vellaunos

The Development and Movements of Y-Dna Haplogroups in Eurasia

Genetic researchers apparently believe that great genetic diversity within a population in a given area indicates that that area was a point of origin for that population. I strongly disagree. In fact, I believe that this notion has led genetic researchers to interpret the movements of genetic groups in an altogether backwards fashion. An important result of this backwards thinking is the idea that all of the descendants of Y-DNA haplogroup K, including haplogroups N, O and R, originated in eastern or southern Asia. And of course, I have reason to wonder if this isn’t intentional…

The way I see it, great genetic diversity within a population in a given area indicates that that area is a peripheral area rather than a core area. It seems to me that genetic innovations usually occur in core areas and subsequently expand outwards from that core area. This causes all previous genetic groups to move outwards. This results in the genetic innovation dominating the core area, while the periphery becomes increasingly populated by a diverse assortment of genetic groups that had previously existed.

[The following text added on September 29, 2021]

{The observations in the previous two paragraphs relate particularly to the movements of Y-DNA haplogroups; they are not valid with respect to the distribution of mtDNA haplogroups. The reason for this is simply the inherent natural difference between men and women with respect to territoriality.

Males are naturally inclined to expel all unrelated males from their territories, thereby tending to eliminate the possibility of Y-DNA diversity within their territories, and this is just as true on the level of entire haplogroups as on more localized levels (e.g. clans). On the other hand, females are not so inclined to eliminate other mtDNA haplogroups from their territories, thereby allowing for the accumulation of mtDNA diversity.

The natural male propensity to enforce territoriality necessarily means that the existence of Y-DNA diversity in a region must indicate a peripheral area rather than a core area.}

Here is a diagram that attempts to demonstrate the way I see this.

This being said, here are some maps that show how I see the development and movements of the Y-DNA haplogroups in Eurasia.

The following 11 maps represent an attempt at showing the origins and movements of Y-DNA haplogroups in Eurasia. I must stress that these maps are largely my own guesswork. I should also add that Wikipedia was practically the only source of information that I used.

Please note that only the main center of each haplogroup is generally indicated and that expansions from these main centers generally are not indicated.

Also note that haplogroups C, F and H are no longer shown after map 7.

I have attempted to guess approximate dates for these maps. The guess for the first map is approximately 80000 years ago and the guess for the last map is approximately 30000 years ago, the maps in between being at approximately 5000-year intervals.

A Cladogram of the Indo-European Language Groups

[Since I posted the following, I have developed a significantly different cladogram: A New Cladogram of the Indo-European Language Family – Vellaunos ]

The cladogram below attempts to show the relationships between the various branches of the Indo-European language family. The relationships shown in this cladogram should be compared with the geographic distributions of Indo-European language groupings between 3000 BCE and 1000 BCE shown on the following page: https://vellaunos.ca/2021/03/24/the-movements-and-expansions-of-indo-european-language-groups/

April 13, 2022 : I have produced a modified version of the cladogram to reflect my current view on the Illyrian & Albanian languages – see https://vellaunos.ca/2022/01/30/illyrians-and-albanians/ I have decided to keep the older version of the cladogram which appears below the newer version.

(Right-click and choose “Open image in new tab” to view full images.)

The Movements and Expansions of Indo-European Language Groups

[April 10, 2026 : I have recently posted a new page with an updated view of these movements – Indo-European Movements – Vellaunos ]

Below are five maps which attempt to show the linguistic territories of the main divisions of the Indo-European language family around 3000 BC, 2500 BC, 2000 BC, 1500 BC and 1000 BC.

Please note that the extents of these linguistic territories are largely speculative. Also note that these linguistic territories do not necessarily correspond with the territories of identifiable archaeological cultures.

In my view, the Proto-Indo-European language existed before 5000 BC in the forested areas west of the Ural Mountains. This Proto-Indo-European language split into two dialects as it expanded southwards into the steppe zone sometime around 5000 BC. I call these two dialects North Indo-European (or Forest Indo-European) and South Indo-European (or Steppe Indo-European).

In red is the linguistic territory of North Indo-European (or Forest Indo-European). The descendants of North Indo-European are Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian. In my view, the Cimmerian and Daco-Thracian languages were southern extensions of the Balto-Slavic group, while the Scythian language of course belongs to the Indo-Iranian group.

In the last two maps below (1500 BC & 1000 BC), the Indo-Iranian dialect of North Indo-European (in pink) is distinguished from the Balto-Slavic dialect (in red).

In yellow is the linguistic territory of South Indo-European (or Steppe Indo-European). The descendants of South Indo-European are Celtic (including Celtoid), Italo-Illyric, Greco-Phrygian and Tocharian. This last group was an early offshoot from South Indo-European and soon diverged greatly from it; for this reason, a light green color is used for Tocharian on the four maps after the first one.

[February 16, 2022 – I have recently come to believe that Illyric was neither part of an Italo-Illyric branch, nor even part of the larger grouping that I define here as South Indo-European – see https://vellaunos.ca/2022/01/30/illyrians-and-albanians/ ]

It is my opinion that the Yamnaya Culture and its predecessors were not speakers of a unified Proto-Indo-European language. The language of the Yamnaya Culture was the southern dialect of Proto-Indo-European from which the Celtic, Italo-Illyric and Greco-Phrygian languages developed.

As for the northern dialect of Proto-Indo-European, this was probably the language of the Comb Ceramic (or Pit-Comb Ware) Culture. It was also the language of the Corded Ware Culture and of its easterly extensions (Middle Dnieper, Fatyanovo-Balanovo).

In brown is the linguistic territory of Anatolian, which in my view is the result of the (partial) adoption of South Indo-European by the non-Indo-European speakers north of the Caucasus who had produced the Maykop Culture.

In beige is the territory of the language that became Greek and Phrygian. This language in my view resulted from a fusion of the eastern dialect of North Indo-European (i.e. Pre-Proto-Indo-Iranian) with the South Indo-European language that was still spoken on the Pontic Steppe after the Yamnaya period. (This would have occurred before the centum-satem split.)

(Armenian is probably an offshoot of this language group, moving southwards over the Caucasus into historic Armenian territory while Greco-Phrygian moved westwards through the Pontic steppe.)

In the last two maps below (1500 BC & 1000 BC), the dialectal division between Italo-Illyric (in yellow) and Celtic (in light orange) is shown.

In orange is the linguistic territory of Germanic, which in my view is the result of a fusion of North Indo-European (particularly Pre-Proto-Baltic) and South Indo-European (particularly Pre-Proto-Celtic).

I have created a cladogram of the Indo-European language family: https://vellaunos.ca/2021/03/24/a-cladogram-of-the-indo-european-language-groups/