How did they find water on the plains?

He did not mention that Corded Ware males were mainly R1a and Bell Beaker males R1b. Yamnaya Steppe people were R1b. So why the difference between two steppe admixed cultures based on their pots?

David Reich is a poor speaker, he hasn't improved considering how many of these presentations he has done. I found it boring, all that time and money spent on finding more about the Steppe herders who are 50% of the ancestry of NW Europeans. Well I am not NW European, and have much less of that ancestry, and of less interest to me. The researchers seem quite adept at making a mountain out of a mole hill. Indo-European languages seem to be the blue eyed boy of these researchers, no other language families mean less than nothing to those researchers. The fact that English is a world language and all those other I.E languages like Swedish, Italian, Bulgarian, Polish, you name it, are pushed to the outer is of no concern.

from a lump of faeces. More or less.

According to the latest Scandinavian studies it seem like a similar situation with the Corded Ware migration there.

So we learn correctly, the word "globular" sounds as if it is pronounced in this and other presentations of this conference as "globar." Is that the standard way to pronounce it, or perhaps an accent?

But a higher population growth of WSH than of the EEF does not explain that the latter just disappear voluntarily. And it does not explain that the EEF men did not have children at all but the WSH men had children with both EEF women and WSH women. No matter if it took 300 years it is still a cultural replacement and extermination of the male population.

I1 is more likely a WHG or SHG.

Thank you for this data from Italy. Every datum illuminates more or our shared human heritage.

if R1b is missing in CWC, and CWC brought PIE into Western Europe, how come R1b is predominant in WE; what was it's vector of spread then?

Very informative. Thank you.

"BCE" isn't in accordance with the international year notation dating system (ISO8601). Your presentation was very good but please stop this woke nonsense. You have to follow international standards at academic level. Does it offend you because of the bC and AD notation? If you don't like the Gregorian calendar date notation, if it offends you, please use another one. You have lots of calendars in use: Hebrew, Islamic, Japanese, Coptic, Iranian, Chinese, Korean.. etc, etc.. Personally, I find that using a year number of the Gregorian calendar date with an invented "offence-free notation" is hypocrite and ignorant demonstrations of pseudo-scientific self-awareness, to say the least, but apparently it is a trend.

Awesome video...

What an amazing lecture, so much info given in a visible form that made its understanding so much more accessible. Thank you very much Professor Reich.

Fascinating.

Wow! This is a different view. But I don't dislike it. Hopefully we will know more in another 9 years.

If I am not wrong three samples with high Steppe ancestry were found at La Paloma Cave in Asturias (NW Spain) without any Bell Beaker paraphernalia. I wonder if this is significant. Maybe a pre Bell Beaker maritime migration into NW Iberia.

😅 wonderful talk

Basically the Sredny Stog who were 80% Euro-Siberian hunter gatherer were ancestors of all Indo-Anatolians. It’s impressive he mentions the much more mixed “Levantine” influence as one group but fails to mention the word “Europe” once….

Does this make sense for people without reaser h funds ? Without appointment orders appropriate to universities?

Rasagulla Chumchum Diary products Pediatrics No wonder Diary products How many people just believed in consuming litres of milk ..... The secret of glowing skin!

I think the isolation was a response to the plague period. Good to clarify grooved wear pottery relation to silbury hill.

The most annoying aspect of these conferences is that the archaeologists who talk about Yamnaya never appeal to the linguistic palaeontology or reconstructed society when considering the possibility of Yamnaya violence. There are plenty of reasons to think that the Yamnaya were the Proto-Indo-Europeans, and we know the Proto-Indo-Europeans were a violent, warlike society, so it's a very obvious question: why the disparity in the graves? There are a number of satisfactory answers here, which unfortunately aren't explored in this talk, and it's annoying because it strikes me as misleading. I understand that people cannot talk about proof of violent lives through an absence of evidence, but, of course, that cuts both ways: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and we have, as mentioned, evidence of presence through comparative studies. For one thing, most fighting implements at this time were likely to be fighting sticks, or clubs, as we see from the earliest layers of Indo-European mythology: the weapon of the Thunderer-Striker is a cudgel or throwing stone in its earliest form. We have a Yamnaya copper cudgel from Kutuluk I, Grave IV, Grave I, which of course makes sense to have survived over a wooden club, cudgel, or fighting stick. Metal weapons would be rare in graves because they were so expensive, and stone cudgels are impractical and unrealistic; wood will rot in almost all cases. Moreover, the concept of depositing grave goods is at a markedly less developed stage compared to later Indo-European cultures, so that's another aspect to consider. The bodies buried like this are likely to be from specific prestige lineages (partly also explaining the presence of women in these burials) which, while connected conceptually to warriors, are less likely to have actually died in combat: compare the martial cultures of Mesopotamia at the time and how few Kings are said to have actually died in battle. While leaders in Proto-Indo-European society were ejected along with the other free & noble males as part of *kóryos raiding bands, and would have seen some form of adventure and action during their time in the band, once they returned to their societies, they may well have had underlings or retinues do much of the fighting for them. Ethnographic accounts from elsewhere around the world attest to the fact that violence between societies at around this stage of development often seldom resulted in much bloodshed, and sometimes, opposing forces would disband after not many kills or even significant injuries. This doesn't mean that such societies don't consider themselves martial, or the members to be warriors (compare from our time how many police and members of the military or paramilitaries actually see combat, die in combat, and die with wounds which will be visible archaeologically; consider how they reckon themselves and how societies reckon them). Consider also that not all wounds will leave marks on the skeleton. Warfare is also well-understood to have been less developed at this stage. Battle during Proto-Indo-European times revolved, fundamentally, around the cattle raid. Stealing cattle + driving off other livestock, and raiding for slaves, was the primary form battle took. There were no armies at this time. People who did die on these raids might well have been left in enemy territory; being enslaved may also have been a more likely possibility as an outcome of a lost martial action than death, not because people didn't want to kill, but because of the fundamental natures of warfare at the time (i.e., groups might have been forced to back off in fights, as losing too many males would dissolve the functionality of the herding groups which comprised Proto-Indo-European society, while keeping slaves can strengthen a group). Different funerary rites for combat deaths may also have occurred. We know that the Indo-Europeans honored and worshipped heroes and held violence values. They gloried in battle and in the cattle raid, and that's exactly why all of their societies became militaristic in the more classic sense as military technology & organization developed: this is a natural extension of their originary way of life.

What's the explanation of the break at 4:09?

I had no idea that the ridiculous ideas concerning gender are being accentuated in archaeology. What a shame to listen to these biased individuals speak as if gender differences are of the utmost importance. 10 years from now, we will laugh and be embarrassed by such displays.

Geht hart digga :D Kann ich bitte eine AOO oder AOC Glockenbecher fundort karte haben

Thank you for sharing all of these conference presentations. They’re very interesting. And it’s so important to increase access to good quality scientific research like this. Especially with all of the terrible stuff out there, which platforms like YT try to foist on people who watch just one or two archeogenetics videos involving the Yamnaya. I was looking for a video about the Lazaridis et al 2024 paper, and I got served up someone straight up twisting their findings to promote racist ideas 🙄 Thankfully I came across your conference videos eventually!

Weird comments about being "unrelated" linguistically, culturally, or genetically... We know they were linguistic and cultural Indo-Europeans, probably speaking only dialectal common Indo-European at this point, and they were related autosomally with shared Steppe ancestry and oftentimes patrilineally as well: both literally and probably reckoned mythologically, too (by which non-lineage males could be functionally integrated into society, which was not necessarily common, but happened). Towards the end he maybe indicates that with his comments he was referring to Mesopotamia and Egypt, but I'm not clear on this. Regarding Sun worship, it's important to note that it's been theorized for as far back as the Samara culture, based on their pottery designs

Interesting talk, and I wouldn't be surprised if he's onto something with his penultimate hypothesis, at least about the final burial he discusses, but I highly doubt this was an "either-or" scenario, in more ways than one. Indo-European cultures are inherently martial, but we also know they involve travel, adventure, and guest-host friendships/reciprocity/gift exchanges. There is no need to separate these realities. The Indo-European conception of the afterlife also clearly involves crossing some kind of waterway, and that also needs to be kept in mind: it wasn't very likely to have been solely a land-based journey. Recently, the work of a skilled amateur has called into question the accuracy of the Man-Twin-Cow Primordial Sacrifice myth, too, and that has to be taken into consideration: See the channel "Taliesin's Map" for more details. Further, it's a bias from the modern era that fashion and grooming are dissociated from combat: warriorhood, aristocracy, and material goods have essentially always formed an "iron triangle" of sorts. Likewise, claiming that they weren't battle-axes, but tree-root choppers, is to introduce a notion that an object may only be used for a single purpose. While one may question if the elites themselves were doing the chopping, it's entirely possible that over the course of a man's entire life, an object such as an axe-hammer might have seen enough & varied use such as to leave use-wear the way the presenter describes. The incoming steppe people are known to have cleared tracts of woodland to render the interior of Europe more like their ancestral home, as the presenter mentions, so I'm sure, one way or another, that was relevant, even for elites. A man may have brought his axe-hammer with him into the wilderness during his *kóryos initiation, or on hunts during his adult life, or on cattle raids (perhaps to chop at fences), or during a number of other occasions.

Outstanding presentation. Really learned a lot

The reason Furholt constantly looks like he's shitting his pants is because genetic research keeps backing up the historical linguists and comparative mythologists, and he's hanging on for dear life. Extremely sneaky presentation here. We don't just know about the patriarchal, warrior traditions of the Indo-Europeans through things like strontium isotope analysis! Flowery Furholt is in love with his fantasy of a peaceful, egalitarian Europe which never existed. The whole "where are the bodies?" query is one of the most frustrating to deal with, because if you just look at the criteria historians use versus archaeologists, it's clear that the archaeological standard on narratives needs reformation. I understand, of course, that you can't use a lack of bodies to prove violence: but archaeologists must speak to their limits and where their hands are tied. Other lines of evidence can be used to triangulate that violence is likely to have taken place. We see this disparity not only in presentations like this one, or Furholt's presentation, uploaded prior, on "Peaceful Yamnaya" who only liked to braid each other's hair, but elsewhere in the crossover of the disciplines of history and archaeology: dealing with the Dorian Invasion, for example, or the Anglo-Saxon migrations. However, some stories of violence and invasions are basically impossible to deny for the archaeologist (such as the Mongol invasions), but there is famously a surprising lack of physical evidence which might, at first, be expected. Archaeologists ought to know better than anyone, but seem not to, that we are *lucky* to have each and every artifact and remain that we do. Who's to say that bodies weren't left to rot and be ripped to shreds by scavengers, or dumped into the sea where they might disarticulate and rot away? Are the archaeologists going to start claiming that we have no evidence drownings ever took place for ancient sailors because of a dearth of bodies on the sea floor? Furholt seems to expect more violence out of societies with honor culture, violence values, and a "warrior nation" self-conception than would actually be the reality, or perhaps he's insidiously setting up a strawman to attack. Furholt is clearly uncomfortable with violence and upset by it, and this psychological bias of his is projected onto all of his work.

Words for wheel could have been diffused with the diffusion of the technology into an already differenciated language-family group. Like the adoption of derivatives of the word "mobile-telephone" into languages today which are already well differentiated. There is a serious methodological problem in assuming that the existence of common words about wheels date the (late)Proto-Indo-European language family. The evidence is adapted to the needs of what we want to demonstrate which is a dubious kind of method to say the least.

Either this is European or Indic, but it can't be both. Drop the Indo- prefix from these kinds of crazy delusional analyses. If it's just European, let it be just that.

I CAN NOT wait for The Dogs Of War book!

I used a harddrive in 1965 on an IBM 1410 computer. It was referred to as a RAMAC (Random Access Storage), but they were functionally equivalent to all later harddrives. Don't know where the lecturer got his misinformation.

Great presentations by top people.

It wouldn't be a video on aDNA if there weren't any schizophrenic hungarians and indians in the comments. Good to see them!

All migrations are from the sea? I know he's speculating here, but the Indo-European languages spread from Denmark to India by land.

I totally like the hear the multiple analyses that violence was “seldom.” And regarding the use of weapons for things other than warring or other human-to-human violence-in the third millennium, and before and after, many large animals could be threats. Home protection was likely always necessary!

Re Bell Beakers: SPILLAGE of anything you want to conserve and use is REDUCED if you stop filling at the narrow part-while still having a flared area at the top that will catch the liquid, grains or other things you wish to carry and store. Please look for a useful, practical reason for these ancient things that so many people needed and spent so much time and resources making.

I read his 'The Horse Wheel and Language' book back in 2015. Let me tell you, he is on point since the genetics now validate him completely.

Excellent

Ridiculous. Some of the linguists, anthropologists and whatnot they cite have speculated that Maykop could have been NW Caucasian. Even if Yamnaya and Sredny Stog were PIE a movement from the 'CLV cline' could have brought non-IE languages to Anatolia like unkown EHG related languages or NW Caucasian at least. The Mesopotamian component makes the possibility of Kalehoyuk etc speaking non-IE languages probably higher. The samples are within the HATTIAN speaking area. From Wikipedia: "According to Alexey Kassian, there are also possible lexical correspondences between Hattic and Yeniseian languages, as well as Burushaski language; for instance, "tongue" is alef in Hattic and alup in Kott, "moon" is kap in Hattic and qīp in Ket, "mountain" is ziš in Hattic and ćhiṣ in Burushaski (compare also with *čɨʔs - a Proto-Yeniseian word for "stone")." And it is said the Hittites (Nesites) conquered Hattusa around 1650 BC.

Gratulálok kedves Zsombor ehez a gyönyörű és tanulságos előadáshoz.

ORIGIN - INDOEUROPEANS = = MAGYAR -- ! ! ! * (Szkíta...) ❤

Ugy gondolom...hogy a Magyar - nyelv ... Nem véletlen van kihagyva, az automata - forditásból ! * 😢

A Kurgan - Szkita temetkezési mód ! * A temetkezésnél, felhúzott láb ... szintén Szkita - (sumer.) 😊

Európa - a Szkitáktól lopja, azt a történelmet - ...amiből, saját történelmét felépiti ! ! ! ..... * 😮

Very small sample, ignoring the main Indo Europeans from the Ethiopia/ Somalia regions. Yamnya people/culture who entered India had names like Jammu or Jamuna that are synonyms.

?? néger bárholNevezetesen egy Nem