worker" in the sense of "hard work", "tiredness", in Basque) and also having selected for lactose tolerance (which AFAIK first shows up in the Chalcolithic Upper Ebro Valley as minority population in military cemeteries), which allowed those populations to much better withstand famine on goat superproduce: milk and meat (goats are sturdy, easy to feed = "cheap", and have been the main milk provider all the way to the Middle Ages and even later; unlike sheep, grown mostly for wool, they produce milk almost year round). As for the CHG element, those are actually Neolithic ("Iran" type) populations which originated in the Halafian culture and spread c. 5000 or 5500 BCE into large parts of Asia Minor and the Balcans (but not all the Balcans and there was also a Vasconic-1 backflow from the north into Bulgaria anyhow). I call them Pelasgo-Tyrsenians because I am quite certain that they are ancestral to these populations in Bronze Age Aegean area and later to the Etruscans of Italy (early Iron Age migration but offshoot of the "Sea Peoples" anyhow). The influx of such genetics in Italy prior to the Iron Age probably reprensents admixture in the Balcans and lesser flows from that area, otherwise pre-Indoeuropean Italians and Sardinians look very much like EEFs (Vasconic-1). As for the Pitted War people, first time I heard that they pushed the Neolithics/Megalithists out, I have to double check that claim. In any case they were not truly native to Scandinavia but an arrival from Eastern Europe. Their ultimate roots are in the Dniepr-Don culture, which was SHG in genetics surely, i.e. WHG with lesser EHG (West Uralic) admixture, and adopted or developed a unique Neolithic (but with strong HG continuities) culture in the region and then expanded to Belarus and the Baltic. The further north they went the less farmer they were but even in Gotland there is evidence of some cereal farming and pig herding anyhow, they were not true hunter-gatherers but a Neolithic group of abroirginal European roots. My knowledge of Scandinavian prehistory rather says that both populations were actually destroyed or enslaved by the Indoeuropean invasion of the Corded Ware culture, known in Scandinavia also as Single Burial culture (in contrast to the collective burial of the Megalithists of Funnelbeaker culture). This Funnelbeaker culture (originally from Denmark and southern Sweden) is probably at the root of the WHG-admixed late Neolithic populations in the North.
"Intriguingly, modern Eastern Baltic populations carry the highest proportion of WHG ancestry of all Europeans" ( Mittnik et al, 2018 ). Shared lexical vocabulary unique to Germanic, Baltic, & Slavic languages & not found in other Indo-European languages imply a substrate language cultural source. Of course, way beyond the scope of this video would be why the Buddha had blue eyes. Great video, & great channel. Hit the thumbs up.
Wouldn't they also then be in Indo-Iranian, since it also comes from the Corded Ware culture (that originated from around east central Europe and from which Balto-Slavic, and maybe elements of Germanic, also came)? I've heard that proposal for Germanic (of a WHG substratum) but not for Balto-Slavic. It's a fascinating topic. I'll have to read your source.
That's because they add up Dniepr-Don (root of Pitted Ware) SHG, which is mostly WHG with lesser EHG, with Indoeuropean ancestry (which is essentially Caucasus-Iran-Balochistan plus EHG, around 50-50). Ironically they have no WHG-specific inputs until the Corded Ware invasion (which was essentially Indoeuropean genetics but incorporated some admixed EEF-WHG). What we have to understand here is that: (1) SHG is almost all WHG but with some EHG (West Uralic), (2) EHG itself is also not too different from WHG (just has some East Asian/Siberian admixture) and thus shows as generic paleoeuropean in most analyses anyhow.
Interesting but - what if the Anatolian farmers were a mix of WHG and Anatolian peoples. The reason I say this is because Sardinians have been postulated to be almost the same genetically as those Neolithic farmers and they have a high incidence of I2 Y chromosomes. Unless Hg I evolved somewhere else as well as Western Europe, that would mean that they ultimately (the men at least) came from Western Europe originally.
I think so, my understanding is that even though Sardinians have the majority of their ancestry coming from Anatolian farmers, their male lineages still preserve the Mesolithic I2 haplogroup to this day.
the evidence shows that most of the WHG were basically wiped out by the Anatolian peoples. what happened to many of the indigenous people in the Americas the last 500 or so years, already happened in most of Europe 8,000 years ago. but this is the history of the human species. whoever moves in with the superior technology either assimilates with the local population , kills them off, or both. what happened in the Americas is nothing new.
The answer probably is that the admixture with Balcanic (or other) Paleoeuropeans was not homogeneous and that some populations got a greater deal of such WHG admixture than others, notably on the male side (Y-DNA I2). Some study from years ago showed that prior to the refugee waves from Italy in the Bronze-Iron Age transition (Italo-Celtic invasion first, Etruscan/Teresh and Sicel/Sekelesh invasion later), Sardinians were more strongly WHG-admixed than later on, what probably explains their high Y-DNA I2, along with founder effects. It's intriguing that the Sardinian I2 has a trail around the Pyrenees further west all the way to the Basque Country, albeit at lower frequencies and that this can be tracked to the oldest sequenced Languedocine farmers (from the Copper Age anyhow), which had G2a and I2-Sardinian. As the archaeological sequence shows that France and Iberia were settled from Liguria, it suggests that the Sardinians (and presumably early Corsicans) also stemmed from that area or maybe from closely related pops. from Tuscany.
The process was probably the Neolithic farmers inviting some friendly hunter gatherers in to help protect from less friendly ones, with those invited in ultimately becoming the dominate male lineages.
They are us or part of us rather. They may have replaced the Vasconic 1 lineages (they did) but they did not replace the Vasconic language arrived with the farmers, it was mostly a fluke, a Bell Beaker fluke.
So the Hunters Gathers were greatly outnumbered by the Anatolian farmers in these regions and yet their male lineages are very proportionally overrepresented, signaling high status and dominance, possibly from conquest. We may have historical analogies to this, such as with the Mongols in China or Vikings in Normandy. The Mongols and Vikings were foreign conquerors and a minority of the population, but they assimilated into the wider culture of their subjects and interbred with local women. Despite assimilating into their vanquished subject's culture, they were still the ruling high status elite. Perhaps we see a similar dynamic With the hunter gathers and farmers.
Its an interesting comparison, the main differences being that here the HGs were the 'native' inhabitants of the continent, and that their way of life is seen as archaic by conventional wisdom.
The success of the Neolithic expansion culminated with the climate maximum and then things went rather down, especially in the less adequate Atlantic and Northern climates, where there was probably an increase of pastoralism afterwards. Hunter-gatherers turned Neolithic would surely have chosen (and we do have some archaeological and anthropological evidence for that) into herders and fishermen rather than actual sedentary farmers, as it is a more similar lifestyle., adopting farming as complement as best. These herders, especially those who selected for lactose tolerance, would have a survival advantage when the climate worsened (gradually but steadily and with some bumps anyhow). This was probably a factor, especially at first. In any case we do observe cultural (and thus likely demographic) expansions that can be associated with this counter-advance of the admixed Atlantic farmers: first the Funnelbeaker culture (first in Denmark and Southern Sweden) dramatically expanded East of the Rhine, probably carrying with it R1b-U106. Later we observe a strong association of R1b-S116 expansion (probably rooted in or near Aquitaine) along with Bell Beaker culture, which, unlike some have happily claimed, was definitely not Indoeuropean. And prior or parallel to that was the expansion of Artenacian culture (also bowmen but without the "luxurious" trader lifestyle of Bell Beaker people) from Aquitaine northwards. More confusing is the expansion in Iberia, which in some areas may be as late as Bronze Age. So I'd say it was probably a mix of two processes: first a consolidation of "mestizo" herders with lactose tolerance as key nutritional advantage (all the way to recent times goat milk with something else, such as acorn bread or cereals, has been the food of the poor), then expansion of those populations via war and trade, first in the north (Funnelbeaker, prior to the Indoeuropean expansion), then in the west (Bell Beaker primarily but not only, after the Indoeuropean invasion of Central and Northern Europe but causing a whole millenium of stability).
@@yoeyyoey8937 - I don't recall exactly because I've been learning (and teaching and debating) this stuff for decades already but it's been a commonplace observation that the apogee of Vasconic-1 Neolithic (Sardinian-like genetics) is coincident with the Neolithic climate optimum. If that's what you ask for, because I was packing a lot of stuff in a few paragraphs.
Well, early agriculture was presumably quite archaic too, I would assume. I can see that in my own country, while we have areas of fertile land among the most productive in Europe, there are also large expanses of land, like where I'm living, that aren't terribly suitable for agriculture and where many kind of crops simply aren't grown. When you see that as late as the middle ages, agricultural productivity was ludicrously low (it could be as low as two grains harvested for one seeded), neolithic farmers, with inferior techniques, very inferior tools, no work animals (I think), presumably even less productive cereals, and a much smaller number of cultivated plants, might have been unable to make a living in many regions. Hence that an optimal use of the land might have resulted in areas inhabited by farmers and others by hunter-gatherers. @@thehistoricalhierophant6019
I saw another video about modern archeology discoveries which describe violent incidents in which all males were murdered, women were taken and that would explain it. The proof is in the mass graves in which males (boys and adult men) were found. Also the matrilineal DNA is very diverse compared to patrilineal lineage.
But what triggered the event that the Hunter Gatherers mixed with and took over the farming communities on a continent wide scale? Maybe the farmers had spread so much that there was not enough space left for the lifestyle of the Hunter gatherers so then they took over the farming societies instead?
It only makes sense that that’s what would happen. Hunters exhibit leadership and establish territorial control. Farmers are more concerned with their crops.
Blue eyes help in seeing in the dark, and that would be extremely helpful in hunting. They're basically light reflectors. We see colored eyes in fiercesome wild animals all over the world. That's why a lot of us people find colored eyes in people as attractive. Personally, I first considered blue eyes as "shiny like a gemstone"; I only see blue eyes in foreigners. Hopefully this helps us dissociate blue eyes appreciation from racists. The male line in much of Europe is from Eastern hunter gatherers (R), though, but the Western hunter gatherers (I) kept the male line in the north up to now. Perhaps WHG had the male line in Europe before, and then the EHG male line through Indo-Europeans invaded them.
Your question doesn't make much sence. The hunter gatherer/ early farmers were not displaced by the celts, they were displaced by the steppe pastoralists who later became the celts. This video focuses on the time before the steppe migrations
No. They were replaced by forgotten Atlantic "mestizo" farmers (probably more herders, lactose tolerant and such) before the Indoeuropeans conquered the latter (and only in some areas like Italy the unadmixed original farmers). These peoples were genetically similar to Basques, Irish, Scots, ancient Iberians, etc.
How does this jive with Yamnaya expansion in the 5th millenium BC? I thought you were going to get into it but it seems your analysis leaves them aside
a farming society can feed much more people per area than hunter - gatherer societies. They just outnumbered the indigeneous people. But still mixed. I bet the new way of living was attractive to some of the hunter-gatherer people. In the end the baltic people today are going back to hunter gatherer by app 30%. That is not insignificant. Where the farmers arrived earlier and lived for longer time, the hunter-gatherer part is small, f.e. sardinia. Also the later steppe herders did not have much impact there. I do agree that there probably was hostility but not necessarily everywhere and between all the different groups and not all the centuries and millenia of contact. I wrote before listening to the end, you mentioned it. I am quite pleased with this lecture.
I wouldn't go that far, permaculture is a modern thing to a large extent and early Neolithics mostly practiced slash and burn agriculture, which maybe enticed migration because those pops. are effectively seminomadic even if farmers.
I will if I can find the sources! I suspect that lack of domesticated animals may have hamstrung Native Southwestern farmers, making them more static and less 'robust'.
"...such evidence strongly suggests strained relationships [between groups]" I don't think you really need hard evidence to assume that when a new group moves into a territory that is already occupied, there are going to be strained relationships. The burden of evidentiary proof would lay with a claim that there were no strained relationships. The scientific method does not require the abandonment of common sense.
We are talking about the formation of warrior culture. Warrior culture would have been a foreign concept to a paleolithic hunter gatherer so this was probably a gradual societal change that went in tandem from worshipping fertility godesses to the god of war and with developments in warfare technology e.g. stone axes followed by bronze weapons and domesticated horses. For fertility worshipping hunter gatherers their interest was probably to impregnate lots of women folk so they probably fked around a lot, this is not necessarily an indication of substantial armed conflict. Maybe they just walked into a village, screwed all the chicks with 0 resistance then went to the next village to do it again. If you were a neolithic farmer girl would you want some out of shape farm boy who stands about in a field all day or would you want some hunky mysterious traveller to woo you with stories of his adventures then have his way with you before disappearing into the night so that boring farm boy can raise the child? I think warfare, surplus, religion and stratification of society developed together. It's not possible to have surplus and stratification without walled settlements, I think there is often a propensity to look at the past before societal stratification had evolved as a cultural zeitgeist and apply a current day lens of societal stratification, religion and warfare. People think either the farmers were in charge or the hunters were in charge but it's much more likely that no-one was in charge. There was no elite but it's impossible for the modern human to understand a society without stratification.
@@maximvs272There is nothing Chad about Lamnayas everything that makes westerners great comes from the genes of the Chad WHGs and Lamnaya genetics are nothing but dysgenic hindrense.
Why do you assume a WHG dominance based on male lineage? Maybe it was the Farmers’ daughters who held dominance (because farmers will always out-gather browser gathers. The Farm women chose Hunters because they could bring home the meat.
Because the HG were a small minority (relatively) yet their male lineages predominated, so clearly it was not just coincidence. Also the last part of what you said is something I directly mentioned in the video, that farmer women may have prefered hunter gatherer men because they were just generally 'fitter'. I'd have to do more research but it does not seem that HG men always pefered farmer women, since 'native' European maternal lineages have survived, even to this day, notably u5, which is what I have.
It is difficult to find the truth because comparing genes of different human races is now strictly enforced taboo. Here are quotations from article published in The Atlantic (Mar 14, 2018). Its title is 'Ancient DNA Is Rewriting Human (and Neanderthal) History': "Geneticist David Reich... once had German collaborators drop out of a study when the initial findings seemed to mirror too closely Nazi propaganda about the Aryan race... In Europe, for example, ancient DNA is identifying waves of migrations into the continent, in which groups of people serially replaced, or nearly replaced, the local population... The first modern human samples we have in Europe are about 40,000 years old and are genetically not at all related to present-day Europeans. They seem to be from extinct, dead-end groups. After that, you see for the first time people related to later European hunter-gatherers who have contributed a little bit to present-day Europeans. That happens beginning 35,000 to 37,000 years ago... After 9,000 years ago, there’s a mass movement of farmers into the region which almost completely replaces the hunter-gatherers with a small amount of mixture. And then again, after 5,000 years ago, there’s this mass movement at the beginning of the Bronze Age of people from the steppe, who also probably bring these languages that are spoken by the great majority of Europeans today... Archaeology has always been political, especially in Europe."
so how did civilizations spread with the growth of mass farming culture , i would say in the north Mediterranean in regions with mountains to the alps and volcanic seas like anatolia and balkan regions have good irregation coming directing down from mountains into the sea and the center of anatolia is just pastures all the way out to the caspian sea you are like explaining rome all over again the tribes north east eventually donked rome for being a skinny little emo boi
I know it's probably less likely, but I'm gonna choose to believe the peaceful explanation until there's more rotund evidence against it, because the other one makes me sad.
There are obvious reasons in both scenarios why the farmer women chose to mate with the Hunter Gatherer men. But why did Hunter gatherer men choose farmer women?
@@jahiemsterling511 Where I'm from, the farm girls have thrown a hay bale or two up to the stackers on the wagon. They aren't 'Nancy girls' like the hunter's daughters who just hang around, waiting for the food to show up! The farmer girls may have had the hunters' backs when that mammoth didn't want to be dinner!
from my understanding that was a result of post-Bronze Age changes. Also, this was not the case during the period under discussion - the middle and late Neolithic - when the mtDNA landscape went virtually unchanged. @@LuisAldamiz
I think pastoralists differ from both hunter gatherers and farmers growing crops. There were also always overlaps, while the nomadic pastoralists and more sedentary farmers would each have carried certain diseases killing of others they came in contact with.
Honestly I don't want to speculate on phenotype, but did'nt they have quite a bit of Siberian ancestry? If by Siberian you mean Ancient North Eurasian, not the peoples with more East Asian type ancestry.
It's possible some of them did, and some didn't. I think the scandinavian hunter gatherers had ehg ancestry which prbaly brought in the genes for blonde and red hair into europe. If your Siberia explanation is correct, it would have to be Ancient North Eurasians. But if that's the case, than those genes woild exist in the eastern european hunter gatherers.(a mix of whg and ane).
Which if that's correct, that would mean a lo tof these various indo european tribes probably had those features, and some probably were brown with black hair and brown eyes.
Indeed the do, but my point still stands that their MALE lineages were largely replaced. I went over it in detail. Though of course the Indo-European expansions changed a lot.
Depends on what part of europe. People with germanic, scandinavian, english, irish, northern french, slavic roots have anywhere from 30-50 % indo european ancestry.
@@Burzum-Gûl Only really Scandinavians are mostly Steppe pastoralists but even then most of the other half is EEF rather than WHG, want me to prove it?
I hope the Ainu and Australian Aboriginals can have a better future ❤ 🙏:) like how the Hunter-gatherers dominated the incoming Farmers in some elite circles at least here.
Japanese male have Haplogroup D but not surprised because Yayoi period Japanese still contain 30-50% jomon ancestry before got diluted in kofun period when further migration from mainland Asia happened
José's DNA indicates that 58% of his ancestry comes from Africa. Africa 58% Europe 35% Western Europe 18% Germany, France and the Netherlands British Isles Iberia 8% Italy 5% Northern Italy south central italy eastern europe 4% Americas 7%paternal lineage Your haplogroup is: I Born between 35 and 28 thousand years ago, haplogroup I represents one of the first peoples of Europe, having several descendant lineages that spread throughout the European territory during the last Ice Age, having its maximum frequency in the Balkans. It is one of the most numerous haplogroups among European males, being the second largest paternal lineage found on the continent (second only to the R lineage). Its I1 branch is related to Nordic Europe, ancestor of Germanic tribes and Vikings, while I2 is strongly related to Neolithic cultures. Y-chromosomal Adam 160 to 120 thousand years A: Africa 140 to 90 thousand years BT: Africa 85 to 60 thousand years CT: Africa 80 to 60 thousand years CF: Leaving Africa 75 to 60 thousand years F: Leaving Africa 62 to 57 thousand years IJ: Haplogroup parent of I and J 45 to 30 thousand years I: Eastern Eurasia 35 to 28 thousand yearsmaternal lineage Your haplogroup is: A Haplogroup A emerged in Asia about 40 to 60 thousand years ago. Descending from lineage N, representatives of this haplogroup can be found from Central Asia to Siberia and regions of the Americas. This lineage is believed to have originated in Asia and made its way to America via the Bering Strait during the last Ice Age. Mitochondrial Eve 200 to 99 thousand years L1: Africa 170 to 100 thousand years L3: Africa 105 to 80 thousand years N: Departure from Africa 80 to 60 thousand years A: Asia and Americas 60 to 40 thousand years
What Happened to the Last European Hunter Gatherer:
Some farm girl thought he looked muscular and hot, with his bow and all, married him, and turned him into a sad little farmer...
And then their descent farm girl thought exactly the same thing about cool tall guys with chariots - wenches love chariots
This is so cool. Learning about the advent of agriculture has come in stages for me. In high school it's like "growing your own food means people can stay in one place and store food, leaving free time to develop specialized crafts." Then I read something by Jared Diamond about "actually early agriculture sucked, most people worked harder and were slightly malnourished." Which begs the question of how it caught on. This is a much more inclusive take that gets at the nuance of it. For a while they'd coexist, and by virtue of producing more people, eventually farmers win out and absorb the less populous hunter-gatherers, but since their way of life came with such advantages, they join farmer society in a privileged position. And the spread of genes and customs bares this out. Neat!
Yeah, it isn't even necessarily just producing more people, but that the farmers can support more on each square kilometre, so the hunter gatherers can't push them out militarily even if individually the hunter gatherers were healthier and stronger.
all of us Europeans need to pay reparations to those of hunter gatherer descent.
It is assumed that the transition from Hunter Gatherer in the middle east the result of women produced more food by gathering corn, than men by hunting animals. This led to a change of lifestyle from a hunter dominated society to an agricultural society.
Maybe from there comes the tale of Adam and Eve. Agricultural lifestyles mean less protein more hydrocarbons. Our digestive system was not made for that. People had problems with their teeth's, had to work hard to change woodland into farmland and the surplus population was always forced to migrate to new lands.
Maybe the people remembered the good old times as paradise and the new lifestyle as the punishment of God for eating the forbidden fruit. ;-)
Also, people grow smaller with mainly grain nutrition. Farm women could get pregnant every year.
While Hunter-Gatherer who need to follow the animal migration could only have 1 toddler per woman. Means women could have only every 3 - 5 years a new baby.
The reason why Hunter Gather took over in the Neolithic, could be caused by the invention of the Bow and Arrow. Before a fight between two groups took place in close combat and there numbers play a bigger role than skill.
Agriculture had other advantages. 1) Brewing beer. Some say that was the first reason to grow crops. In Central Sweden still during the Bronze Age archaeologists believe crops where mainly used for that, since each farm had very small fields; but large grazing areas for animals. They had fences around the fields to stop the livestock to enter, not fences around the animal herds. 2) Hunter Gatherers most of the time moved with the seasons, meaning long travels by foot. Old people, sick people etc. where probably left behind to die. You could also have more tools and equipment to make life easier; hunter gatherers can only have what they can carry.
@@alicelund147 "I assume they just straight-up murdered The Weak Ones, who can have had no value in that society."
Hey man nice video, I think you explained the Neolithic age and population displacement as good as it gets👍🏻
Really great video. Very up to date genetic information, especially in the maps with the retained Magdalenian ancestry in Western Europe!
Excellent! About the best video on these matters I have watched probably ever, and this is a qualified opinion from a formerly referential blogger (by the nickname Maju) on these issues, which have fascinated me for decades.
I'm absolutely delighted that it becomes finally apparent and hopefully mainstream that there were two stages in the main European Neolithic, which I call Vasconic-1 (with Sardinian-like genetics, older) and Vasconic-2 (with Basque-like genetics, admixed of V1/EEF and WHG, more recent but until now of obscure roots). It's also great that it seems now apparent that Y-DNA R1b-Western is acknowledged as of WHG origin and not Indoeuropean, an issue which was obvious to me but not to many others and on which I've engaged on endless online debates. There are two such lineages: R1b-U106 seems related to the North European admixture you mention first, probably of Danish or nearby roots, while the more widespread R1b-S116 is clearly from an Aquitanian or nearby origin.
My take would be that (maybe among other reasons) after the Neolithic climate optimum, early farming was not so good for Western and Northern Europe anymore and thus pastoralists and fishermen, with stronger WHG ancestry almost naturally: those are professions more fit for recycled hunter-gatherers than "nekazari" (i.e. "farmer" but literally "efforter", "worker" in the sense of "hard work", "tiredness", in Basque) and also having selected for lactose tolerance (which AFAIK first shows up in the Chalcolithic Upper Ebro Valley as minority population in military cemeteries), which allowed those populations to much better withstand famine on goat superproduce: milk and meat (goats are sturdy, easy to feed = "cheap", and have been the main milk provider all the way to the Middle Ages and even later; unlike sheep, grown mostly for wool, they produce milk almost year round).
As for the CHG element, those are actually Neolithic ("Iran" type) populations which originated in the Halafian culture and spread c. 5000 or 5500 BCE into large parts of Asia Minor and the Balcans (but not all the Balcans and there was also a Vasconic-1 backflow from the north into Bulgaria anyhow). I call them Pelasgo-Tyrsenians because I am quite certain that they are ancestral to these populations in Bronze Age Aegean area and later to the Etruscans of Italy (early Iron Age migration but offshoot of the "Sea Peoples" anyhow). The influx of such genetics in Italy prior to the Iron Age probably reprensents admixture in the Balcans and lesser flows from that area, otherwise pre-Indoeuropean Italians and Sardinians look very much like EEFs (Vasconic-1).
As for the Pitted War people, first time I heard that they pushed the Neolithics/Megalithists out, I have to double check that claim. In any case they were not truly native to Scandinavia but an arrival from Eastern Europe. Their ultimate roots are in the Dniepr-Don culture, which was SHG in genetics surely, i.e. WHG with lesser EHG (West Uralic) admixture, and adopted or developed a unique Neolithic (but with strong HG continuities) culture in the region and then expanded to Belarus and the Baltic. The further north they went the less farmer they were but even in Gotland there is evidence of some cereal farming and pig herding anyhow, they were not true hunter-gatherers but a Neolithic group of abroirginal European roots. My knowledge of Scandinavian prehistory rather says that both populations were actually destroyed or enslaved by the Indoeuropean invasion of the Corded Ware culture, known in Scandinavia also as Single Burial culture (in contrast to the collective burial of the Megalithists of Funnelbeaker culture). This Funnelbeaker culture (originally from Denmark and southern Sweden) is probably at the root of the WHG-admixed late Neolithic populations in the North.
btw what do you think would have happened if the Indo-European Migrations never occured??
@@zhcultivator - I replied to my best to your repeated question in another thread.
Great stuff! I only wish your videos were longer lol just subscribed though!
Also the steppe pastoralists (yamnaya) were like on avg a quarter WHG autosomally as well.
@@ItNotOkAnymoreyes, but EHG is a mix of ANE and WHG. The EHG would have brought WHG genes into CHG gene pool.
"Intriguingly, modern Eastern Baltic populations carry the highest proportion of WHG ancestry of all Europeans" ( Mittnik et al, 2018 ). Shared lexical vocabulary unique to Germanic, Baltic, & Slavic languages & not found in other Indo-European languages imply a substrate language cultural source. Of course, way beyond the scope of this video would be why the Buddha had blue eyes. Great video, & great channel. Hit the thumbs up.
Thanks, I might do a video on the Indo European expansions eventually.
Wouldn't they also then be in Indo-Iranian, since it also comes from the Corded Ware culture (that originated from around east central Europe and from which Balto-Slavic, and maybe elements of Germanic, also came)? I've heard that proposal for Germanic (of a WHG substratum) but not for Balto-Slavic. It's a fascinating topic. I'll have to read your source.
That's because they add up Dniepr-Don (root of Pitted Ware) SHG, which is mostly WHG with lesser EHG, with Indoeuropean ancestry (which is essentially Caucasus-Iran-Balochistan plus EHG, around 50-50). Ironically they have no WHG-specific inputs until the Corded Ware invasion (which was essentially Indoeuropean genetics but incorporated some admixed EEF-WHG). What we have to understand here is that: (1) SHG is almost all WHG but with some EHG (West Uralic), (2) EHG itself is also not too different from WHG (just has some East Asian/Siberian admixture) and thus shows as generic paleoeuropean in most analyses anyhow.
TH-cam:ROBERT SEPHER erklärt die blauen Augen,in einem seiner Videos.
@@LuisAldamizwhere you learn this from?
Loved this video. If you know where I can find more videos like this PLEASE tell me.
Stay tuned! But in all seriousness, I would suggest these, www.youtube.com/@muftiwilfredstirner5627/videos and www.youtube.com/@StefanMilo
Great video
Thank you!
Cool vid! Am still waiting on part 2 of the Aleutian island 😂
Interesting but - what if the Anatolian farmers were a mix of WHG and Anatolian peoples. The reason I say this is because Sardinians have been postulated to be almost the same genetically as those Neolithic farmers and they have a high incidence of I2 Y chromosomes. Unless Hg I evolved somewhere else as well as Western Europe, that would mean that they ultimately (the men at least) came from Western Europe originally.
I think so, my understanding is that even though Sardinians have the majority of their ancestry coming from Anatolian farmers, their male lineages still preserve the Mesolithic I2 haplogroup to this day.
the evidence shows that most of the WHG were basically wiped out by the Anatolian peoples. what happened to many of the indigenous people in the Americas the last 500 or so years, already happened in most of Europe 8,000 years ago. but this is the history of the human species. whoever moves in with the superior technology either assimilates with the local population , kills them off, or both. what happened in the Americas is nothing new.
The answer probably is that the admixture with Balcanic (or other) Paleoeuropeans was not homogeneous and that some populations got a greater deal of such WHG admixture than others, notably on the male side (Y-DNA I2). Some study from years ago showed that prior to the refugee waves from Italy in the Bronze-Iron Age transition (Italo-Celtic invasion first, Etruscan/Teresh and Sicel/Sekelesh invasion later), Sardinians were more strongly WHG-admixed than later on, what probably explains their high Y-DNA I2, along with founder effects.
It's intriguing that the Sardinian I2 has a trail around the Pyrenees further west all the way to the Basque Country, albeit at lower frequencies and that this can be tracked to the oldest sequenced Languedocine farmers (from the Copper Age anyhow), which had G2a and I2-Sardinian. As the archaeological sequence shows that France and Iberia were settled from Liguria, it suggests that the Sardinians (and presumably early Corsicans) also stemmed from that area or maybe from closely related pops. from Tuscany.
What is the map you're using at 1:40
The process was probably the Neolithic farmers inviting some friendly hunter gatherers in to help protect from less friendly ones, with those invited in ultimately becoming the dominate male lineages.
They are us or part of us rather. They may have replaced the Vasconic 1 lineages (they did) but they did not replace the Vasconic language arrived with the farmers, it was mostly a fluke, a Bell Beaker fluke.
So the Hunters Gathers were greatly outnumbered by the Anatolian farmers in these regions and yet their male lineages are very proportionally overrepresented, signaling high status and dominance, possibly from conquest.
We may have historical analogies to this, such as with the Mongols in China or Vikings in Normandy. The Mongols and Vikings were foreign conquerors and a minority of the population, but they assimilated into the wider culture of their subjects and interbred with local women. Despite assimilating into their vanquished subject's culture, they were still the ruling high status elite. Perhaps we see a similar dynamic With the hunter gathers and farmers.
Its an interesting comparison, the main differences being that here the HGs were the 'native' inhabitants of the continent, and that their way of life is seen as archaic by conventional wisdom.
The success of the Neolithic expansion culminated with the climate maximum and then things went rather down, especially in the less adequate Atlantic and Northern climates, where there was probably an increase of pastoralism afterwards. Hunter-gatherers turned Neolithic would surely have chosen (and we do have some archaeological and anthropological evidence for that) into herders and fishermen rather than actual sedentary farmers, as it is a more similar lifestyle., adopting farming as complement as best. These herders, especially those who selected for lactose tolerance, would have a survival advantage when the climate worsened (gradually but steadily and with some bumps anyhow). This was probably a factor, especially at first.
In any case we do observe cultural (and thus likely demographic) expansions that can be associated with this counter-advance of the admixed Atlantic farmers: first the Funnelbeaker culture (first in Denmark and Southern Sweden) dramatically expanded East of the Rhine, probably carrying with it R1b-U106. Later we observe a strong association of R1b-S116 expansion (probably rooted in or near Aquitaine) along with Bell Beaker culture, which, unlike some have happily claimed, was definitely not Indoeuropean. And prior or parallel to that was the expansion of Artenacian culture (also bowmen but without the "luxurious" trader lifestyle of Bell Beaker people) from Aquitaine northwards. More confusing is the expansion in Iberia, which in some areas may be as late as Bronze Age.
So I'd say it was probably a mix of two processes: first a consolidation of "mestizo" herders with lactose tolerance as key nutritional advantage (all the way to recent times goat milk with something else, such as acorn bread or cereals, has been the food of the poor), then expansion of those populations via war and trade, first in the north (Funnelbeaker, prior to the Indoeuropean expansion), then in the west (Bell Beaker primarily but not only, after the Indoeuropean invasion of Central and Northern Europe but causing a whole millenium of stability).
@@LuisAldamizthat’s interesting, I’ve never heard of that theory before. Where did you learn that?
@@yoeyyoey8937 - I don't recall exactly because I've been learning (and teaching and debating) this stuff for decades already but it's been a commonplace observation that the apogee of Vasconic-1 Neolithic (Sardinian-like genetics) is coincident with the Neolithic climate optimum.
If that's what you ask for, because I was packing a lot of stuff in a few paragraphs.
Well, early agriculture was presumably quite archaic too, I would assume. I can see that in my own country, while we have areas of fertile land among the most productive in Europe, there are also large expanses of land, like where I'm living, that aren't terribly suitable for agriculture and where many kind of crops simply aren't grown. When you see that as late as the middle ages, agricultural productivity was ludicrously low (it could be as low as two grains harvested for one seeded), neolithic farmers, with inferior techniques, very inferior tools, no work animals (I think), presumably even less productive cereals, and a much smaller number of cultivated plants, might have been unable to make a living in many regions. Hence that an optimal use of the land might have resulted in areas inhabited by farmers and others by hunter-gatherers. @@thehistoricalhierophant6019
I saw another video about modern archeology discoveries which describe violent incidents in which all males were murdered, women were taken and that would explain it. The proof is in the mass graves in which males (boys and adult men) were found. Also the matrilineal DNA is very diverse compared to patrilineal lineage.
Can you recollect which archaeological site? I ask because it is new to me.
Google e.g. this: A massacre of early Neolithic farmers in the high Pyrenees at Els Trocs, Spain@@LuisAldamiz
But what triggered the event that the Hunter Gatherers mixed with and took over the farming communities on a continent wide scale? Maybe the farmers had spread so much that there was not enough space left for the lifestyle of the Hunter gatherers so then they took over the farming societies instead?
Honestly it still seems like kind of a mystery, its very ineresting.
It only makes sense that that’s what would happen. Hunters exhibit leadership and establish territorial control. Farmers are more concerned with their crops.
Blue eyes help in seeing in the dark, and that would be extremely helpful in hunting. They're basically light reflectors. We see colored eyes in fiercesome wild animals all over the world. That's why a lot of us people find colored eyes in people as attractive. Personally, I first considered blue eyes as "shiny like a gemstone"; I only see blue eyes in foreigners. Hopefully this helps us dissociate blue eyes appreciation from racists.
The male line in much of Europe is from Eastern hunter gatherers (R), though, but the Western hunter gatherers (I) kept the male line in the north up to now. Perhaps WHG had the male line in Europe before, and then the EHG male line through Indo-Europeans invaded them.
great vid bud
So, you're saying the hunter gatherer-Anatolian farmers were replaced by the Celts Steppe Nomads ?
Your question doesn't make much sence. The hunter gatherer/ early farmers were not displaced by the celts, they were displaced by the steppe pastoralists who later became the celts. This video focuses on the time before the steppe migrations
@@austindillon2184 Thanks, I'm early on my nomenclature
@@frankjoseph4273 try to keep up buddy
@@austindillon2184 OK, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer
No. They were replaced by forgotten Atlantic "mestizo" farmers (probably more herders, lactose tolerant and such) before the Indoeuropeans conquered the latter (and only in some areas like Italy the unadmixed original farmers). These peoples were genetically similar to Basques, Irish, Scots, ancient Iberians, etc.
How does this jive with Yamnaya expansion in the 5th millenium BC? I thought you were going to get into it but it seems your analysis leaves them aside
I certainly might in a future video! I would have to do more research on the steppe vs trans-Caucasian urheimat theories though.
a farming society can feed much more people per area than hunter - gatherer societies. They just outnumbered the indigeneous people. But still mixed. I bet the new way of living was attractive to some of the hunter-gatherer people. In the end the baltic people today are going back to hunter gatherer by app 30%. That is not insignificant. Where the farmers arrived earlier and lived for longer time, the hunter-gatherer part is small, f.e. sardinia. Also the later steppe herders did not have much impact there. I do agree that there probably was hostility but not necessarily everywhere and between all the different groups and not all the centuries and millenia of contact. I wrote before listening to the end, you mentioned it. I am quite pleased with this lecture.
the example at 22:40 make no sense. The dynamics that facilitate a takeover doesent exist in that situation
It's worth investigating the connection of neolithic "hunter gatherers" with practices of what is now called Permaculture.
I wouldn't go that far, permaculture is a modern thing to a large extent and early Neolithics mostly practiced slash and burn agriculture, which maybe enticed migration because those pops. are effectively seminomadic even if farmers.
@@LuisAldamizthe farmers did but he’s talking about the Hunter gatherers. We know this has been done by other Hunter gatherers so it’s possible here
@@yoeyyoey8937 - Hmmm, I thought permaculture was agriculture, not hunter-gathering.
That said, I'd love to see a follow up on what went down specifically in the Americas. :)
I will if I can find the sources! I suspect that lack of domesticated animals may have hamstrung Native Southwestern farmers, making them more static and less 'robust'.
All your answers lie at Chaco Canyon.
Y haplogroups I2 were still here.
Yep, in Sardinia, the Balkans, and parts of Northern Europe mostly.
ماهي السلالات الابوية للمزارعين الاناضوليين وماهي السلالة الابوية للصيادين وجامعي الثمار ؟@@thehistoricalhierophant6019
"...such evidence strongly suggests strained relationships [between groups]" I don't think you really need hard evidence to assume that when a new group moves into a territory that is already occupied, there are going to be strained relationships. The burden of evidentiary proof would lay with a claim that there were no strained relationships. The scientific method does not require the abandonment of common sense.
You're right lol, I just wanted to keep a somewhat detached and scholarly voice I guess.
@@thehistoricalhierophant6019 always a good idea.
We are talking about the formation of warrior culture. Warrior culture would have been a foreign concept to a paleolithic hunter gatherer so this was probably a gradual societal change that went in tandem from worshipping fertility godesses to the god of war and with developments in warfare technology e.g. stone axes followed by bronze weapons and domesticated horses.
For fertility worshipping hunter gatherers their interest was probably to impregnate lots of women folk so they probably fked around a lot, this is not necessarily an indication of substantial armed conflict. Maybe they just walked into a village, screwed all the chicks with 0 resistance then went to the next village to do it again.
If you were a neolithic farmer girl would you want some out of shape farm boy who stands about in a field all day or would you want some hunky mysterious traveller to woo you with stories of his adventures then have his way with you before disappearing into the night so that boring farm boy can raise the child?
I think warfare, surplus, religion and stratification of society developed together. It's not possible to have surplus and stratification without walled settlements, I think there is often a propensity to look at the past before societal stratification had evolved as a cultural zeitgeist and apply a current day lens of societal stratification, religion and warfare. People think either the farmers were in charge or the hunters were in charge but it's much more likely that no-one was in charge. There was no elite but it's impossible for the modern human to understand a society without stratification.
The Chad Hunter Gatherer vs. the virgin farmer
Lol, basically.
vs the megachad aryan from the steppe
@@maximvs272There is nothing Chad about Lamnayas everything that makes westerners great comes from the genes of the Chad WHGs and Lamnaya genetics are nothing but dysgenic hindrense.
Vs the Thad steppe nomad
Why do you assume a WHG dominance based on male lineage? Maybe it was the Farmers’ daughters who held dominance (because farmers will always out-gather browser gathers. The Farm women chose Hunters because they could bring home the meat.
Because the HG were a small minority (relatively) yet their male lineages predominated, so clearly it was not just coincidence. Also the last part of what you said is something I directly mentioned in the video, that farmer women may have prefered hunter gatherer men because they were just generally 'fitter'. I'd have to do more research but it does not seem that HG men always pefered farmer women, since 'native' European maternal lineages have survived, even to this day, notably u5, which is what I have.
@@thehistoricalhierophant6019 I have U5b2b.
@@thehistoricalhierophant6019 How did they know they were 'fitter'? Did they swap DNA tests or did the guys just have really nice abs?
@@punkykenickie2408 They were almost certainly better nourished than early farmers.
The HG women would certainly have been healthier than the farmer women. @@thehistoricalhierophant6019
My favourite subject 😊. Lovely presentation ❤❤❤
Thanks!
It is difficult to find the truth because comparing genes of different human races is now strictly enforced taboo. Here are quotations from article published in The Atlantic (Mar 14, 2018). Its title is 'Ancient DNA Is Rewriting Human (and Neanderthal) History':
"Geneticist David Reich... once had German collaborators drop out of a study when the initial findings seemed to mirror too closely Nazi propaganda about the Aryan race... In Europe, for example, ancient DNA is identifying waves of migrations into the continent, in which groups of people serially replaced, or nearly replaced, the local population... The first modern human samples we have in Europe are about 40,000 years old and are genetically not at all related to present-day Europeans. They seem to be from extinct, dead-end groups. After that, you see for the first time people related to later European hunter-gatherers who have contributed a little bit to present-day Europeans. That happens beginning 35,000 to 37,000 years ago... After 9,000 years ago, there’s a mass movement of farmers into the region which almost completely replaces the hunter-gatherers with a small amount of mixture. And then again, after 5,000 years ago, there’s this mass movement at the beginning of the Bronze Age of people from the steppe, who also probably bring these languages that are spoken by the great majority of Europeans today... Archaeology has always been political, especially in Europe."
Pressing the big fat x to doubt.
I think hunter gatherer people genetically still pop up in european populations like an atavistic reminder of the origins of Europeans!
I think there certainly is a legacy.
My paternal line came from the CHG, WHG's sibling.
Them farmer girls..
j2?
They were hunted and gathered.
so how did civilizations spread with the growth of mass farming culture , i would say in the north Mediterranean in regions with mountains to the alps and volcanic seas like anatolia and balkan regions have good irregation coming directing down from mountains into the sea and the center of anatolia is just pastures all the way out to the caspian sea
you are like explaining rome all over again the tribes north east eventually donked rome for being a skinny little emo boi
I know it's probably less likely, but I'm gonna choose to believe the peaceful explanation until there's more rotund evidence against it, because the other one makes me sad.
I think the Etruscan language is a hunter gatherer left over language.
I think its possible, Etruscan is really enigmatic.
@@thehistoricalhierophant6019Is more close to ancient Proto-Kartvelian
Yes dark hair and blue eyes in men has always been very attractive. : )
There are obvious reasons in both scenarios why the farmer women chose to mate with the Hunter Gatherer men. But why did Hunter gatherer men choose farmer women?
They're cute
@@jahiemsterling511
Where I'm from, the farm girls have thrown a hay bale or two up to the stackers on the wagon. They aren't 'Nancy girls' like the hunter's daughters who just hang around, waiting for the food to show up!
The farmer girls may have had the hunters' backs when that mammoth didn't want to be dinner!
They didn't. It's not a correct assessment: the mtDNA pool also got modernized with more H and U5 than before.
from my understanding that was a result of post-Bronze Age changes. Also, this was not the case during the period under discussion - the middle and late Neolithic - when the mtDNA landscape went virtually unchanged. @@LuisAldamiz
They thicc
I think pastoralists differ from both hunter gatherers and farmers growing crops. There were also always overlaps, while the nomadic pastoralists and more sedentary farmers would each have carried certain diseases killing of others they came in contact with.
Scandinavian hunter gatherers did not have light hair. This came phenotype was introduced into europe later on with migration from siberia
Honestly I don't want to speculate on phenotype, but did'nt they have quite a bit of Siberian ancestry? If by Siberian you mean Ancient North Eurasian, not the peoples with more East Asian type ancestry.
It's possible some of them did, and some didn't. I think the scandinavian hunter gatherers had ehg ancestry which prbaly brought in the genes for blonde and red hair into europe. If your Siberia explanation is correct, it would have to be Ancient North Eurasians. But if that's the case, than those genes woild exist in the eastern european hunter gatherers.(a mix of whg and ane).
Which if that's correct, that would mean a lo tof these various indo european tribes probably had those features, and some probably were brown with black hair and brown eyes.
Thumbnail is kind of a cope since now most Europeans have mostly EEF ancestry 😂
Indeed the do, but my point still stands that their MALE lineages were largely replaced. I went over it in detail. Though of course the Indo-European expansions changed a lot.
Depends on what part of europe. People with germanic, scandinavian, english, irish, northern french, slavic roots have anywhere from 30-50 % indo european ancestry.
@@thehistoricalhierophant6019although your claim is correct about southern europeans.
Not true, western and northern Europeans are mostly Stepp hurder with about equal amounts of eef and whg.
@@Burzum-Gûl Only really Scandinavians are mostly Steppe pastoralists but even then most of the other half is EEF rather than WHG, want me to prove it?
I hope the Ainu and Australian Aboriginals can have a better future ❤ 🙏:) like how the Hunter-gatherers dominated the incoming Farmers in some elite circles at least here.
Japanese male have Haplogroup D but not surprised because Yayoi period Japanese still contain 30-50% jomon ancestry before got diluted in kofun period when further migration from mainland Asia happened
They bought the farm.
They got jobs at Gieco.
can't stop laughing at "virtue to outbreed your neighbours"
all of us Europeans need to pay reparations to those of hunter gatherer descent.
H. G. Lives mater!! 😂
we're both HG and AF
All Europeans are their descendants
Doggerland.
José's DNA indicates that 58% of his ancestry comes from Africa.
Africa
58%
Europe
35%
Western Europe
18%
Germany, France and the Netherlands
British Isles
Iberia
8%
Italy
5%
Northern Italy
south central italy
eastern europe
4%
Americas
7%paternal lineage
Your haplogroup is:
I
Born between 35 and 28 thousand years ago, haplogroup I represents one of the first peoples of Europe, having several descendant lineages that spread throughout the European territory during the last Ice Age, having its maximum frequency in the Balkans. It is one of the most numerous haplogroups among European males, being the second largest paternal lineage found on the continent (second only to the R lineage). Its I1 branch is related to Nordic Europe, ancestor of Germanic tribes and Vikings, while I2 is strongly related to Neolithic cultures.
Y-chromosomal Adam
160 to 120 thousand years
A: Africa
140 to 90 thousand years
BT: Africa
85 to 60 thousand years
CT: Africa
80 to 60 thousand years
CF: Leaving Africa
75 to 60 thousand years
F: Leaving Africa
62 to 57 thousand years
IJ: Haplogroup parent of I and J
45 to 30 thousand years
I: Eastern Eurasia
35 to 28 thousand yearsmaternal lineage
Your haplogroup is:
A
Haplogroup A emerged in Asia about 40 to 60 thousand years ago. Descending from lineage N, representatives of this haplogroup can be found from Central Asia to Siberia and regions of the Americas. This lineage is believed to have originated in Asia and made its way to America via the Bering Strait during the last Ice Age.
Mitochondrial Eve
200 to 99 thousand years
L1: Africa
170 to 100 thousand years
L3: Africa
105 to 80 thousand years
N: Departure from Africa
80 to 60 thousand years
A: Asia and Americas
60 to 40 thousand years
You do look North African if that avatar is your photo. Mauro as surname could mean that: Moor.
@@LuisAldamiz hes brazilian
@@jaif7327 - So what? I'm judging looks not actual passport. He's claiming that his ancestry comes largely from Africa (unspecific what region).
The Turkic farmers and the Yamnaya happened.
Not Turkic, Anatolian
@@DeVolksrepubliek True but I meant it as geographic descriptor.
@@Voidapparate Of course, I understand
Modern Anatolian Turks have only %35 ANF. Less than most Europeans. Lol.
Target: Turkish(Muğla)
Distance: 1.9364% / 0.01936421
33.2 Anatolian_Neolithic_Farmer_Barcin_6400bc
23.2 Caucasus_HG-Iran_N_Related
23.0 Proto-Indo-European_Samara_Steppe_3300bc
17.6 Mongolia_North_N
3.0 Levant_Natufian_11.000bc
Target: Turkish(Bolu)
Distance: 2.3520% / 0.02351977
33.8 Anatolian_Neolithic_Farmer_Barcin_6400bc
24.6 Proto-Indo-European_Samara_Steppe_3300bc
24.2 Caucasus_HG-Iran_N_Related
14.6 Mongolia_North_N
2.8 Levant_Natufian_11.000bc
Target: Turkish(Southwest)
Distance: 2.4136% / 0.02413554
35.4 Anatolian_Neolithic_Farmer_Barcin_6400bc
25.8 Caucasus_HG-Iran_N_Related
22.0 Proto-Indo-European_Samara_Steppe_3300bc
13.6 Mongolia_North_N
3.2 Levant_Natufian_11.000bc
Target: Turkish(West)
Distance: 2.5172% / 0.02517224
35.8 Anatolian_Neolithic_Farmer_Barcin_6400bc
24.8 Proto-Indo-European_Samara_Steppe_3300bc
23.4 Caucasus_HG-Iran_N_Related
12.2 Mongolia_North_N
3.8 Levant_Natufian_11.000bc
Target: Turkish(West_Blacksea)
Distance: 3.1822% / 0.03182207
35.4 Anatolian_Neolithic_Farmer_Barcin_6400bc
25.0 Caucasus_HG-Iran_N_Related
24.6 Proto-Indo-European_Samara_Steppe_3300bc
11.8 Mongolia_North_N
3.2 Levant_Natufian_11.000bc
Modern Anatolian Turks have only %35 ANF. Less than most Europeans. Lol...
Target: Turkish(Muğla)
Distance: 1.9364% / 0.01936421
33.2 Anatolian_Neolithic_Farmer_Barcin_6400bc
23.2 Caucasus_HG-Iran_N_Related
23.0 Proto-Indo-European_Samara_Steppe_3300bc
17.6 Mongolia_North_N
3.0 Levant_Natufian_11.000bc
Target: Turkish(Bolu)
Distance: 2.3520% / 0.02351977
33.8 Anatolian_Neolithic_Farmer_Barcin_6400bc
24.6 Proto-Indo-European_Samara_Steppe_3300bc
24.2 Caucasus_HG-Iran_N_Related
14.6 Mongolia_North_N
2.8 Levant_Natufian_11.000bc
Target: Turkish(Southwest)
Distance: 2.4136% / 0.02413554
35.4 Anatolian_Neolithic_Farmer_Barcin_6400bc
25.8 Caucasus_HG-Iran_N_Related
22.0 Proto-Indo-European_Samara_Steppe_3300bc
13.6 Mongolia_North_N
3.2 Levant_Natufian_11.000bc
Target: Turkish(West)
Distance: 2.5172% / 0.02517224
35.8 Anatolian_Neolithic_Farmer_Barcin_6400bc
24.8 Proto-Indo-European_Samara_Steppe_3300bc
23.4 Caucasus_HG-Iran_N_Related
12.2 Mongolia_North_N
3.8 Levant_Natufian_11.000bc
Target: Turkish(West_Blacksea)
Distance: 3.1822% / 0.03182207
35.4 Anatolian_Neolithic_Farmer_Barcin_6400bc
25.0 Caucasus_HG-Iran_N_Related
24.6 Proto-Indo-European_Samara_Steppe_3300bc
11.8 Mongolia_North_N
3.2 Levant_Natufian_11.000bc
omg
Fake
Is/ray/el, not Isreeal
Get over it
No, that's the correct pronunciation in modern English
Dey was black..innit.
DAS RITE