Lecture | Genetic History of Europe Adaptation and Migration in Prehistory | Johannes Krause
Ancient DNA can reveal prehistoric events that are difficult to discern through the study of archaeological remains and modern genetic variation alone. Over the last decade, the newly founded field of archaeogenetics has analysed more than 5,000 ancient human genomes spanning the last 10,000 years of Western Eurasian prehistory.
We have uncovered at least two major genetic turnover events at the beginning and at the end of the Neolithic period that dramatically changed the genetic landscape of Europe. These changes are likely to have been caused by at least two major migration events.
Firstly, from around 8,000 years ago, early farmers dispersed from Anatolia and brought agriculture and domestic animals to Europe. At the end of the Neolithic period, around 5,000 years ago, we find the first genetic evidence for another major migration event, when groups from the Eastern European pontic steppe, north of the black sea, entered the heartland of Europe. The newcomers were herders, practiced pastoralism and were highly mobile. Besides introducing new cultural practices, they may have been responsible for the spread of Indo-European languages.
In this lecture, Johannes Krause will introduce us to the field of archaeogenetics and its discoveries. He will show that all modern European populations today are a genetic mix of those steppe herders, early Anatolian farmers and indigenous European hunter-gatherers, in varying proportions. Furthermore, he will show that over the course of the past 10,000 years, genetic mix and local biological adaptation have brought about major changes in human phenotypes, such as eye colour, skin colour and the ability to digest lactose.
_____________
This lecture is organised in cooperation with the Eugène Dubois Foundation, Eijsden, in special remembrance of Prof. dr. Joep Geraedts. He was the founding father of the Department of Clinical Genetics at Maastricht UMC+ and one of the founders and the first chairman of the Eugène Dubois Foundation.
_____________
0:00 - Introduction
6:04 - Introduction Johannes Krause
10:00 - Lecture
1:13:32 - Q&A
Talk starts at 6:04
I'd also suggest it might be wise to listen at 1.5x speed. I thought it might be wise to recommend other avenues for learning about the proto indo european expansions for those interested, yet new to the field. KZhead: Dan Davis History, Fortress of Lugh, Survive the Jive, Razib Khan podcast, David Reich lectures. Books: The Horse, the Wheel and Language (David Anthony), Who We Are And How We Got Here (David Reich).
10:00 in and it’s still waffle😂
Hero
More like 10:35
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 Thanks for that. This is the real start, instead of pointless filler.
Lecture date 14 Nov 2023. Speaker begins at 6:04, lecture content begins at 10:00
A slow start, but then a very clear comprehensive view on human and European genetics and migration that is a great sum-up of what we currently know. Kudos!
It was a great start,then they felt the academic need for introductions. :)
I almost expired in the first 10 minutes
You know nothing about us °°
Krause's technical delivery belies the insight and optimism he and his colleagues offer in the book. Make sure you read it this year!
Passionnant, merci, extremely clear and fascinating, thank you very much for your work
Fabulous. Similar age appropriate talk should be given in all high schools. It tells of who we are. Important.
Clarification from a linguist concerning the answer to the last question (disclaimer: not a historical linguist): Baltic and Slavic are indeed sub-branches of the Indo-European family, and Lithuanian is a Baltic language; however, Estonian -- along with Finnish, Hungarian, Sami languages, and some others -- are actually not Indo-European at all. They belong to a family called Uralic (Finno-Ugric is what they call the major branch to which Estonian, Finnish, and Hungarian belong), which wasn't discussed in the talk (unless I missed it?) and is also not (as far as I am aware) thought to be related to Basque. Not sure what the paleogenetics community thinks about the origin of Uralic languages (though perhaps it's discussed in this 2021 book?)
And thank you for helping understand those early migrations, which cannot be clearly distinguished…yet👍
One can skip the first 10 min. without missing some important infos.
Denisovans were discovered thanks to excellent job by Russian archeologists. Thair restless digging in Siberia gives amazing results. Denisovans, ancient north eurasians, spectacular andronovo culture, scythian tatooed mummies. To name a few.
And?
That was very comprehensive. One lecture clarified so many aspects.
The new information is that Indians have no Anatolian ancestry and that the Yamnaya migrations to the west may have been facilitated by a plague that wiped out many neolithic Anatolian farmers but which the Yamnaya had more resistance to. Thirdly, it’s a interesting hypothesis that Basque, Minoan, Sardinian, and Etruscan might have been related.
Fantastic Lecture johannes and Maastricht University. This is easily in my top 5 for the year. Thank You.
Thank you for this great lecture! Wish to see more 🙏🏼
Advanced listeners, start at 22:00 or 19:30.
Background for various diseases is just so cool.
He went to all that rouble to prepare that lecture and it took him 12 hours at get there and the room is half empty. What a shame for the poor guy.
But thousands of us enjoy his presentation online! Repeatedly!
10:00 start 13:32 tree 47:45 Neolithic Revolution 57:48 Migration summary Result of domestication. Revolt of livestocks
Great Lecture. As part Germanic (Switzerland) and Slavic (Belarus) it came close to zeroing me in, which is the reason I really appreciated such a well focused, wonderful, Lecture. And as I drive through Idaho and Wyoming near home, I can see the farms that started during the American pioneer period, which transports me back thru time.
Starts at 10:00
Thank you!
Спасибки! 👍
Fascinating lecture well presented. Thank you
Science portion starts around 10:30.
THANKS. I SHAALL CONTI UE FOLLOWING YOURECTUR3S T .
Magnificent!
Great lecture. Thank you. Happy fatherhood to our speaker.
Video begins at 10 mins...for those who have not already lost interest.
Bedankt voor deze upload. Erg informatief. Jammer dat de bestaande autoriteit rondom archeologie zo terughoudend reageert op nieuwe ontdekkingen.
if we want to meet people from unique past peoples -- sounds like Basque and Sardinia would be two spots can you reply w many others
Start at 10:00.
Love your hair! So nice and messy!
Interesting lecture, but I can't help noticing some obvious gaps. For example, 1) the lecture covers deep movements out of Africa many tens of thousands of years ago, and the spread of the modern humans from Africa across the globe. We're told that when the modern humans came to Europe, Neanderthals, also humans, were already there, and when they spread into Asia, Denisovans (also humans were there before them, Homo Floriensis too, etc. These other humans - where did they come from? Did they also evolve in Africa, or did they evolve in Europe or Asia? What do their genteics tell us there? 2) The lecture then skips to 9000 years ago, and we're told that at that time everyone in Europe was a nomadic hunter gatherer. Are you sure? Weren't there large hunter gatherer settlements in some places? I seem to recall reading about large settlements in Ukraine / Poland area, long before the farmers arrived from Anatolia. Also, how about the Iron Gorge / Lepenski Vir settlements, long before thefarmers moved into Europe. So perhaps it's too simplistic to assume that all hunter gatherers were nomadic? 3) If the Hunter gatherers were mostly nomadic, or at least more nomadic than the farmers - that would make sense to me, because farmers are tied to the land on which they grow their crops. But then, wouldn't these nomadic peoples be much more likely than farmers to move and migrate? They would certainly be more mobile and therefore would have faster migrations, and yet - the only migrations covered in this lecture (and many other similar ones) are INTO Europe - why? Weren't there migrations out of Europe? Perhaps these happened in the period between 40K years ago and 9K years ago? But there is a gap covering that period in the lecture. It would be nice if that period was elaborated on just a little bit more. 4) There were cultures / civilisations in Europe long before 9000K. Perhaps the IndoEuropean Languages didn't come into Europe from outside, but developed in Europe, moved out of Europe, say to Iran and Anatolia, perhaps further, before coming back into Europe (probably multiple times) in a changed form? We're told in the lecture of Minoans, Etruscans and Basques, who spoke non-Indo-European languages, so there were multiple languages in Europe, all diferent from each other, as Minoan, Etruscan and Basque are different from each other. Why then assume that Indo-European wasn't one of these diverse European languages, which was just more successful than other European languages at spreading across the globe? As Europe was the first continent to which the modern humans spread to from Africa, it would make sense that the original Indo-European language was carried from there to the rest of the world, as well as many non-Indo-European languages. So - why are we restricted to a simple bi-choice of only two theories for origin of Indo-European? The fact that there are two plausible origin theories - Anatolia and Iranian sources, which are geographically quite close to each other and to Europe - screams at me that there would have been an older source region where Indo-European language could have started. The lecture is sadly far too simplistic on this topic. 5)The split into Hunter Gatherers and Farmers also seems incredibly simplistic to me, and I don't understand why the scientists don't clarify it. We know there were so called Pastoralists, who herded goats, sheep, cattle, reindeer.... and probably many others who lived off the land (and sea) in many different ways:- by sea fishing, or fresh-water fishing. My expectation is that originally, Farmers and Hunter Gatherers were just labels given to different peoples, which used these terms to distinguish one group from another, while in most other respects, these different peoples had similar feeding habbits, mixing hunting, gathering, fishing, planting fruit and vegetables as well as grain. Yes, the so called farmers would have grown grain like wheet, oats, barley far more than the Hunter Gatherers, but Hunter gatherers would also have grown some vegetables, e.g. making flour and bread from acorns, growing sugar beet, etc. The lecturer mentions Estonians who he states were Hunter Gatherers until quite recently - but I'm quite sure that they grew and ate vegetables too, those suitable to their climate. And finally - didn't people change from hunter-gatherers to farmers and back to hunter gatherers to pastoralists, etc. as circumstances dictated? Even in our modern age there are some people who are more Hunter Gatherers than farmers, and I don't mean the tribes living in the Amazon jungle. I mean the very top echelons, the elites, who can afford to have summer houses in wild parts of the world, where they can go hunting, shooting and fishing for wild - not farmed - animals, birds and fish. Wasn't Nimrod a hunter? Didn't Kings and aristocracy have their game reserves, where poachers often paid with their lives for encroaching on the wealth that non-farmed land has to offer? Isn't one measure of a quality lifestyle and wealth of an ancient skeleton the measure of how much fish they consumed in their lives? 6) And finally, what really irks me is that no one has explained why we call our human species Homo Sapiens, as if we were the only intelligent and wise humans? Krausse refers to us as "Modern Humans", implying that we have progressed further than Neanderthals or Denisovans or many others, who are sadly no longer with us, as if we are at the forefront of evolution, as if progress has always been linear and upward? I'm not so sure that we haven't regressed, I suspect otherwise. When people became farmers, by settling permanently in settlements, some awful things happened as a consequence: our healthy diets went downhill, our teeth rotted sooner, most people never ate meat, game birds and fish and other high protein foods, slavery started, in order to have the manpower to do the hard chores of tilling the land and grinding the grain into flour, while many resorted to theft of the grain supplies as easier than ploughing the land, so kings emerged to raise armies to protect the land and supplies, armies were created, wars were invented, and populations became vulnerable to floods, hurricanes, changes in river courses, and resultant poor harvests, also diseases which spread far more in permanent settlements than in small hunter gatherer communities. In fact I suspect that we often regressed, then moved forward, then regressed again and so on. And we should be calling ourselves Homo Survivor, or Homo Last Man Standing. But certainly not Homo Sapiens.
Without having any deep knowledge of genetics or recent developments with it , certain things about what I read about human origin becomes difficult fir me to accept. Most importantly 1. I cannot align myself to the idea that all human beings originated from a single place on earth, I think even from core idea of evolution and scientific hypothesis of origin of life and human evolution it is extremely unlikely. 2. I learnt moder humans have their genetic ancestry from certain people of east africa like the sun people who had moved towards southern part of that continent while a group left the continent. I believe whatever may be the findings it should align with our own feelings as it relates to us not something third party inanimate object. I can from my feeling be ok to learn that the Sun people could be my distant relation but when that is extended to include other africans mostly like those of central African bantu stock it immediately makes me feel unacceptable,similarly i cannot relate in any way the looks of the sun people and those of the earliest migrators into south asia from africa namely those who are present in Australia as aborigines. 3. I learnt that certain characteristics of white people like blue eyes, blond hair and possibly also white skin becomes absent among offsprings of mixed white and black couples , however in south asia it usually moves in opposite direction where offsprings of mixed dark skinned african origin or middle eastern dravidian origin people and fair skinned Indo-European or mongolian people usually looses their dark skin and curly black hairs which also explains why there is a culture of reverence for fair skinned people in south asia. These things and my idea of natural evolution and personal feelings although not based or backed by scientific findings leads me to be very doubtful of the idea that all human beings originated from same place in east africa, instead i am more inclined to believe that human evolution happened simultaneously on scale of evolution timeline in different parts of the world parallel to each other. I also have strong feeling that this idea of common ancestry of different types of human beings has its root in abrahamic faith and biblical idea of Adam and Eve as first huma beings and was not countered by people of non abrahamic cultures because in those days as even to this day they were and still are happy to be considered as brothers and sisters of white european people but I am sure they would have vehemently resisted if that had led to the idea that their ancestry would be eventually traced to africa. There is something intrinsic in us south asians and I believe among other asians and maybe even among European white people which makes us unccepting of the idea that we share common ancestry with central sub Saharan african people namely the bantu origin people, and that I personally had not been able to reconcile with ever and i never had any racist indoctrination or ideas, infact my fathers skin color was pitch black but more in appearance like many Saharan african people as opposed to sub saharan african people. My mother on the other hand looks more like a mix of indo-european and Mongolian people of himalayan regions.
A very clear line of obvious questions. If academia adopted your thinking we might start forward much quicker in our understanding of where we came from.
@@ABO-DestinyDavid Reich gives a great talk at Harvard in which he compares European genetics with the genetics of South Asia - from 4yrs ago, available on YT.
@@ABO-DestinyAfrican ancestry can mean almost anything. ⚪🟡🟤⚫ Definitely not just subsaharan/bandtu...in fact those ppl have up to twenty precent ghost homonid DNA, which is NOT found in other populations, so that alone proves they never left Africa, and certainly never entered Asia or Europe and magically turned into 🤍 European or Asian people.
@@nolongerlistless Thanks. I will look for that
Talk really starts at 10:10
love it, great lecture!
Please note that when he says “hybrid” when the hunter-gatherers, anatolians, and steppe groups mix, he is not talking about different species like horses and donkeys making mules. These were all genetically distinct groups of homo sapiens that had been separated by physical barriers for long enough to change genetically and culturally, but they were all still homo sapiens. Also when the entire Y-chromosome signature of a region is replaced after a few generations by a population of mostly-male animal-herders, it seems obvious to me how that replacement happened. Castration of all but the “ideal” males (that are used for breeding) is one of the most effective ways to manage large herds of animals, and it doesn’t take a wild imagination to to transfer that discovery to managing populations of people.
100% of man and 80% of women were replaced.
Well he is mostly correct but when explaining in the Q&A his opinions are showing, especially he is presenting very vague theories as fact. He says that proto-Indo-European comes from what is today Iran and influences the Steppe is part of what is called the Anatolian hypothesis which is actually the less preferred theory, mostly because it does not explain how both R1a and R1b retained indo-european languages although being split since far longer ago than the contact with Iran/Anatolia; the easier hypothesis is that Indo-European arose with the R1-peoples and then spread southwards partly via Anatolia to what became the Hittites and Armenians, as well as through Central Asia into Iran and India.
You messed up these Hittites with Hitler °`
Beyond excellent! The long introductions might put some viewers off, though, before the real content begins.
Perhaps someone with the appropriate knowledge can clarify the following point. Homo sapiens fossils from Jebel Irhoud have been dated 315 KYA, thus predating the mentioned date in the lecture ( 195 KYA ). It's the other side of Africa, in Morocco. Were there another kind of Homo Sapiens ? I read on wikipedia ( I know ) that attempts to recover DNA from these fossils were unsuccessful. Perhaps this lineage disappeared ? Or should it have been mentioned ?
So pleased to see Leon back in the Netherlands; he put me on the spot during a small talk I gave at Harvard 25 years ago, his question designed to be helpful-“What were the hyoids (tongues) of dinosaurs like?” Good question, still my answer is the same, “Not like those of birds.” 😆 Thanks, Prof Claessens!
You say linear b tablets
One interesting topic is to realize that human expansion is driven by competition to avoid threat of other humans. There came a time when migration was not an easy solution anymore because most good world regions were populated thus fighting got even bigger as city states developed military might to defend against neighbors city states. And when weapons developed have become so destructively powerful tensions get even higher until the war turns from military to economical and cultural oppression. We are in that phase. It seems the next phase is more massive genocide of population by their own government that were infiltrated by foreign states through financial and economic means.
Thank you, white supremacy bot, for spreading misinformation, fairy tales and rattling less educated into bigotry and idiocy. The world would be such a good place without people that made you, but hey, nothing good is supposed to be easy, right? No need to anwser, nazi chatGP, twas a rhetorical question 😅
That comment started off interesting, then gradually went downhill until you had about three tinfoil hats on by the end.
@@thomassaldana2465 which tells me you are that part of the population that is either accomplice to the parasites or sadly duly brainwashed.
@@thomassaldana2465so true 😂😂😂 further up someone is blabbering about the weaker humans being separated from stronger humans. I asked if that was intentionally or accidentally, let's wait for the answer.
how many people do you think were alive back then? you make it sound like overcrowding was some global issue 5000 years ago...
My family came from an unbroken line of ancient Welsh pastoral Sheepshaggers, or so they say.
Ha
If you are not human ie Black. You are not ancient. Ancient means millions of years ago from the perspective of actual human beings ie Black people.
Super Dave wants in on the action… You are boggarting the Sheep. He says he got there 1st!
One should stay cautious about simplistic lines drawn between languages and genetics. While the genetic argument about the step ancestry of Indo-European is striking and supported by developments in historical linguistics, the Basque argument is strong but not conclusive. The presence of local hunter gatherer admixture over millennia also allows for the possibility of language transfer the other way around. If the genetic ancestry of the majority of the population or the (initially) technologically more advanced part of the population predicted language with a 100% accuracy we'd neither have Hungarian nor possibly some languages for example in Southeast Asia.
Yeah, and I guess the spread of celtic languages from alpine territories to irland might be another example.
Which modern populations are close to those Anatolian farmers? Especially if we talk about indigenous populations of Anatolia?
Good question?
Modern day Sardinians are majority Anatolian farmers by thear DNA. He mensed the Bask people also, thear language is probably anatolian in origen because they are descentans of the first anatolian farmers in Europa genetcly speaking.
Basques and Sardinians.
Lecture starts at 10:01
Every Civilization in our past did exactly the same,the result is we go back to the cave after one more fall
What are the Anatolian languages? Hittites, Akkadian or Sumerian language?
Hittite is Indo-European. Akkadian and Sumerian are Semitic
The Indo-European Anatolian languages include for example, Hittite and Luwian (spoken in the 2nd millennium BC), Lycian, Lydan, etc. (in the 1st millennium BC). However, these are different from the language(s) spoken by Early European Farmers, who spread into Europe from Anatolia at the start of the Neolithic. Languages such as Basque, Etruscan, Minoan seem to be the remnants of the EEF languages, but there is no definite evidence for that.
About Baltic languages: Estonian is not an Indoeuropean language. It's Uralic like Finnish is also. Latvian and Lithuanina are Baltic languages and part of Indoeuropean language group.
Seems like certain head of state gave a similar lecture recently.
Where did neanderthals come from? Where did they originate?
wouldn't it be important to also take in account we lost a large part of Europe after the Doggerbank disaster ?
It explains so much too, Ireland Britain used to be one big landmass that was connected to Scandinavia. The English Channel did not even exist back then, I wish I could see it through a time machine or chronovisor. It is a crying shame that there are no surviving written records from that time. We have the legends and mythic stories but people are arrogant and dismissive our ancestors.
@@notsocrates9529. You can see videos about where the dogger land landmass was over geological time
Doggerland helps explain the distribution of the hunter gatherer population. At this time humans were comfortable travelling significant distances over water (eg they had no trouble getting to Ireland). In Indonesia there is evidence of deep sea tuna hunting at 42kya and of course crossing to Australia significantly before then. So doggerland isn't needed to explain, for example, how people moved into the british isles in the mesolithic. Secondly, the inundation of doggerland was maybe a few centuries before the neolithic farmers started populating the british isles. So doggerland is a fantastic land but not necessary for the story told in the lecture
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
He doesn't talk about the lack of genetal accuracy of gene samples. He talks about these samples as though they are all entirely undamaged.. so long as he finds one dissimilar to something else. These sample errors make for poor modeling.
Step people from pontic-caspian step were half ANE ancestry and Half caucasian hanter gathere ancestry, not iranian fermers
Look at a map, those are not mutually exclusive.
i deal with languages and do lots of research...i recently read some pdfs which are supporting my thesis,that originally the indians spoke an agglunitative language,that is sumerian similiar language,like turkish and hungarian...only later it changed into svo indo european type,like greek... im not sure,if arabic is a svo language,indian most probably was effected by the semitic languages,and made a distinction in asia...because almost everywhere from the ural to the altay,from finland to china,from central eastern asia to iran,all languages are agglunitative...if indian became svo later on,it must have been because of greek and arabic influence...i claim this,because in indian there are lots of turkish,persian,and arabic words... and according to research sanscrit,sumerian,turkish,hungarian,even central and eastern asia share common words with each other...doesnt this proof,that indian must have had at a certain time in history a drift into indo european,although,structurally they were uralic?... i also found out that basque and etruscan,both nonindoeuropean languages have/had an agglunitative structure,that proofs,that once in the world,agglunitative,and maybe uralic altaic was widely spoken,and is more ancient...indo european,for some reason started to be spoken later,and suppressed uralic language structure...and india in asia was first to take this structure...
I wonder if the Asian fisherman who grow up in tropical areas manage to survive fishing in Antartica in horrible living conditions.
Oh thank you for those ideas on the origins of the Slavs; other sources equivocate.
Interesting video and some amusing comments by silly people. Best of both worlds
Amazing to me how strongly demography in deep European history can be traced to geography, which to Americans of modernity signifies nearly nothing about an individual's identity when compared, unfortunately, to religion, language, skin color, age, ethnicity, education, political inclination, cultural or sexual expression. And yet the simple fact of descent from any Old World continent--Africa, Asia or Europe--has long assumed, or by disastrous irony been assigned, so much abstract power of regard in the New World.
You sound like and inbredt narrowminded redneck trying to be smart by being hateful, stuck in the past and nonsensical. Go do what you do best, marrying minors and eating trash food so you can expire before your voting does any more damage to democracy
Did he mention Marija Gimbutas?
Flores is not a small island, fifteen thousand plus sq kilometres, nearly six thousand sq miles. During the last ice age, the archipelagos land mass would have exceeded 1.8 million kilometres sq and been ice free. This was of course because sea levels were much lower. The climate would have been temperate to warm Mediterranean. I do not understand why so-called academics avoid these facts when they know them very well.
Autonim “slav” comes from “slovo” (“word”) and related “slava” (“glory”). It is not clear why Johannes Krause prefers to use medieval and later interpretation of the name coming from Latin Sclaveni/Sclavi (“slaves”)…
Yeah, he confuses what comes from what. Slavs are most likely connected with the word or ability to speak/understand, which is nicely opposed by the Slavic name for Germans who they call literally ‘muted people’ (Nijemci)
He was just saying that word for slave in Germanic and Romance languages comes from the name of Slavs, because Slavs were often used as slaves in that period, not that Slav means slave.
You grossly missed the point, mate
@@tasistasos7672 where did you get that language theory from? Are you referring to the Starcevo and Vinca cultures? They weren't even PNE, which Slavic certainly stems from.
@@tasistasos7672 uhh sry but I don't get into arguments with ppl who know stuff for sure
Aristotelis wrote that We have in common even with plants The creation es one We have logos
Sorry part about eyes is incorrect. Blue eyed parents can have brown eyed baby because there are different genes that are responsible for eye color, not just one single gene. If it is one recessive gene it couldn't spread in one point as you said.
My grandniece is 1/4 Chinese she’s blonde and blue eyed with a Chinese last name.
Sure it could because of inbreeding and genetic mutation. There is literally a 1% chance of 2 blue eyed parents having a brown eyed child. There is also a 1% chance of 2 brown eyed parents having a child with blue eyes. There are about 16 genes that determine eye color, but that being said 70 to 80% of modern humans have brown eyes, 8-10 % have blue and green being the rarest, about 1%. Blue, green, hazel, etc are all recessive eye colors
@@gaylecheung3087because most likely 3 of her grandparents out of four had a recessive eye color. Very much not common!
Not a geneticist, but based on my family's looks I am pretty sure that the 1% ratio for brown eyed parents with blue eyed kids is off, or we really beat the odds massively ( and yes. 23 and me was done on that side of the family and the 3 blue eyed kids do belong to the brown eyed parents, no blue eyed milkman involved)
@@gaylecheung3087 I once met 2 blond, blue eyed children. Parents both 50% ethnic Chinese (other grandparents 🇩🇪 🇦🇹). I was rather surprised when the father referred to them as ‘double recessives’ 😅😅😅😅
other well documented non-indoeuropean languages in Europe: Etruscan and Rhaetian
28:55 surely humans left Africa before 50,000 years ago?
Two points: 1. Archaeologists who made their careers insisting 'pots, not people,' were wrong about the Beaker Folk. It wasn't just a style of ceramics that migrated - the people did, and brought their ceramics with them. Sorry, Marxists. 2. The archaeologists who made their career insisting that the Indo-European languages originated in Anatolia were wrong - IE came from the Steppe and the Yamnaya people. Oh well - you can't always be right, even if you're a big shot.
Otzi had a similar skin pigmentation to modern-day Sardinians, nothing like the fake 'reconstruction' showed by Krause.
Otzi was an indigenous European ie Black man.
@@SUPERDAVE-jx8mp lmao he has nothing to do with black people. Indigenous Europeans have nothing to do with black people either. You're thinking of sub-Saharan Africa.
@@Ario-yt8ou Who do you think was in Switzerland before Black people?
@@SUPERDAVE-jx8mp There weren't any black people in Switzerland.
@@Ario-yt8outrolled lol
Last neanderthal knownd date 28kbc ...odlest sapiens found in europe so far 54ky ago
Excellent presentation in most respects, but very poor inclusion of the slides that were frequently mentioned but all too infrequently shown.
Visigoths were from anatolia
They found many tablets in anatolia middle east Greece
Great and valuable lecture! Thank you! Just one small thing for the sake of truth. Slav name doesn't have anything to do with slave etymology. Mister Kraus is not a linguist, so its understandable that he sad that on a basis of contemporary phonetic similarity. Slav is a name in which Slaves refer to themselves, and its etymology is not clear, but has nothing to do with Latin whey of nomination of Slavic ethnic group. But yes, the Slaves were used as slaves in Middle East.
He said that the English word "slave" comes from the ethnonym "Slav" and not that Slavs were called that because they were slaves, or anything like that.
@@davidmandic3417Yes, but he also said that spread of Slavs could be the result of slavary.
I thought modern humans came out of Africa between 100,000 and 80,000 years ago? 45k years ago doesn't give enough time for the Australian Aboriginals to get to Australia?
You just said humans are not the same with simios We never separeted We were never together We found them got some people to know them
this is an interesting addition to the information from your talk. There is some significant overlap between your subject matter and Dr. Peter Revesz. He has deciphered both Minoan linear A as well as the phaistos disk. There is ample common ground between your areas of research. If you haven't seen this, you will definitely find it above and beyond interesting. cheers. kzhead.info/sun/g82FqbJxi2Spp5E/bejne.html
We have greeks writings
I gave up on this lecture about 7 minutes into the introduction during which. This man has said nothing about the topic. So i'm gonna go look for other information
First time seeing a lecture on KZhead? There's always an intro, sometimes two. This lecture actually starts about 10:30 or so.
LOL, you do know you can skip ahead--like everyone else that commented.
If Marija Gimbutas had been a man, the "Steppe hypothesis" would now be called the "Gimbutas hypothesis". Alas the sexism that she endured during her lifetime continues after her death. Welcome to HIS-Story. @JohannesKrause
Globlular Amphora Culture
some diseases render men sterile, such as mumps encountered by adult males.
If the African immigrants moved to Europe and breed with the locals then Europeans represent a hi bred group different to those who remained in Africa. Same for aseans . Explains the obvious differences. Only the UN 1949 made it authodoxy that there is only one human race for political rather than scienfic research.
Or caucasians
You see priones
So where does that leave, the poor African's, who didn't have the Magical mixture.
Back in Africa...
Scandinavia doesnt have indoeuropean dna Is from the east
What is case with romantic languages and in what direction they was going from the Balkans to the west or opposite knowing that on cooper age was some so called subdanubian civilizations and also subdanubian stationary cultures about 11000 years ago?
Kugelamphoren-Kultur = en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globular_Amphora_culture
1:18:51 a very unlikely origin of Indo-European language, if he really thinks PIE came with Iranian neolithic farmers over the Caucasus. What evidence does he provide? none
Hopefully geneticists will continue their job clarifying historic time. It's a complete mess right now in history textbooks. Starting from baseless Egyptian dynasties chronology and ending with hypocritical and senseless Tartar Mongolian yoke. Keep up your work independently from historians who are too subjective and serving politics anyway.
You sound like someone that hates education, knowledge, history and intelligence.
We discover conprencous code of life DNA yet still call it ptolemaic evolution lol Its safe to say Darwin and Lyle absolutely hate it and said as much about all phenotypical songs and dances of value or idealistic mapping lol But its also just as hard to grasp what's up with dates when goergia fossils under 2.8 million year old granite strata much older than Africa and seems to be very different when I can catch Eastern archeology vs our western . And our dates vs known migrations are all way off in our own fields . 50 years ago I could understand stuff like this but now it appears more that it's just us in the west having old world 18,1900s habits that we don't want let go of
Somewhat disappointing to watch - it starts with such long and unfortunately not interesting anecdotes... and then, at about 17 minutes in, he presents OUTDATED data of modern human origin in EAST africa 195k years ago - in the recent years this piece of knowledge is being updated, as there are fossils from WEST africa aged at some 300k years (!) and this dude even does not know about this 🤦♂️ This lecture, the knowledge and the way of presentation feels to me kind of provincial 😢
Where do you have your PhD from, Popovicstan?
Oh Dear! This lecture is 8 weeks old and he did not know that Soth America was settled by Australian natives!
the Minoans spoke ΙΕ language, you are wrong .they spoke a proto-Greek dialect ΑΝΟΙΧΤΗ ΑΚΑΔΗΜΙΑ ΜΙΝΩΙΚΩΝ ΜΕΛΕΤΩΝ you tube channel
Linear A has not been deciphered
pretty much a room full of grey hairs except the 4 groupies in the front row. dude is gonna get some smart tail tonight....
Very good Lecture. Proto-Indo-European was spoken South of the Caucasus and comes from Neolithic Iran. 1:18:23.
wrong
I LOVE JEWISH PEOPLE
This won't fix your antisemitism.
What woke nonsense. Black Europeans, global warming.....I wish he'd stick to genetics! Also no-one else says that Indo-Europeans originated in Iran.
im sure,in the near future,i hope,science lab biology archeogenetics will tell,who had sex with who,and our ancestry map will be rewritten...and maybe roots,races,people,even languages will be reclassified...and the people who were discriminated because of poor or subjective classification over thousands of years will have their say...
Literally what?
Tooooooo loooooong