By covering South America, you just erased the two centuries of immigration of Germans, Austrians, British, Swiss, Nordic people to Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay. Which I am actually an ancestor from 🙂 Good One!
Interesting video. Few comments: Groups missed in displayed area: Baltic Germans up to 1940s (Latvia, Estonia), Caucasus Germans pre 1945 (e.g. Georgia, Azerbaijan) and Russian Germans in Kazakhstan / Central Asia from 1940s onward. Missed due to map design: South America Naming conventions: for around 200 BCE, i think it would be more appropriate to call these groups eastern 'Germanics' and western 'Germanics' instead of eastern/western 'Germans'. More conceptually: obviously the fundamental difficulty with attempts as this video is that it needs to intersect 1) a language definition (Germanic) and 2) an ancestry definition and 3) do so for one specific point in time (!). Then treat this as the 'Origin' and subsequently follow the footprint of this so defined 'Proto' population through history purely along the ancestry line, not the language line (although definition at source point was based on language only). One could produce quite different videos by simply selecting a different point in history to define the source population by language and then follow up the ancestry footprint of this newly defined source population. There is nothing magical about populations that for reasons of our collective historical ignorance only we label today as 'Proto' this or 'Proto' that. This is not to say that throughout history language and ancestry are not often highly correlated for often very long stretches of time. But they can and do also diverge substantially at many points and areas throughout history and they are in principle completely separate properties.
German means Germanic in this context. It’s just a translation of the word Germani as I’m sure you know. Using the term German in this context is not wrong.
@@ethanpeeler3147The Context here is a video that stretches across History from Antiquity to Present and therefore in later parts also uses 'Germans' in a modern meaning. For example in North America or in the ancestry table at the end. Therefore it is not a good choice to use 'Germans' interchangably for Germani or Germanic in Antiquity. Given the overall level of detail that this video clearly aspires to using identical words suggests identical meaning and in this case wrongly so.
I did not add Germans in Baltic and Caucasus due to the fact that they were not the dominant population in the visible areas. commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ethnic_Map_of_European_Russia_by_Aleksandr_Rittich-1875.jpg As for Central Asia and South America, I did not add them because I did not pay attention to these regions. Of course it would be correct to add. The South American section could have been shown elsewhere. Apparently it would be also correct to call "Proto-Germanics" rather than "Proto-Germans". My maps focus mainly on ancestry. And making the designation of languages more detailed is detrimental to the perception of the names of the groups, and simply does not fit on such a generalized map. Of course, it would be possible to make maps about the main branches of proto-languages/peoples, but I’m currently focused on proto. But if I do something about branches, I will take your advice into account. Thanks for the help!
@@The_Geographer_Maps Thanks for the answer. With regards to the first point: It seemed to me from the video overall that many areas are shaded where 'people with Germanic language group ancestry' are not the numerically dominant population. Like south western and south eastern Europe. What makes let's say Visigoth and Suebian migration different in this regard than later eastern Baltic migration and resettlements within Soviet Union?
@@redacted7060 Iranians are Aryans, but it doesn't mean that the meaning of "Aryans" is "people from Iran", northern Indians are Aryans too. The meaning of "Aryans" is "Indo-Iranians".
There was no genetic or cultural shift spreading from Denmark to Sweden and Norway in 500 BCE. In all three countries there was a mix of people and cultures around 3000 BCE resulting from several waves of migration starting when the ice melted 10000 BCE. In some areas of Scandinavia this stabilized into a homogeneous culture called the Nordic Bronze Age culture from 2000 BCE to 500 BCE, which corresponds to all the parts of Scandinavia colored on your map at around 400 BC or 53 seconds into the video, with the exception of the Jastorf culture in northern Germany, which emerged from the Nordic Bronze Age culture starting in 600 BCE as shown in your video.
Iceland isn't 100% Germanic; they have significant Celtic / Bell beaker admixture from Irish slaves that the vikings brought over. Iceland should be about 70-80% Germanic.
Love this video. I’d love to see a similar video with the Celts next. Also, is Iceland rounded to 100% Proto Germanic ancestry here? I thought enslaved Irish women brought over to Iceland would have had a much larger impact?
The majority of Icelanders show Norwegian identity, although there are some outliers showing British ancestry (additional EEF ancestry) www.researchgate.net/profile/Jean-Michel-Guinet/publication/259441354/figure/fig3/AS:271610733133833@1441768453301/Principal-Component-Analysis-PCA-on-all-present-day-west-Eurasians-with-ancient-samples.png c1.staticflickr.com/4/3803/33016272762_2f3e139a15_b.jpg
Not necessarily; most current day Englishman are descendants of Brythonic Celts and Romano-British people who mixed with Jutes, Angles and Saxons who came from modern-day Denmark but Danes themselves only migrated there after they'd moved out or assimilated the remaining groups I mentioned.
Jutland became a part of Denmark in 6th century, when Danes conquered Jutland. According to the video Scania (today in South Sweden) was the craddle of the Danes.
We're not sure about the origin of the germanic peoples, denmark seems a likely candidate but the area with the least amount of non germanic local names is actually in southern sweden, some also think that the germanic peoples descend from the Jastorf culture in what is today northern germany.
@@jesusismyhelp9005 Yeah in like one village, but in western Poland, nobody is german except like 100 thousand people in one small voivodeship called Opole. We western Poles, are actually from the east cities like Lviv, Grodno or WIlno. We all have closer to Ukrainians, Belarussians, and Lithuanians than Germans. It is a complete myth, that these territories are still somewhat more German, there is much more genetic Germanic influence in Northern Italy than here for example.
All humans are genetically related, the farthest you can be genetically from another human (aka an uncontacted tribesperson) is 70th cousin, most people you meet on a day to day basis, even if they are of a different ethnicity are closer than that to you.
I used these graphs for modern populations: media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fnature07331/MediaObjects/41586_2008_Article_BFnature07331_Fig1_HTML.jpg c1.staticflickr.com/4/3803/33016272762_2f3e139a15_b.jpg i.imgur.com/nRovN6H.png Comparing with ancient genomes from research written in the description. The video is based on this
Ū I can point out a rarely known fact which should have been on the map but wasnt. Grobiņa/Jūrpils as we latvieši call it was founded by the east norse and grew to be the largest setlement in Kurzemē. A few generations later, once the native baltic people had learned the norsemens way or organizing and war, kurši conquered the town and it became Kurzemes capitol. Its kinda like the estern version of Dublin, which was founded by the west norse in Ireland.
Индоевропейцы (в т.ч. германцы, славяне, саки), + тюрки и уральцы уже есть. Какие группы или семьи на очереди ? Хотелось бы дождаться чего-то с южной дуги - семитов, кавказцев, может быть дравидов ?
Следующую карту я буду делать про Романские народы, потом про Балканские и уже после планирую детальную карту про Индоевропейские народы на основании предыдущих карт. Может быть потом я сделаю что то связанное с Ближним Востоком. Генетика открывает нам лучше загадку происхождения народов Ближнего Востока, и было бы интересно сделать что то подобное.
Sources for the ancestry graphs? I'm not sure what "ancestries are taken from 600 BC" is trying to convey. I assume it means that the samples chosen to compare to present-day populations are taken from populations around that time. Otherwise, it is a big incongruence because there is no way that Native Americans or Maori (who didn't even exist by then) had any Germanic ancestry by that time. But even having said that, how come is it possible to obtain a sample of a pre-Celtic French or British individual if by that time Britain and Gaul were already settled by Celts?
The sentence "Ancestries are taken from 600 BC" refers to genetic sources in modern populations. The Celts appeared in Gaul as a result of the spread of La Tène culture, which appeared in 450 BC. Maybe a little earlier, given the historical mention in Gaul in 517 BC and the imprecise dating of the cultures. But to say that the pre-Celtic population of Gaul was assimilated in 600 BC has no evidence.
Wait, Scottish Lowlanders are more Germanic than English? Also how do Western Europeans have Middle Eastern admixture despite not having a Middle Eastern population apart from Jews.
Based on research, Scotland IA shows additional EEF ancestry compared to Continental Bell Beaker (which is identical to Proto-Germans), and appears to be most similar to the modern Irish. However, modern Scots show more ancestry from Continental Bell Beaker than Scotland IA and modern English, suggesting a significant contribution from Germanic peoples. We must not forget that the Scots are Germanic speaking. media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fnature25738/MediaObjects/41586_2018_Article_BFnature25738_Fig3_HTML.jpg www.irishtimes.com/resizer/XCFypUY4wQeYTsE1n031_ZacCjY=/600x400/filters:format(jpg):quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/irishtimes/DBBHRFIPMLYNC2Z7NHWNTIEPTI.jpg The Middle Eastern population in southern and western Europe dates back to the Roman Empire and appears to be largely related to the Jews. Later most of this population was Romanized, except for small groups of Jews. Articles: The origin and legacy of the Etruscans through a 2000-year archeogenomic time transect A Genetic History of the Balkans from Roman Frontier to Slavic Migrations
@@The_Geographer_Maps scottish have since had migration from ireland (dal rhiada) during the migration period which explains the increase in beaker ancestry after the IA.
I noticed you used US census records of most self identified ancestry by county, and used germanic percentages by their ancestral country. This is inaccurate since a lot of Americans will identify by their most recent ancestor, and are generally a mix of several ethicities, mostly British, with some German and Irish. You also used recent censuses for 1800s regions, Germans didn't start coming in large numbers until the late 1800s.
@@zach2382Use IllistrativeDNA results of Americans from different regions, and find the mean percent. For historic admixture, find an accurate census of their ancestral countries, combine them together and divide for the mean percentage of the average American.
@@zach2382 No dna study ever tests every single person in a country. You pick out a small, yet not too small group of people, and use them as a generalisation for the population. We already have enough people taking these tests, we just need to analyse them.
Great video, and I appreciate your efforts. English average 40-50% Early Medieval Saxon (see qpadm supplemantary of Gretzinger, J. 2022). Also norse settled Cumbria, Wirral and the Isle of Man in very large numbers (although highest Norse DNA doesnt go above 30% in Britain). Danish admix is actually quite low for post danelaw britain. South germans are actually relatively low in germanic dna (
Apparently the North African ancestry appeared in Iberia along with the Middle Eastern during the Roman Empire period. I assume that the Muslim occupation did not bring North African ancestry into the modern population of Iberia. Article: Stable population structure in Europe since the Iron Age, despite high mobility
It seems surprising, but the study "Large-scale migration into Britain during the Middle to Late Bronze Age" shows a lack of genetic Celtic influence in Scotland, unlike England and Wales. Apparently the same situation is in Ireland based on the modern Irish. earthlogs.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/preromandna.jpg
I don't know about the Germanic part but as for the Eastern European part it's completely incorrect. Slovaks and Wlachs in 700 AD??? Just WTF? Where are the Huns and Hungarians? (Not to mention all the other steppe peoples who were here at the time?) Where's the Kievan Rus? And who in the hell are "Pannonian Slavs"?
It’s because of the ZOG we have occupying our nation. Same for every nation in the west. My great grandfather Stephen Hopkins signed the Declaration of Independence. I imagine he would start a war if he saw what’s happened and happening to the west today.
Are you next who identify przeworsk culture with smaller vandalic tribe and think that existed something like "eastern germanic" Nahanarvali where probably celtic, goths and vandals northern germanic and burgundiones western.
There was no significant change in the archeological record "Eastern Germania" until the migration age. That is why it is even argued that the whole Lusatian culture was Germanic. That's also why Przeworsk can be deemed Germanic.
Is it me or picture is blurry almost all the time? It gets clear sometimes for a second (at 0:33 for example), but such moments only helps you see that picture is blurry all remaining time. I watched the video in 1080p through the monitor.
There is such a problem. I edited the video using Windows Live Movie Maker for Windows 7. Even though it edits the video in HD, most of the frames are blurry and I don't know why.
We Slavs, have luckily very little germanic ancestry, this map is bs, Poland is especially overinflated. And they knew lol, but if they consider Aryan DNA superior, than we Slavs and many people from Iran and central Asia are superior genetically and the master race according to nazis themselves beacuse we have the highest R1A DNA.
@@rangar6853 Your heritage is not better then any other. To have such a superiority complex about your heritage is utterly pathetic. There is nothing that you have achieved. Nothing to be proud of. Thus you have to cling to heritage in order to feel superior to others, even when you haven't don't j@ck shit to achieve it.
As a Proto-Germanic source I use Icelanders or Norwegians in Vahaduo. But mainly for the map I used PCA comparisons from different studies and not from Vahaduo. Based on these studies, it can be compared that these peoples stand in the same place as Bell Beaker of northern Europe.
@@The_Geographer_Maps Ah, I see what you did, but even though Icelanders and Norwegians are very close to ancient samples (see below), isn't it better to use the actual ancient samples (I used Iron Age Denmark - intermediate to ancient Northern and Continental Germanic, not Bell Beaker)? Distance to: Denmark_IA . SG 0.02160415 Icelandic 0.02196920 Norwegian 0.02212279 Swedish 0.02365340 Danish 0.03218504 Dutch 0.03430688 English 0.04170056 German 0.05386931 Austrian 0.05934329 French_Alsace 0.06304162 Swiss_German
@@RobinHood-tw4se Denmark IA shows a strong genetic diversity and a rather small number of samples, so it will not be possible to establish exactly how Proto-Germanics stood genetically based on them. While the Icelanders and Norwegians show a rather weak diversity and a larger number of samples. Looking at Denmark IA there is a high probability that the Proto-Germanics stood where the Icelanders and Norwegians.
@@The_Geographer_Maps Iceland is not good as a reference for Proto-Germanic since they have Gaelic admixture from Irish slaves. You might have just given England extra Germanic admixture by combining it with some Celtic / Bell beaker admixture.
Personally, I despite germanics with every fiber of my body (and I know english is a hybrid languege of germanic and italic and I'm speaking it right now, but It's the easiest way to communicate online), but this video is very good and very usefull. I am working on a map of the population/peoples of europe with the 5 criterias of a population: Languege, ethnicity, culture, identity, and religion. And I have been having a rough time mapping france. But this video helped me. Now i know, and I split france into france with germanic ethnicity/ancestry, france and occitania.And also videos like this are very rare to find. You can't find stuff like this elsewhere. So thank you. 😃
All the people who live east to the elbe river are 40/45% Slavs. Also northen italians are in any way 30% germanic..., only south tyrol and austrians/bavarians are 30-40% germanic, the map is wrong
Are you sure the average European has diluted Germanic admixture? I wouldn't think most Romance or most Slavic Europeans would be even mildly Germanic??????
They are tho. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, many Germanic peoples moved into the Mediterranean reaching as far as Africa (see the Vandals). However, they were always a minority and eventually got diluted into the general population. Depending on the region, Germanic DNA may be higher or lower (Lombardy has the highest in Italy and Catalonia the highest in Spain). Many words in Romance languages come from Gothic (see Spanish "guerra", cognate with the English word "war") and some surnames are Germanic in origin (like Guzmán or Beltrán).
@@TheJosman but the eastern Europe regions? If anything what of his noticeable absence in the Baltic states that had extensive German, Danish and Swedish settlement?
it's just propaganda, forget it. people who make videos on RU-vid but don't really know about genetics, Northern Italy (Lombardy) in no way has more than 20% Germanic (Central European) contribution, just inquire carefully about the genetics of Northern Italians and see their autosomal DNA and Y-DNA to understand what they are like. they are closer to Sicilians/Greeks than to the average German. medieval migrations did not modify the genetic makeup of populations in such a significant way, which for Europe dates back to the Bronze Age and the Iron Age and not to the Middle Ages@@TheJosman
Wouldn't it make more sense to do Semites as a whole? Not a whole lot of diversity between Arabs, Aramaeans, Assyrians, Amorites, Ammonites, Akkadians, Asserites and other Semitic tribes or ethnicities.
Thank a million, This is one of the most interesting nations. I think the videos about the settlement of the Slavs and Latins will be very interesting. Please continue!
100% of the video is false information. * In 245 BC Poland was inhabited by the Vendi Slavic group * The Rugii are a Celtic tribe, not a Germanic one * Burgundians and Heruli never inhabited Eastern Europe * Goths, Vandals and Gepids were never a majority in any Eastern European country * Bastarnae are not Germans, but Scytho-Sarmatians * There were no Vlachs in Romania before the 11th century, before the 11th century they lived in Thessaly * There were no Serbs in Vojvodina before the 15th century * Before the 13-14th century, Bosnians did not inhabit territories near the Adriatic Sea * From 7 century to 1930's, Bulgarians inhabited Macedonia, Moesia and Thrace, Dragovites did not exist after the 8th century
Coping Slav(e) in 245 BC Poland was inhabited mostly by Vandals and its proven archeologically and with Vandal Samples we have from Wielbark Culture you Slav(e) The Rugii are Germanic and originated in Norway you Slav(e) The Burgundians and Herulis went as far as the Caucasus and the Heruli lived with Ostrogoths this is well documented in ancient historians you Slav(e) Goths Vandals were majorities in their respective Przework and Wielbark Cultures only the Gepids weren't a majority you Slav(e) Bastarnae were mixed with Visigoths this is also documented in their DNA samples keep coping though Slav(e) Now idrc about the rest but you seem like a mad slavic nationalist stay mad.
Great video you forgot the Germans in khazakstan and the Germanic franks in the crusader kingdoms in the Middle East and the vandal kingdom in North Africa and the Germanic ancestry amongst people in Latin America .and question Slavs have Germanic ancestry?
I'm 1/16 Swiss German so I guess that makes me of around 4% Proto-Germanic descent + my 15/16 Spanish + South Italian that's 9% more, so I might be around 14% proto-Germanic maybe.
I would of unified the German Groups by 1815, as that’s when the sense of “Germanness” (keep the shadings though) Began as would of considered all White American/Anglo-Canadian groups to be “White Americans” after World War II, because that is when all the White groups began to identify as American (once again, keep the shading) Great Video, but if you want to make a second one, I would consider that as an option.
This situation is quite contradictory. While in Germany some Germans consider themselves one people, others divide themselves into ethnic groups. I wonder what is the dominant opinion in Germany? If you look at the ethnic map of the United States, you will notice that only people in the southeastern part of the United States call themselves "Americans". However, I don't know when this group became dominant in these areas, or maybe it was more common before the mass migration?
@@The_Geographer_MapsIt's based on self identification. The average White American is more English, but will often list their most recent ancestor on the census. If they don't have a recent immigrant ancestor, they put American.
Why do you start tracking ancestry so late? Which germanics are so early in the east along the vistula? Isn't that 100-200 years too early for goths? Any sources or reasons for the educated guess why bastarnae would be germanics? This early spread to the east seems really out of place archeologically. EDIT: It actually seems like this early spread east exists only to justify bastarnae being germanic here?
The Germans advanced to the Vistula according to the Przeworsk culture, which appeared in the 3rd century BC. Based on historical evidence, it is considered most likely that the Burgundians, Naharvali and Vandals were Germans and they were located on the territory of the Przeworsk culture (which disappeared after the penetration of the Slavs), which tells us that the Przeworsk culture was Germanic.
@@The_Geographer_Maps Thanks for replying. My understanding was przeworsk having come from south pomeranian was more than purely germanic like jastorf, comprising peoples from la tene with eastern Celtics and some "ethnicities" probably not ancestral to any modern ones. It doesn't seem to me like there would be no change in ancestry% (Also didn't przeworsk disappear directly because of wielbark and goths?) Unless there are genetic sources you use for this case. What was then the whole pomeranian before przeworsk? Just "pure" germanic? And is there any reason why you are starting tracking ancestry only in 600bc? PS: thanks for your work :)
@@elgoogtnoucca1039 The Wielbark culture, which I consider similar to Przeworsk (due to the similar language), shows at least almost complete similarity with modern Scandinavians. postlmg.cc/mcCWbPYW Although, to be honest, I don’t know how much the ancient Germans of central Germany and Poland actually have a proto-Germanic ancestry, since the Celts who were present in these regions could very likely be genetically identical to the proto-Germans. No matter how much I looked for another influence related to the Baltic (associated with Trzciniec culture) in modern Western Slavic peoples, I never found it. If you look at Wikipedia, it says that the Przeworsk culture disappeared in the 5th century. Since the Jastorf culture and Nordic Iron Age appear in 500 BC, I assumed that their common ancestor existed in 600 BC.
@@The_Geographer_Maps thanks for humoring me and keeping the conversation going :) While wielbark is most certainly purely gothic by origin and przeworsk is associated with vandals, there were non-germanic indo-european peoples in these lands previously. So, you are saying that, going by przeworsk and pomeranian or even lusatian samples, the peoples to the west of jastorf were genetically similar to those of jastorf, to the point of having no influence - genetically - on later generations of germanics that came there? And the peoples of pomeranian and lusatian had much lesser similarity to the trzciniec complex and its successors. Are there samples from the pomeranian/lusatian periods or are you analysing later ones associated with peoples that moved through and/or in? (right, przeworsk did disappear later, I was equaling them with migrating vandals too much) Connecting the starting date to the beginning of jastorf does make sense. Even if it looks a bit weird in scandinavia at the beginning. To "fix" that, I wonder what the video would look like if you marked the emergence of proto-germanics a bit earlier than that, in late/middle nordic bronze age. We could perhaps see really well how homogenous europe was/is. Unless there are few ancient samples and the analysis of the movements of central european peoples of the age would be unfeasible. EDIT: In that context, it's intriguing how quickly the % drop for bastarnae
@@chtabarddumultien6075 First of all - the word Varangian is a nickname, given to vikings serving the byzantine emperor, not an actual nation or ethnic group. Second of all - how they represent the balkan nations, which are so mixed with turks, gypsies and other groups as having german genes, but not the eastern slavs which literally originate from germans
@@chtabarddumultien6075 They originate from the rus people, which mixed with the local slavs to create the modern russians. These rus people were vikings from germanic origin. And that's why i am confused, why in the video they show balkan nations as having germanic genes, but the eastern slavs, which are way more close to germans - not
@@user-mx9sl3xw9q You do seems confused, the adoption of one’s ethnonym isn’t always through heritage but through adoption, not every single Frenchmen (in fact not probably even 99%) hold their ethnonym through being descendants of the Franks, it’s through adoption. Russians took the name of their aristocrats whom where certainly not a big group in the whole of Russia.
