DNA and Archeology

Summary of Lecture: Towards a New European Prehistory

The lecture, delivered by Professor Christian Christiansen at the Norwegian Institute in Rome, addresses the evolving understanding of European prehistory through the integration of genetics, archaeology, and linguistics. The event coincides with the institute's 60th anniversary and highlights the advancements in archaeological science since the advent of next-generation sequencing.

Christiansen emphasizes that we are witnessing a "third science revolution" in archaeology, which began around 2010 with significant breakthroughs in genomic analysis. This new approach allows researchers to quantify vast amounts of data related to settlement patterns, burials, and other archaeological findings, fundamentally reshaping our understanding of European history.

The lecture presents three major transformations in European prehistory: the farming transformation, the pastoral transformation, and the Middle Age transformation. Christiansen argues that the migrations of Anatolian farmers into Europe were pivotal, as these groups brought new agricultural practices. Initially, there was little genetic mixing with local hunter-gatherer populations, but as farmers reached their carrying capacity, they began to intermix, leading to significant demographic changes.

Moreover, Christiansen discusses the role of disease in these historical transformations, particularly the emergence of plague around 3000 BC, which severely impacted Neolithic populations. He posits that this epidemic may have facilitated the migrations of steppe peoples into Europe, as weakened Neolithic communities were unable to resist outside incursions.

Christiansen also highlights the social dynamics of these migrations, particularly the abduction of Neolithic women by steppe warriors, which led to a genetic and cultural blending. The introduction of pastoralist practices and the adaptation of farming techniques by these groups illustrate the complex interplay between environmental conditions and social organization.

The lecture concludes by acknowledging the often violent nature of these historical processes, challenging previous narratives that emphasized peaceful coexistence. Christiansen underscores the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration in archaeology, as it enables a more nuanced understanding of the past, one that aligns more closely with ethnographic and historical evidence.

In summary, Christiansen's work advocates for a re-examination of European prehistory, urging scholars to embrace new methodologies and perspectives that reveal the dynamic and often tumultuous history of human migrations and cultural exchanges in Europe.

In the context of modern archaeology, the integration of DNA analysis into the study of prehistory has ushered in what is termed the third science revolution. This development, particularly since the advent of next-generation sequencing (NGS) in 2010, has allowed researchers to analyze ancient genomes comprehensively, refining our understanding of ancestry, migration, and population structure.

The transcript emphasizes that through advances in DNA sequencing, particularly molecular biology, archaeologists can now access a wealth of data regarding ancient human populations. This includes insights into divergence timelines, where groups separated and evolved distinct genetic traits. For instance, the findings suggest that early European farmers, who migrated from Anatolia, exhibited a homogenous genetic profile with minimal admixture from local hunter-gatherers initially, indicating a belief in their cultural superiority.

As farming practices spread, the admixture of these farmers with local hunter-gatherer populations began to occur, particularly after reaching a carrying capacity in their settlements. This genetic intermingling is critical for understanding the demographic shifts and transformations in prehistoric Europe.

The significance of this genetic evidence lies in its ability to challenge existing narratives about human movement and cultural exchange. For example, it was long believed that after the development of agriculture, there was minimal migration. However, the speaker asserts that, contrary to this view, significant population movements occurred, particularly during the Neolithic and Bronze Age. This statement reflects a broader trend in which DNA evidence is reshaping historical interpretations.

In summary, the use of ancient DNA is integral to elucidating the complexities of human ancestry, migration patterns, and the interactions between different populations, allowing archaeologists to piece together a more nuanced picture of Europe’s prehistory.

• [07:26] "We are in the middle of the third science revolution in archaeology... since 2010 when we have the breakthrough of next generation sequencing."
• [10:09] "Through the Bronze Age, we could have saved absolute datings; beyond that, it was guesswork."
• [13:16] "People have been moving and migrating en masse after the Neolithic and they kept doing it until the present day."

The transcript outlines significant insights regarding human dispersal over the last 200,000 years, emphasizing the dynamic nature of migration and settlement across continents. The speaker discusses the idea that humanity has undergone multiple waves of migration, particularly focusing on European prehistory.

One of the most notable claims made is that after the migration out of Africa, humans did not simply settle and remain static; instead, they continued to move and adapt. This notion contradicts earlier hypotheses that suggested a long period of stasis following the advent of agriculture. The speaker states emphatically that "people have been moving and migrating en masse after the Neolithic." This perspective highlights a continual process of migration driven by various factors such as ecological changes, population pressures, and social organization.

The transcript also mentions specific transformations in European prehistory, identifying key periods such as:

• The Farming Transformation: The introduction of agriculture from Anatolia, which was pivotal in shaping early European societies.
• The Pastoral Transformation: The movement of pastoralists and their adaptation to different environments across Europe.
• The Middle Age Transformation: A period that likely witnessed further migrations and interactions between different cultures.

Furthermore, the speaker notes that genetic evidence supports claims of substantial migrations, such as the significant movements associated with the Yamnaya culture around 2800 BC, which introduced new genetic lineages to Europe. This interplay of genetics, environment, and culture illustrates the complexity of human dispersal patterns and underscores the importance of integrating archaeological findings with genetic data for a more comprehensive understanding of history.

• [13:16] "People have been moving and migrating en masse after the Neolithic and they kept doing it until the present day."
• [34:34] "Yes, there was a huge migration from the steppe that came in 2800 BC and they overtook genetically speaking, came to dominate European populations ever since."
• [05:04] "We are in the process of rewriting European prehistory, and it will never look the same."

The transcript references several landmark studies and projects that have shaped contemporary understanding of archaeology and human genetics. Notable among them are:

• 2015 Nature Articles: Two groundbreaking articles published in the journal Nature that corroborated findings about ancient migrations and genetic admixture in Europe. The first, led by Christian Christiansen, addressed the massive migrations of the Yamnaya people, while the other, led by Wolfgang Haak, independently supported these results. Both studies have been pivotal in reshaping narratives around the movement of peoples in ancient Europe.
• Loomba Lundbeck Center of Disease Evolution: A collaborative project involving Christian Christiansen, Eska Villashlev, and Thomas Varga, which received nearly 100 million Danish Krone in funding. This center focuses on studying the evolution of diseases in Europe through the Holocene and aims to integrate archaeological findings with genetic data to understand disease spread and adaptation.
• Christian's Books: Publications such as "Europe Before History" and "The Rise of European Bronze Age Society", co-authored with Thomas Pelosi, have been widely discussed and have influenced scholarly discourse on the organization and cultural developments in ancient Europe. These works emphasize the importance of interdisciplinary approaches, combining archaeology with genetics and anthropology.

These studies and publications have collectively contributed to a more nuanced understanding of the processes that shaped European prehistory, particularly regarding migration, genetic diversity, and the interaction between different cultures.

• [02:58] "These articles are part of a flow of articles by different groups that in the last 10 years delivered spectacular results concerning subjects like the Neanderthal relationship in Ice Age Europe."
• [01:20] "He’s recently embarked on a collaboration with Eska Villashlev and Thomas Varga to create the Loomba Lundbeck Center of Disease Evolution with a grant of nearly a hundred million Danish Corona."
• [01:43] "Particularly the books 'Europe Before History' and especially the rise of European Bronze Age society with Thomas Pelosi were widely discussed among any and everyone interested in the past."

The transcript outlines several explicit dates and timeframes related to human evolution and migration, providing a chronological framework for understanding these events. Key dates mentioned include:

• Out of Africa Migration: While specific dates for this migration are not provided, it signifies the initial dispersal of modern humans into various continents, which occurred around 200,000 years ago.
• Neolithic Revolution: This period marks the transition from hunter-gatherer societies to agriculture, approximately around 10,000 years ago, leading to significant demographic changes.
• Yamnaya Migrations: Around 2800 BC, the Yamnaya people migrated into Europe, profoundly impacting the genetic landscape of the continent.
• Plague and Decline of Neolithic Societies: The transcript notes that the plague affected Neolithic populations around 3000 BC, leading to demographic collapse and facilitating migrations from the steppe into Europe.
• Third Millennium BC

This timeline reflects the dynamic processes of migration, adaptation, and cultural exchange that have shaped human history, emphasizing the role of environmental and social factors in these transformations.

• [28:47] "We found the mother of all plague... that we can demonstrate killed Neolithic people in western Sweden 3000 BC."
• [34:34] "Yes, there was a huge migration from the steppe that came in 2800 BC and they overtook genetically speaking, came to dominate European populations ever since."
• [09:29] "Up until the 1960s, archaeologists spent most of their time discussing the age and relative chronology..."

The transcript discusses the concept of admixture and interbreeding within prehistoric populations, particularly between early farmers and local hunter-gatherers. The speaker articulates that early Anatolian farmers, who migrated into Europe, initially showed very little genetic admixture with local hunter-gatherers, which illustrates a period of relative cultural and genetic isolation.

However, as these farmers expanded into new territories, particularly after reaching their carrying capacity, they began to intermix with the local populations. This gradual admixture is significant as it reflects shifts in social dynamics and the necessity for these populations to adapt to new environments. The speaker notes, "Gradually when they started, they reached carrying capacity and started moving out... that’s when it happened." This statement underscores the notion that genetic mixing was not an immediate process but one that developed over time as populations faced resource pressures.

Moreover, the transcript highlights that the migrations associated with the Yamnaya culture around 2800 BC involved a significant influx of new genetic material into Europe. This migration is described as having a profound impact on the genetic landscape of the continent, effectively leading to a replacement of earlier populations. The speaker claims that the Yamnaya pastoralists likely interbred with local Neolithic women, which contributed to the genetic makeup of modern Europeans. This is evidenced by the observation that modern populations exhibit a mix of genetic lineages derived from both the Yamnaya and earlier farming communities.

In summary, the speaker emphasizes that admixture and interbreeding were critical components in shaping the genetic history of Europe, underscoring the complexity of human interactions and migrations that shaped the continent's demographic landscape.

• [15:12] "They clearly felt superior; they were civilized and brought the new civilization; hunter-gatherers were barbarians."
• [11:20] "Now we can start asking interesting questions like why did people move, how did they move and what happened when they settled after movement."
• [49:39] "They had to go and find women... they were young warriors... and what did they do? Of course, they went and took Neolithic women."

The transcript presents a broad overview of genetic evidence and conclusions drawn from various regions regarding human ancestry, migration, and the resulting genetic diversity. Key regions discussed include:

• Africa: While specific findings related to Africa are not detailed in the transcript, it is implied that the initial migrations out of Africa are crucial for understanding the global dispersal of modern humans.
• Middle East: The Anatolian farmers, who migrated into Europe, are noted as a significant group that introduced agriculture and influenced the genetic makeup of European populations.
• Europe: The evidence suggests that early European farmers had minimal admixture with local hunter-gatherers initially, but as they expanded, genetic mixing began to occur. This is particularly evident in the case of the Yamnaya migrations around 2800 BC, which brought new genetic lineages into Europe, suggesting a significant demographic shift.
• Asia: The transcript does not provide specific details on Asia, but the context of migrations from the steppes into Europe indicates interactions with Asian populations.
• Oceania and Americas: No specific references to genetic findings in these regions are mentioned in the transcript, indicating a focus primarily on European prehistory.

Overall, the strength of the evidence presented lies in the genetic data from ancient DNA studies, which provides insights into how different populations interacted and contributed to the modern genetic landscape of Europe. The findings emphasize that modern Europeans are a product of complex intermingling between various ancient populations, shaped by migrations and cultural exchanges.

• [01:34] "He’s written innumerable articles and books on just about every aspect of archaeology and cultural history..."
• [45:10] "This is modern Europe and what you see here is... all Europeans are a result of that huge genetic admixture event that took place in the third millennium."
• [19:19] "They are genetically speaking, Anatolian farmers who move and start to move and they look more or less the same all over."

The transcript highlights the intricate connections between genetic evidence and various disciplines such as archaeology, paleoanthropology, and linguistics. The integration of ancient DNA analysis has not only confirmed but also refined existing archaeological narratives, challenging some long-held theories about human migrations and cultural exchanges.

For instance, the discussion on the Yamnaya migrations around 2800 BC illustrates a significant genetic influx into Europe, which reshaped the demographic landscape. The speaker notes, "Yes, there was a huge migration from the steppe that came in 2800 BC and they overtook genetically speaking, came to dominate European populations ever since." This genetic evidence provides a concrete basis for understanding how populations interacted and interbred, corroborating archaeological findings related to settlement patterns and cultural diffusion.

Additionally, the transcript explores how genetic studies can illuminate linguistic developments. The speaker mentions that the steppe migrants likely brought with them linguistic traits that contributed to the development of Indo-European languages. This connection underscores the importance of DNA evidence in revealing not just genetic relationships, but also cultural and linguistic exchanges that have shaped human history.

Furthermore, the integration of genetic evidence with archaeological findings enables researchers to reconceptualize questions surrounding migration, such as "why did people move?" and "how did they settle?" The speaker emphasizes that these insights are crucial for understanding the adaptations made by populations in response to environmental changes and social dynamics.

In summary, the interplay between genetic evidence and archaeology fosters a comprehensive understanding of human prehistory, revealing the complexities of migration, adaptation, and cultural evolution.

• [33:36] "Plague even today is carried by rodents, and here’s our model of the spread of the plague."
• [37:38] "They were pastoralists; they lived on a diet of milk and meat consumption that was incredibly protein-rich and incredibly healthy."
• [11:18] "Again, it frees a lot of new intellectual energy; now we can start asking interesting questions like why did people move, how did they move..."

The transcript addresses various limitations and uncertainties that researchers face when interpreting findings related to ancient populations. One of the primary concerns mentioned is the issue of sampling bias and how it can impact the representation of genetic data. The speaker notes that many archaeological findings, particularly those involving burials, may not provide a complete picture due to the preservation conditions of remains over time. This can skew our understanding of population dynamics.

Furthermore, the text references the challenges associated with contamination of ancient DNA samples, which can lead to erroneous conclusions about genetic relationships. The speaker states, "The challenge posed by collaboration between molecular biology and archaeology does not just bring new facts to the table but challenges us to rethink the interpretation and theory of past anthropology and history." This assertion highlights the need for rigorous methodologies in sampling and analysis to enhance confidence in the conclusions drawn from genetic studies.

In addition to methodological challenges, the transcript also alludes to dating caveats, particularly concerning radiocarbon dating and the assumptions that come with it. The speaker suggests that prior to advancements in absolute dating methods, archaeologists relied heavily on relative dating, which often led to significant inaccuracies in understanding the chronology of human history. As such, the reliance on C-14 dating has revolutionized the field by providing more reliable timelines for human activity.

Overall, these uncertainties underscore the complexities of reconstructing human prehistory and emphasize the necessity for interdisciplinary approaches that integrate genetic, archaeological, and anthropological data to build a more cohesive understanding of our past.

• [09:15] "Suddenly we can be sure... so up until the 1960s, archaeologists spent most of their time discussing the age and relative chronology..."
• [11:22] "Now we can start asking interesting questions like why did people move, how did they move..."
• [24:30] "This is a beautiful example of how... you work together as an interdisciplinary team."

The transcript outlines several technological and analytical advances that have transformed the field of archaeology, particularly with the integration of genetics. One of the most significant developments is the advent of next-generation sequencing (NGS), which has revolutionized the ability to analyze ancient DNA. The speaker notes, "Since 2010, we have seen an ever-accumulating number of genomes..." This advancement allows researchers to sequence full genomes from ancient remains, providing unprecedented insights into human ancestry and migration patterns.

Additionally, the integration of big data analysis into archaeological research has enabled scholars to quantify extensive datasets related to settlement sites and burials. This capability allows for a more comprehensive understanding of demographic shifts over time. The speaker highlights that, "We can really start quantifying big numbers when it comes to settlement sites, burials, you name it." This quantitative approach is crucial for modeling population dynamics and understanding the complexities of human interactions.

Moreover, the application of statistical tools in analyzing genetic data enhances the reliability of conclusions drawn from archaeological findings. The speaker emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration, stating that the merging of molecular biology and archaeology has prompted researchers to rethink their interpretations of past human behavior and cultural evolution. This collaboration is essential for refining theoretical frameworks and ensuring that conclusions are supported by robust evidence.

In summary, technological innovations in genetic sequencing and data analysis have dramatically changed the landscape of archaeology, allowing for more precise reconstructions of human prehistory and fostering an interdisciplinary approach that integrates various scientific fields.

• [05:53] "Since then, we have seen an ever-accumulating number of genomes..."
• [11:20] "Now we can start asking interesting questions like why did people move, how did they move..."
• [09:26] "C-14 dating revolutionized archaeology at the time in ways we can hardly imagine."

The speaker presents a compelling narrative regarding human origins and dispersal, emphasizing the transformative role of genetic evidence in understanding our prehistory. The speaker’s position is that we are currently witnessing a rewriting of European prehistory, catalyzed by advances in genetic research and interdisciplinary collaboration. Notably, the advent of next-generation sequencing has allowed researchers to analyze ancient DNA comprehensively, thus challenging long-held assumptions about population stasis and migrations.

One of the central themes highlighted is the significant migration of the Yamnaya pastoralists around 2800 BC, who played a crucial role in shaping the genetic landscape of Europe. The speaker notes, "Yes, there was a huge migration from the steppe... and they overtook genetically speaking, came to dominate European populations ever since." This migration is posited as a pivotal moment that redefined demographic structures, underscoring the dynamic nature of human interactions.

The integration of genetic evidence with archaeological findings has also opened up new avenues for inquiry, prompting scholars to ask more nuanced questions about migration patterns, cultural exchanges, and societal organization. The speaker argues that this intersection of genetics and archaeology is essential for understanding the complexities of human behavior throughout history.

In conclusion, the speaker’s overarching message is one of optimism about the future of archaeology, suggesting that the field is on the cusp of significant discoveries that will further illuminate the intricacies of human history and evolution, driven by the rich interplay between genetic evidence and archaeological research.

• [04:55] "The take-home message from my lecture... is that we are in the process of rewriting European prehistory and it will never look the same."
• [05:04] "It has never been so fun to be an archaeologist."
• [11:20] "Now we can start asking interesting questions like why did people move, how did they move..."

The transcript does not specifically mention the Sumerians, Akkadians, Assyrians, or Babylonians, nor does it provide details about their origins, genetic signatures, or links to earlier migrations. The focus of the discussion is primarily on prehistoric Europe, particularly regarding the movements of early farmers from Anatolia and the Yamnaya pastoralists from the Eurasian steppes.

The speaker emphasizes the transformative impact of these migrations on the genetic landscape of Europe, stating that the Yamnaya migrations led to significant genetic admixture and demographic changes. However, there are no references to civilizations such as the Sumerians or any claims about their advanced behavior or genetic contributions to later populations.

In summary, while the transcript delves deeply into the genetic and archaeological narratives of European prehistory, it does not address the specific ancient civilizations mentioned in the task.

[00:00] dear colleagues and friends i'm
[00:01] christopher prescott i'm director of the
[00:02] norwegian institute here in rome and
[00:04] it's a pleasure pleasure to welcome you
[00:06] here to the to the institute this
[00:08] evening
[00:10] for professor christian christiansen's
[00:12] lecture towards a new european
[00:14] prehistory genes archaeology and
[00:15] language
[00:17] and of course it's a special pleasure to
[00:19] welcome christian
[00:21] and
[00:23] there's been quite a battle to get this
[00:24] evening
[00:25] on his feet christian
[00:28] has just gotten out of bed so to speak
[00:30] he's been
[00:32] he's had the flu and in addition we've
[00:34] had this the the rain weather so it's
[00:36] quite a miracle that we managed to
[00:38] pull the evening off
[00:40] february february the 13th is the
[00:42] institute's 60th yeah it was the uni uh
[00:46] institute's 60th anniversary
[00:48] the annual laurent lecture is in honor
[00:50] of the well-known classical
[00:51] archaeologist jos peter lurong and who
[00:53] was also founder of the norwegian
[00:55] institute
[00:57] christian is professor of archaeology at
[00:59] gothenburg university
[01:01] he's previously worked with the
[01:03] environmental directorate in denmark he
[01:05] was founder
[01:06] of the eaa
[01:08] one of the founders the european journal
[01:10] of archaeology he's had numerous
[01:13] externally funded projects especially uh
[01:16] financed through the european union
[01:18] and he's recently embarked on a
[01:20] collaboration with eska villashlev and
[01:21] thomas varga to create the loomba
[01:24] lundbeck
[01:25] center of disease evolution
[01:28] with a grant of nearly a hundred million
[01:30] danish corona to study the evolution of
[01:32] disease in europe through the holocene
[01:34] he's written innumerable articles and
[01:37] books
[01:38] on just about every aspect of
[01:39] archaeology and cultural history and
[01:41] particularly the books europe before
[01:43] history and especially the rise of your
[01:46] bronze age society with thomas pelosi
[01:48] were widely discussed
[01:50] among any and everyone interested in the
[01:52] past whether that was that passed be
[01:55] around the mediterranean
[01:57] in temperate europe or in the arctic
[02:00] the level of contention and attention
[02:02] surrounding these books
[02:03] is mirrored in the 250 2015 article in
[02:07] nature that he wrote
[02:09] along with uh al morton allentos and a
[02:12] large group
[02:14] the article was published in the same
[02:15] volume that another and competing group
[02:17] led by wolfgang hook
[02:19] uh
[02:20] published and that independently
[02:22] corroborated the results
[02:24] these articles are part of a flow of
[02:26] articles by different groups that in the
[02:28] last 10 years
[02:30] uh delivered spectacular results
[02:32] concerning subjects like the neanderthal
[02:36] relationship in the ice age europe the
[02:38] spread of agriculture into europe with
[02:41] anatolian farmers
[02:43] this dissemination of western mythology
[02:45] with bell beaker groups
[02:47] however there are probably no results
[02:49] that affect the basis for understanding
[02:51] european history that creates a ground
[02:54] point for european history
[02:56] than the two articles i mentioned but
[02:58] i'll leave chris down to tell that story
[03:01] what i would say however
[03:03] is that the challenge posed by
[03:05] collaboration between molecular biology
[03:07] and archaeology does not just bring new
[03:09] facts to the table but challenge us to
[03:11] rethink the interpretation and theory of
[03:13] past antibiotic anthropology and history
[03:16] and the politics of how the past is used
[03:18] in the present
[03:20] and what we study in archaeology and how
[03:22] we study it
[03:23] this is a process that's in very is that
[03:25] is in its very beginnings
[03:28] uh and might prove more difficult than
[03:30] the
[03:31] analysis of laboratory samples
[03:34] christian
[03:35] has been in the forefront of this
[03:37] development what we call the third
[03:38] science revolution archaeology and
[03:40] indeed many of the developments that
[03:42] have
[03:43] happened in archaeology since 1970s he's
[03:46] recognized both by those who disagree
[03:48] with him and those who fervently
[03:50] disagree with him
[03:51] those who agree with him and fervently
[03:52] disagree
[03:55] there's a slightly wider room for
[03:58] maneuvering there
[04:00] as one of contemporary archaeologists
[04:04] global archaeology's premier scholars
[04:07] i'm therefore both happy to welcome
[04:10] christian both as an excellent scholar a
[04:12] colleague and an old friend of the
[04:14] norwegian institute in rome
[04:16] where he also be leading a p
[04:17] participating in a phd course the rest
[04:19] of the week and i leave it to him to
[04:21] present his work
[04:22] thank you thank you christopher
[04:26] [Applause]
[04:30] and uh it's a great honor to be here to
[04:32] deliver this
[04:33] lecture the right lecture i understand
[04:35] the family
[04:36] in third and fourth generations are here
[04:39] right
[04:41] wonderful
[04:43] now
[04:44] the take home message
[04:46] from my lecture here today
[04:48] will be
[04:49] that
[04:50] we are in the process of rewriting
[04:53] european prehistory and it will never
[04:55] look the same
[04:59] the second take-home message is
[05:02] it has
[05:04] never been so fun to be an archaeologist
[05:08] and uh when i'm finished i hope you'll
[05:10] understand what i mean
[05:14] so
[05:15] what i want to uh to to start with here
[05:18] is really just to briefly recapitulate
[05:22] where are we we are in the middle of the
[05:24] third science revolution archaeology
[05:27] at least that's what i've called it and
[05:29] it's apparently been accepted more
[05:31] generally that we are in in the middle
[05:33] of the search science revolution
[05:36] uh
[05:37] and uh it has happened since 2010 when
[05:41] we have uh the breakthrough of
[05:43] uh next generation sequencing modern
[05:46] sequencing of full genomes from the past
[05:48] after 25 years without progress suddenly
[05:51] pang
[05:53] and since then we have seen an ever
[05:54] accumulating number of genomes
[05:59] also
[06:01] we have in actuality
[06:03] come into a situation through
[06:04] digitization
[06:06] of all our monuments and sites
[06:09] where we are
[06:10] now in a position to operate with big
[06:14] data
[06:15] we can really start quantifying big
[06:17] numbers
[06:20] when it comes to
[06:22] when it comes to settlement sites
[06:26] burials you name it
[06:29] which again means that we can start
[06:33] uh
[06:34] it opens up for new pre-history and that
[06:37] new previously let me tell you this new
[06:39] priest will be only beginning to
[06:41] understand
[06:42] and it's only the earlier part we have
[06:45] so far so far we have done uh the stone
[06:49] age the neolithic and the bronze age
[06:51] of western eurasia
[06:55] we are
[06:56] we are still working on the iron age
[06:59] that would be the next chapter
[07:01] also the mediterranean bronze age
[07:04] will be is a
[07:05] chapter that will soon come
[07:07] we are in at least in copenhagen we are
[07:10] sequencing right now around thousand
[07:13] thousand bronze age samples from iberia
[07:15] to the levant
[07:17] and we have put on the turbo of the
[07:20] sequencing
[07:21] so
[07:23] so these results will be
[07:26] another lecture
[07:28] and next year maybe
[07:32] so
[07:33] when i called it the third science
[07:34] revolution it implies that there must be
[07:38] two preceding it the first one was of
[07:40] course the beginning of archaeology the
[07:42] formation of archaeological discipline
[07:45] as a scientific discipline
[07:48] in his own right
[07:50] and that happened
[07:51] these things happen very
[07:54] fast often this of course uh the
[07:58] breakthrough of um of
[08:01] evolution darwin
[08:03] uh cultural biological geologic
[08:05] evolution
[08:07] and it paved the way for the formation
[08:09] of the methods of archaeology
[08:13] and then the development of the
[08:15] archaeologists as a discipline in its
[08:18] own right
[08:19] but always and here we have it it's
[08:22] through collaboration with science from
[08:24] the very beginning we have always been
[08:27] walking on two legs
[08:29] humanities
[08:31] and science
[08:33] i will come back to that and of course
[08:35] the second uh
[08:38] science science revolution in actually
[08:41] was
[08:42] c-14 absolute dating
[08:45] it revolutionized archaeology at the
[08:48] time
[08:49] in ways we can hardly imagine
[08:52] and it gave rise to a new science-based
[08:54] new archaeology
[08:57] and again
[09:00] every revolution also the third one
[09:03] we're in the middle of
[09:06] it converts
[09:09] relative knowledge into absolute
[09:11] knowledge
[09:12] so things we only knew
[09:15] relatively
[09:17] and we could never be sure really
[09:19] it was
[09:21] qualified guesses
[09:23] suddenly we can be sure
[09:26] so up until 1960s
[09:29] archaeologists spent most of their time
[09:31] discussing the age the relative
[09:34] chronology
[09:35] and how old was actually the stone age
[09:39] how old was the neolithic because there
[09:41] were no written sources beyond the
[09:43] bronze age
[09:44] so
[09:45] through the bronze age we could have
[09:47] saved absolute datings beyond that it
[09:50] was guesswork
[09:52] and guess what happens
[09:54] we were so terribly wrong
[09:57] the guesses were absolutely wrong
[10:00] and it was a shock
[10:02] actually it took a whole generation of
[10:03] archaeologists to die out before c14 was
[10:06] before it was generally accepted
[10:09] because
[10:10] the stone age and the neolithic turned
[10:12] out to be several thousand years older
[10:16] now what was the good thing about it
[10:18] the good thing about it was
[10:21] that it freed a lot of intellectual
[10:23] energy
[10:25] that could now be spent
[10:27] much more
[10:28] profitably on asking new interesting
[10:30] questions suddenly there was time to
[10:32] start asking questions about the way
[10:35] society was organized the economy of
[10:37] society
[10:40] because suddenly you didn't need to
[10:42] spend time on discussing dating
[10:45] which has been the main occupation
[10:48] so in a way it was an intellectual
[10:51] revolution as well
[10:54] and my
[10:56] take on it is that the third scientist
[10:58] will do the same we are now for more
[11:00] than 100 years been discussing
[11:02] migrations
[11:04] did people move or did ideas move
[11:06] or
[11:08] and we have never been able to so to
[11:10] really
[11:12] give a safe answer
[11:14] now we have safe answers
[11:18] again it frees a lot of intellect new
[11:20] intellectual energy
[11:22] now we can start asking interesting
[11:24] questions like why did people move
[11:26] how did they move
[11:30] and how and what happened when they
[11:32] settled
[11:33] after movement
[11:36] so
[11:36] in a way again it's also an intellectual
[11:39] revolution
[11:41] we're only starting
[11:43] actually
[11:44] archeology has in a way been taken the
[11:46] back seat
[11:47] because the genetic revolution has
[11:49] really been moving forward at high speed
[11:53] uh we are some who have been fortunate
[11:55] to be on on that racing racing horse
[11:58] from the very beginning i've been
[12:00] working with esky villager and his team
[12:01] since 2010
[12:04] so we have been working together
[12:07] all the way along
[12:09] but most of the archaeologist has been
[12:11] taken by surprise
[12:13] so in a way accurately took the back
[12:15] seat but they're on their way up to the
[12:17] front wheel
[12:19] and
[12:21] so what i'll talk about today is really
[12:23] migrations
[12:25] because migrations are back
[12:27] for 50 years
[12:30] the gospel was in archaeology
[12:32] no people didn't really move
[12:36] they may have moved out of africa yes
[12:38] they had to spread overall globe but
[12:40] then they started to settle
[12:43] agriculture
[12:44] maybe there was a movement but after
[12:46] agriculture
[12:48] then everything was
[12:50] quiet
[12:52] and people were like in a modern welfare
[12:55] societies
[12:56] you know they would exchange ideas about
[12:59] this and that
[13:01] but people would stay put
[13:03] how wrong we were
[13:06] people have been moving and migrating
[13:10] on mass
[13:12] after the neurolytic
[13:14] and they kept doing it until the present
[13:16] day
[13:17] it's a human condition so i'm talking
[13:21] about three big transformations in in
[13:23] european prehistory
[13:25] the farming transformation the pastoral
[13:27] transformation and the middle age
[13:28] transformation i'm not actually sure if
[13:31] i would i'll get to the metalage because
[13:33] that would maybe take another hour
[13:36] so
[13:39] now
[13:40] we have to look it into what are and
[13:43] here we come to the interesting research
[13:45] questions that we can now ask
[13:48] what
[13:49] what are the factors that can lead to
[13:51] transformations to migrations
[13:55] i look into demography
[13:57] diet and health
[13:59] especially the diet and health is also a
[14:02] new kind of knowledge we have got from a
[14:05] dna
[14:06] i'll come back to that
[14:08] and that leads into
[14:10] disease environment in a way diet and
[14:13] disease environment are also closely
[14:16] interlinked
[14:17] and then of course ecological changes
[14:20] so let's begin with farming this is a
[14:22] well-known story for many archaeologists
[14:24] of course
[14:25] that what we know now is that
[14:29] farmers
[14:31] they came from antolia
[14:32] so genetically speaking all european
[14:35] farmers whether they take the sea route
[14:38] into the mediterranean or they take the
[14:40] balkan rule into central europe they are
[14:42] anatolian farmers who move start to move
[14:48] and they look more or less the same all
[14:50] over
[14:53] genetically speaking
[14:57] and
[14:59] the interesting thing is that
[15:01] also genetically speaking there was very
[15:04] little admixture
[15:06] with hunter gathers
[15:09] they
[15:11] clearly
[15:12] felt superior
[15:15] they were civilized they brought the new
[15:18] civilization hunter-gatherers were
[15:20] barbarians
[15:22] at least that's what we know from
[15:25] many ethnographic
[15:26] studies that's how it works
[15:30] hunter-gatherers also don't want to
[15:32] become farmers why should they
[15:36] and farmers
[15:38] hello alex
[15:39] farmers they but they need each other so
[15:42] farmers will often trade with
[15:44] hunter-gatherers and they may have
[15:46] needed them to find their way in the in
[15:48] up in the big forests at some point but
[15:51] basically speaking they genetically
[15:54] speaking they they kept it themselves
[15:56] they were very little into a
[16:00] genetic admixture with with uh with
[16:02] hunter gatherers in the in the beginning
[16:05] so gradually when they started they
[16:08] reached carrying capacity have started
[16:10] moving out here
[16:11] then they start to intermix with with
[16:13] hunter-gatherers that's when it happened
[16:17] from the later fourth fifth millennium
[16:20] from from onwards
[16:23] uh for reasons we still do not know but
[16:26] probably they need each other now
[16:28] but there were other uh conditions too i
[16:31] think played a role i'll come back to
[16:33] that
[16:34] now the interesting thing here is that
[16:38] migrations
[16:41] are of course linked to a specific
[16:44] economic economy
[16:46] and a specific way of organizing
[16:48] yourself
[16:49] the farmers of course
[16:51] that came from anatolia
[16:53] they were used to warm climate
[16:56] they were used to live in clay scapes in
[16:59] clay houses
[17:01] forming tail settlements with many
[17:03] hundred people living together
[17:05] the soil was quite productive so they
[17:07] could do that
[17:09] but they reached a kind of limit here
[17:12] when they came up here to the
[17:14] carpathians
[17:15] around here
[17:17] they couldn't continue
[17:20] because now you enter the temperate zone
[17:23] and it's all forested
[17:25] you cannot really bring your anatomian
[17:27] lifestyle
[17:28] into central europe so they had either
[17:32] had to stop
[17:34] or they had to change
[17:37] they changed
[17:38] they adopted
[17:40] they adopted to a timberscape they
[17:42] started building houses of timber
[17:44] they split up in smaller groups because
[17:48] they could not they the big the big
[17:51] settlements could not be sustained any
[17:53] longer and we got something called
[17:55] linear band culture
[17:57] so again here we have the importance of
[17:59] the environment and how a social and
[18:02] economic organization has to adapt
[18:07] or stop
[18:10] and now they start mixing also a little
[18:12] more with hunter gathers
[18:15] and here
[18:17] the way we show that in in genetics is
[18:20] often the pca diagrams
[18:22] so we simply show the different genetic
[18:24] components
[18:26] uh it's a very very pedagogical way of
[18:28] showing it so up here we have
[18:32] up here we have
[18:34] uh down here we have middle neolithic
[18:37] early neolithic people
[18:40] global amphora that's later
[18:43] a late neolithic
[18:45] and then we get carded where i'll come
[18:47] to that
[18:48] bronze states up here
[18:51] uh
[18:52] and over here west european
[18:54] hunter-gatherers
[18:57] that they will start mixing up with
[19:00] so
[19:01] you can see this is about genetic
[19:03] distance
[19:04] and admixture
[19:06] uh between the different peoples in a
[19:08] way to show it this is very common to
[19:10] show that
[19:12] uh and there's of course a very big
[19:13] difference from here
[19:15] when we come down here like
[19:17] anatolia and then up here where we get
[19:19] the step
[19:21] component coming in here there's a very
[19:23] big distance here and then hunter
[19:25] gathers over here
[19:27] and eastern european undergathers up
[19:29] here
[19:32] now to get back to the
[19:35] early farmers
[19:38] you may think that farming is progress
[19:43] but that's not necessarily so it depends
[19:45] on
[19:47] it depends on how you define it
[19:51] actually in many ways if you look at
[19:53] health
[19:55] farming at least the early farming
[19:58] was
[19:59] not progress
[20:01] in diet-wise it was not progress as i
[20:04] said these early farmers
[20:06] they were civilized
[20:08] what did that imply
[20:10] they could never dream of hunting
[20:13] they could never dream of eating wild
[20:16] game
[20:17] which act quite healthy
[20:21] no no no no they would eat their
[20:23] civilized products grain
[20:26] muslin bread
[20:30] and when you eat a lot of muslim bread
[20:32] what happens
[20:33] and you don't have modern dental care
[20:36] you get bad teeth
[20:38] and bad teeth is bad for your health
[20:42] so in the long run this was not good
[20:45] we can see here that they had these very
[20:49] strict norms for diet
[20:52] and hunting was a minority and only the
[20:54] poor household
[20:56] would do some hunting good for them
[21:01] so
[21:03] cattle and peak were dominant animals so
[21:05] they got some meat they got some milk
[21:07] but not a lot because they had no
[21:09] lactose tolerance
[21:13] so
[21:14] this condition really declined
[21:18] but populations went up and up and up
[21:20] because you could feed a lot more people
[21:22] so all the first generation farmers were
[21:24] really on their way up
[21:27] but soon they reached the ceiling
[21:30] and once all of central european was
[21:32] colonized
[21:35] the competition demographic pressure
[21:37] started competitional resources started
[21:40] all territories you start to fortify
[21:42] your settlements you start to fight
[21:44] against each other you start to kill
[21:46] each other to take your to take your
[21:48] settlements and your fields
[21:50] and in the end
[21:51] you may decide to
[21:54] vote with your feet and move out move
[21:56] away into new territories
[21:59] and again you had to adopt and then they
[22:01] realized that it was perhaps not such a
[22:03] bad idea
[22:05] to were to intermix
[22:07] and have sex with hunter-gatherers
[22:09] after all hunter-gatherers were quite
[22:11] robust and healthy people
[22:14] and they needed that
[22:17] it was genetically good actually
[22:20] because
[22:23] actually what happened over the over the
[22:24] first 2000 years of farming is actually
[22:27] that
[22:28] that statue declined
[22:31] they they become
[22:33] smaller
[22:34] due to
[22:35] bad health conditions
[22:39] and here we see the massacres when there
[22:41] are too many people and too little fruit
[22:44] we have two types of massacres i'll come
[22:46] back to that
[22:48] or or killings
[22:50] there is the kind of killing where you
[22:52] kill everybody you kill a whole
[22:54] community
[22:56] seem to get rid of them and take their
[22:57] land
[23:00] the other type of killing is selective
[23:03] and it's it's
[23:04] it's
[23:06] it's global or universal
[23:09] you kill
[23:10] males and you abduct take away the women
[23:14] and you kill the mates because they
[23:16] cannot sell this will not revenge
[23:19] and you need the women for reproduction
[23:21] for labor and other things
[23:24] these are the two
[23:26] ways we have in in in european
[23:29] prehistory i'll come back to it later
[23:32] so here we see
[23:33] the development from earliest farming
[23:37] and we see how first we have
[23:42] first things here go up a bit
[23:45] in height but then it goes down down
[23:47] down down down and then it goes really
[23:49] down
[23:51] but then whoop
[23:54] it goes up again
[23:56] that's the next migration
[23:59] and the
[24:00] new economy that's the step migrations
[24:04] but before we get to that
[24:06] we have to understand how they could
[24:08] happen and why they happened again one
[24:10] of those interesting questions we're not
[24:11] going to start asking
[24:16] because what we see is a collapse or
[24:19] decline of the neolithic
[24:21] prior to the step migrations
[24:25] after 3000. so in the late 4th
[24:27] millennium we see a global decline in
[24:30] neolithic settlements and activities all
[24:33] over
[24:35] the known world
[24:36] from ukraine to ireland
[24:43] and we have actually
[24:45] these farming societies were in some
[24:47] regions like on the blackstone ukraine
[24:50] very successful they built huge mega
[24:53] settlements with ten thousand people
[24:55] living together like these ones here
[24:58] uh tripolia
[25:01] groups here
[25:02] but suddenly one after the other
[25:05] they are left they are burned
[25:08] and when we look to
[25:10] temperate europe
[25:12] we get the same graphs all over the
[25:14] place
[25:15] from ireland to the baltic
[25:18] we get this deep
[25:20] universal dip in activities this is
[25:23] based on
[25:24] 10th and 10th and 10 000 of c14 days and
[25:28] it has been
[25:30] convincing demonstrated that they
[25:31] reflect
[25:34] demography and activities because
[25:37] upon diagrams confirm
[25:40] that the forest start to regrowth
[25:43] once activities go down
[25:45] there is less activity there are fewer
[25:48] peoples why
[25:50] what's happening
[25:52] in some areas like in poland it's
[25:54] dramatic
[25:57] something dramatic
[25:59] hit
[26:00] these highly
[26:02] in many ways well organized
[26:05] capable farming communities
[26:07] once they went out in in temporary
[26:10] europe they built these big megaliths
[26:14] they
[26:15] lived in rather big settlements they
[26:17] were
[26:18] they were well organized
[26:21] why should they decline
[26:26] well we think we find the answer
[26:31] the plague is
[26:33] more than 5000 years old
[26:37] we found out a few years ago
[26:40] actually this is a beautiful example
[26:43] of
[26:45] how you what happens when you work
[26:47] together as an interdisciplinary team
[26:50] we had one of our work meetings
[26:53] in copenhagen
[26:55] and i showed those graphs
[26:59] to the geneticists
[27:02] and i said something
[27:04] something a big disaster
[27:06] is happening there must be some kind of
[27:09] mega disease or something going on
[27:14] why don't you look for plague
[27:16] and so they went and looked for plague
[27:18] and they found it
[27:20] but no one would have
[27:22] would probably have done it if it had
[27:24] been
[27:25] sitting together and comparing the
[27:27] evidence and asking
[27:29] questions
[27:33] so the plague
[27:36] actually has a much longer history
[27:39] and last year and and so
[27:41] we found out that that the the yamnaya
[27:44] people and the courtware people
[27:46] the step migrants
[27:48] they had it
[27:50] and they had learned to live with it and
[27:52] they brought it
[27:53] but
[27:55] this happened several hundred years
[27:56] earlier
[27:58] so our prediction was
[28:01] that
[28:02] the neolithic people got the plague
[28:05] and died from it
[28:07] before the migrations
[28:09] and that's why the migrations could take
[28:11] place
[28:13] but we need the proof
[28:15] and we found it last year
[28:18] in a past this grave in western sweden
[28:23] and this is a paper we published in cell
[28:26] there we found the mother of all plague
[28:30] the earliest form all later plague until
[28:32] the black death and until
[28:34] what plagued today
[28:36] they are all derived from that
[28:38] first early plague
[28:41] that we can demonstrate killed
[28:45] neolithic people in western sweden 3000
[28:47] bc
[28:52] so in a way
[28:54] it looks more and more
[28:56] like the colonization of america
[28:59] the plague traveled before the
[29:01] migrations through trade or interaction
[29:04] or whatever
[29:07] and it killed off all these unprepared
[29:10] neolithic
[29:11] people a lot of them
[29:13] and it opened the doors
[29:14] for these
[29:16] decentralized
[29:18] step
[29:19] people
[29:21] to
[29:24] to
[29:26] move in
[29:32] this is
[29:34] the passage grave
[29:36] 60 70 individuals
[29:38] were buried within very very short they
[29:41] all have the same dating more or less
[29:43] just around after 3000 bc
[29:47] we found in we have only analyzed three
[29:49] individuals so far where we found it
[29:51] we are now working on another 30
[29:53] individuals
[29:54] my prediction is most of them had it
[29:57] that in a way
[29:59] that
[30:00] it hit these societies very very very
[30:03] badly they were unprepared for it they
[30:06] had no resistance in the and how old was
[30:09] the plague at the time
[30:11] uh
[30:12] when you
[30:13] when you when you look at the
[30:14] evolutionary clock you can say that the
[30:17] plague must have started
[30:19] the mutation that created plague must
[30:21] have started around
[30:23] 3700 bc
[30:27] and once we knew that we had to look
[30:28] where would it start
[30:30] where where what is a likely place for
[30:33] plague to emerge plague would emerge and
[30:36] mutations emerge
[30:38] typically when when many humans and
[30:40] animals are together enclosely together
[30:44] and where it's a lot of garbage and also
[30:46] where there are rodents
[30:48] and rodents you find the step
[30:50] or in step-like environments because
[30:53] plague even today is carried by rodents
[30:58] so here's our model
[31:01] of the spread
[31:03] of the plague
[31:05] we have made a
[31:06] a model saying that it emerged in
[31:09] ukraine
[31:11] in the big mega settlements there where
[31:14] 10 000 people lived together
[31:17] lots of garbage lots of animals
[31:21] that's the likely place for
[31:23] the mutation to happen
[31:25] and these meager settlements were closed
[31:27] down and burned down one after the other
[31:31] and by
[31:32] 3200 they're gone
[31:35] the whole culture is gone all the
[31:37] settlements are gone
[31:42] and then he spread
[31:44] then he developed new strains and new
[31:46] strains
[31:47] so it spread
[31:49] to the east
[31:51] over here
[31:52] the whole way over to siberia
[31:56] the whole way over here
[31:58] to to to temperate europe here
[32:02] we knew strange in the
[32:04] in the third millennium
[32:06] early third to mid third millennium
[32:09] and in that it so it was very violent
[32:13] and it looks a lot like the black death
[32:16] the black death started with one strain
[32:19] that
[32:20] spread very quickly all over europe and
[32:23] killed a lot of people then it calmed
[32:25] down and but then it developed new
[32:27] strains
[32:28] new variations
[32:30] that would again lead to new breaker
[32:34] outbreaks
[32:35] and gradually gradually over time that
[32:37] would become more and more people would
[32:38] become immune
[32:40] and it would uh finally it would
[32:42] disappear
[32:43] and something like that
[32:45] i believe is what we are seeing here
[32:48] uh in western eurasia
[32:50] or how fights bret i think we're only at
[32:52] the beginning
[32:54] to understand the early history of the
[32:56] plague and its effects
[33:02] and here again how would it spread
[33:04] well
[33:08] the fourth millennium was the period of
[33:10] the invention of the wheel and the wagon
[33:12] and traction
[33:14] it's the invention of a lot of
[33:16] metallurgy is spreading so people
[33:18] started moving around
[33:20] a lot more than they had done before
[33:22] so the play could have
[33:24] who could have spread not through
[33:26] migrations
[33:27] but you can
[33:28] pursue connections
[33:32] and
[33:36] here we observe as i said a violent
[33:38] pattern of rapid expansion which we have
[33:41] documented here
[33:43] and it looks very much like what the
[33:45] johannes krauser team in yena showed for
[33:47] the black death there are very big
[33:49] similarities in the way it started and
[33:52] and and and spread
[33:59] so that leads on
[34:01] to the second big transformation and the
[34:04] second big
[34:05] human migrations
[34:07] the step migrations
[34:09] out of the step
[34:12] we are russians
[34:19] now
[34:20] i have given a background why they could
[34:22] succeed
[34:25] and why they were
[34:27] able to dominate and take over
[34:31] europe
[34:32] and subdue neolithic people for that's
[34:34] what they did
[34:35] in the long run
[34:37] i'll come back to that part of the story
[34:40] uh it's a bit more dramatic than we have
[34:44] imagined
[34:46] but these people had a again
[34:49] here's a completely new a different
[34:51] economy
[34:52] these people were not farmers
[34:56] they were pastoralists
[34:59] they lived they they didn't grow any
[35:02] grain
[35:04] they had cattle and sheep
[35:07] for meat consumption and milk
[35:09] consumption so they lived on a diet
[35:13] they lived on a diet of and
[35:17] he or she needs some milk
[35:20] [Laughter]
[35:24] anyway they lived on a diet of milk
[35:27] and meat
[35:32] and
[35:35] milk and meat products
[35:37] when you eat that
[35:38] and blood and everything you you eat
[35:40] from the animals is incredibly protein
[35:43] rich
[35:45] incredibly healthy and when you don't
[35:47] eat bread and mostly
[35:48] you get healthy teeth
[35:51] and
[35:53] you then these are pastoralists they
[35:55] move a lot they move with their animals
[35:58] so they become physically strong
[36:02] so these people had a lot of advantages
[36:06] compared to the nearly people and then
[36:08] they were tall
[36:10] they were often 15 20 meters taller than
[36:13] neurolytic people
[36:16] centimeters did i say meters
[36:18] okay
[36:19] centimeters
[36:23] so
[36:25] they had a good fiscal constitution
[36:28] so we see here gene culture coevolution
[36:31] and as a result of that they developed
[36:33] the mutation for lactose tolerance
[36:38] it it expand very slowly what they did
[36:41] they turned milk into yogurt and cheese
[36:43] basically
[36:45] you reduce the lactose then
[36:48] and then they also developed a mutation
[36:51] for height
[36:53] so they they were
[36:54] they were very tall
[36:56] as i said they were like
[36:57] up to 20 meter taller than neolithic
[36:59] people
[37:01] centimeters
[37:08] uh so
[37:11] they had
[37:13] certain competitive advantages
[37:17] it may not only have been that the
[37:20] the plague may have killed off a lot of
[37:22] nearly people yes
[37:24] but they also had other advantages
[37:28] uh compared to
[37:29] the neolithic economy
[37:34] here are the two papers that christopher
[37:36] talked about
[37:38] that came in 2005-15
[37:42] back to back as it were in nature
[37:46] and they
[37:47] supported each other the heart group
[37:52] talked about massive migrations
[37:55] we were more modest
[37:58] we had double as many genomes though but
[38:00] therefore we could be modest
[38:03] we talked about population in office of
[38:05] bronze city eurasia
[38:07] but it's also interesting what titles do
[38:10] and how careful we have to be with
[38:13] titles
[38:15] because
[38:17] this is also something that these two
[38:20] papers undermined 50 years of
[38:23] archaeology archaeological thinking
[38:26] and when you do that and brought back
[38:30] a
[38:31] migrations
[38:33] that have been introduced migrations
[38:35] step migration had been introduced or
[38:37] had been supported by an early
[38:40] generation of archaeologist kim bhutas
[38:42] before that child
[38:45] and and that
[38:51] you need to try to put translation on i
[38:54] didn't understand it
[39:00] so
[39:02] there is also quite a lot of
[39:06] political ideological
[39:09] um
[39:09] [Music]
[39:11] implications
[39:13] when you reintroduce
[39:16] male warriors
[39:18] conquering
[39:20] the european continent
[39:25] and therefore
[39:26] we were very careful about being neutral
[39:30] but here it was clear that
[39:33] yes there was a huge migration from the
[39:35] step step deans
[39:37] came in 2800 bc
[39:40] and they
[39:41] overtook genetically speaking uh
[39:45] came to dominate european populations
[39:47] ever since
[39:48] this is from our paper here
[39:51] the yamanai were the pastoral
[39:54] pastoralists one group would go the
[39:57] whole way over to
[40:00] to
[40:03] siberia
[40:05] and
[40:06] why they wouldn't settle here that's
[40:08] another story i don't think they were
[40:10] allowed to
[40:12] because there were horse herders there
[40:15] so they most of them went west
[40:17] and again
[40:20] we see the same story
[40:22] when the pastoral nomads
[40:24] came to the limit of the step
[40:28] they had to stop
[40:30] or change
[40:33] and adopt
[40:34] because then started the more forested
[40:36] regions where you had not these big step
[40:40] areas for your herds
[40:42] or at least then you had to create them
[40:45] and they did that so what did they do
[40:48] they adopted
[40:50] they adopted their economy they
[40:52] introduced some farming
[40:55] from the they learned from nearly the
[40:57] group and they became called where
[40:59] but basically genetics being they are
[41:02] step yamnaya
[41:05] pastoralists that adopted to a new
[41:08] lifestyle here in tempered europe
[41:11] uh
[41:12] and
[41:14] and therefore they were successful they
[41:16] didn't stop
[41:17] they decided to adopt and move on
[41:22] and this is
[41:24] their burials
[41:26] what they share
[41:28] from urals
[41:29] to denmark
[41:31] is
[41:32] this single burials
[41:35] of single individuals
[41:37] and a very clear distinction between
[41:40] male and females
[41:42] and something that looks like
[41:45] a core family of male and female
[41:48] sometimes buried side by side
[41:51] and each would have an individual burial
[41:53] and why are individual burials so
[41:56] significant compared to the farmers and
[41:58] the neolithic people who had collective
[42:01] burials
[42:03] barriers are so important for
[42:05] understanding society
[42:06] because when you die you have to pass on
[42:09] to the next generation your inheritance
[42:14] and when you bury people collectively
[42:16] you signal that
[42:18] ownership is collective
[42:20] but when you bury people individually
[42:22] and market
[42:24] as the most important thing from urls
[42:28] then is because
[42:30] inheritance was passed on from
[42:33] individual to individual
[42:38] and males were dominant
[42:41] why were males dominant
[42:45] and how do we know that
[42:47] you see what they did here
[42:50] this is from denmark from jotland from
[42:53] where where you had a huge migration
[42:55] into western uh into jotland
[42:59] in the pond diagrams we have the biggest
[43:03] cut down of forests burning down the
[43:05] forest ever
[43:07] they just they choose the light flat
[43:10] soils that looked like steps
[43:13] and where the forests were not so dense
[43:15] then they fired them off
[43:18] and what you would get you get a kind of
[43:20] step
[43:21] and then they could continue with their
[43:23] herds
[43:24] and their pastoral adopted pastoral
[43:28] farming lifestyle
[43:30] so we have the most amazing pond
[43:32] diagrams in northern europe
[43:35] where they settled
[43:36] and they must have come in large numbers
[43:40] because it's like
[43:41] room like that
[43:47] and here we see or if you can see it
[43:50] but this again a way of showing what
[43:53] happened to the left here we have
[43:56] the hunter-gatherers then we have the
[43:58] farmers anatolian farmers
[44:01] coming in here they're yellow
[44:03] but then we have the yamunaya here who
[44:05] are mixture the the the the of the green
[44:09] which is step and then east on hunter
[44:11] gathers
[44:12] that mixture that mixture moves in
[44:15] and takes over you see it looks like
[44:18] step yamana all over temple europe and
[44:21] what you see here
[44:24] anatolian genes goes from 50 60
[44:28] down to 10
[44:30] or something at least in in in temperate
[44:34] europe
[44:37] neolithic genes are
[44:39] nearly
[44:41] wiped out
[44:44] anatolian genes what's happening
[44:49] now
[44:50] and the reason we know this is
[44:52] significant is because
[44:55] it looks the same way today
[44:57] all europeans
[45:00] are a result of that huge genetic
[45:03] admixture
[45:04] event that took place in the third
[45:06] millennium
[45:07] we have not changed genetically
[45:10] to a large degree since there have been
[45:13] adjustments there have been migrations
[45:14] and some
[45:15] but
[45:17] this is modern europe
[45:20] this is modern europe and what you see
[45:22] here is
[45:25] so what you see here is
[45:27] the step part down here
[45:30] and the neolithic part here the antonian
[45:33] part in northern europe and central
[45:35] europe
[45:37] uh
[45:38] then the in modern in modern europeans
[45:42] we are still having a lot of step dna
[45:44] here and then hunter gather here
[45:48] the further south you get the more
[45:50] antrolon dna is preserved today
[45:54] one of the big questions of course is
[45:56] when did the step dna move south into
[45:58] the mediterranean we are working on that
[46:02] we don't have the results yet but in a
[46:04] few months we have them
[46:09] so
[46:11] plague may account
[46:13] or may have opened a door of opportunity
[46:18] to the step people
[46:22] even if there's much we still need to
[46:24] know
[46:26] but
[46:28] it doesn't explain why
[46:31] modern european males all belong to the
[46:34] same male lines
[46:37] all
[46:39] modern males
[46:41] belong to
[46:43] the haplogroup
[46:45] r1b or r1a
[46:49] two but they are related two
[46:53] all the many neolithic
[46:55] male lines
[46:58] they were white they disappeared already
[47:00] in the third millennium
[47:04] where did all the nearly males go
[47:07] what happened
[47:09] also what we know is
[47:12] we know that this dominance of a single
[47:15] or a single male line
[47:18] must have happened already long before
[47:20] the step migration somewhere
[47:23] in eurasia
[47:25] in the fifth
[47:27] fifth fourth millennium because here's a
[47:30] study that shows
[47:32] an incredible
[47:33] decline in male diversity
[47:37] and then
[47:38] you have only a few left but at the same
[47:40] time an incredible expansion of female
[47:42] diversity
[47:44] so female haplogroups uh are numerous
[47:47] and expanse
[47:49] and you have lots of neolithic
[47:51] female
[47:52] lines that have survived today
[47:55] what happened
[48:00] when we analyzed the archaeology
[48:02] behind the migrations
[48:04] we could demonstrate in denmark in
[48:06] jordan
[48:08] that the early the early migrants
[48:12] the early barriers
[48:14] all over europe but especially in jordan
[48:16] we have like thirty thousand uh small
[48:19] barrels from that migration in jordan
[48:22] it was massive as i said
[48:25] you they're all mates they're 90 males
[48:28] that 10
[48:29] females then you could say okay maybe
[48:32] that's ideology
[48:34] but no it's
[48:36] it reflects reality because the
[48:39] geneticist also looked into
[48:41] how was the groups composed you can look
[48:44] into that when you go deeper into the
[48:46] genomes and what they were able to show
[48:49] was that
[48:50] the farmers
[48:53] the anatolian migrants
[48:56] they were family groups there were whole
[48:58] communities
[49:00] that moved in
[49:02] that's why they didn't need to
[49:05] intermix
[49:07] with hunter gathers
[49:09] they had their own
[49:11] enough of a big dean pool that they
[49:13] could rely on
[49:16] but those
[49:17] step
[49:18] migrants that came
[49:20] after 3000 bc
[49:23] they were 18 90 males
[49:26] they didn't bring the women or very few
[49:28] of them
[49:31] they had to go and find women
[49:34] they were young warriors
[49:38] and what did they do
[49:39] of course they went and took neolithic
[49:42] women and that's why
[49:46] neolithic
[49:47] haplogroups
[49:48] have survived until this day
[49:52] and they killed the males probably
[49:54] but let's so this is a model we
[49:56] published two years ago
[49:59] where we showed what was happening here
[50:01] yamnaya move in with all the young male
[50:03] warriors
[50:05] and why all the young male warriors
[50:08] that again brings us back to social
[50:10] organization and kinship
[50:14] we have some studies in print therefore
[50:16] i cannot show them today but in two
[50:18] months there will be one out in plus one
[50:21] but we have a similar study just
[50:22] published in science by the philip
[50:24] stockhammer group
[50:26] and they show from the bell beakers we
[50:28] have done one on quarter where where we
[50:30] went into details where we did
[50:32] stormtroom and we did everything
[50:35] what we could show there was that
[50:38] we could demonstrate that
[50:41] first generation
[50:43] migrants
[50:44] male migrants they are foreign
[50:48] but after that
[50:49] males stay put
[50:52] they don't move yeah they may move in
[50:54] their lifetime
[50:55] but
[50:56] but they they they they um when we take
[50:59] their their strontium they are locals
[51:03] nearly all the women are non-locals
[51:06] they are brought in from the outside
[51:08] it's exothermy
[51:11] what we could show also was that
[51:14] most of these women had a neolithic diet
[51:17] during their childhood
[51:20] not a step diet or pastel diet
[51:25] so what did they do they
[51:27] married neolithic women in
[51:34] and then the poor males were left there
[51:36] and could not reproduce themselves
[51:39] or whatever happened i'll come back to
[51:41] that
[51:43] why were there all these male warriors
[51:45] moving on moving on moving on
[51:49] these were in european speaking groups
[51:52] i'll come to that in a moment in
[51:54] indo-european societies
[51:57] globally speaking you have primogeniture
[52:01] it means that only all the son will
[52:03] inherit
[52:06] all other sons will have to go and
[52:08] create their own
[52:10] career
[52:13] and therefore in indo-european societies
[52:15] from india to the baltic you have an
[52:17] institution called youth warrior groups
[52:20] where from there become teenagers until
[52:22] they become grown up
[52:25] they are out half the year get trained
[52:27] as warriors herders
[52:30] led by old males
[52:34] and that has been documented
[52:35] archaeologically now by david anthony
[52:38] in the russian step yes excavated
[52:39] society
[52:41] they are called dogs or wolves
[52:44] or black youth
[52:47] and now we can document these are the
[52:50] warrior groups you send off
[52:52] because it's better to get out get out
[52:54] and start your own
[52:56] your own settlement that become labor
[52:58] for your oldest brother
[53:02] that's the dynamic
[53:04] the social dynamic the demographic
[53:06] dynamic behind
[53:08] the continuous
[53:11] male expansions
[53:14] and gus cronin
[53:16] has been able to demonstrate in in a big
[53:18] study
[53:21] which also supports this picture of
[53:24] intermixture
[53:25] not only genetically but also culturally
[53:29] and economically and linguistically
[53:33] so these neolithic women that they
[53:35] brought in
[53:37] they brought knowledge of farming
[53:39] they brought knowledge a part of making
[53:42] pots
[53:43] they brought
[53:45] some words
[53:46] for crops because these step people had
[53:49] no words for crop in in the european
[53:51] indian words for crops are
[53:53] non-independent
[53:55] mostly
[53:57] they
[53:58] which again demonstrate that the
[53:59] neolithic language was none in european
[54:05] so this is how it happened really so we
[54:07] have this
[54:08] hybridity
[54:12] emerging out of the meeting between the
[54:14] step males
[54:16] and the neolithic women
[54:20] and the victims are the neolithic males
[54:25] so this was not really peaceful
[54:31] there were
[54:33] both ways
[54:34] killings both ways
[54:37] this is a famous
[54:38] uh cemetery called
[54:40] ilao these are called where people
[54:43] and they were buried
[54:45] in family groups father mother children
[54:48] they had all been murdered
[54:51] brutally
[54:53] the males
[54:55] and these are called were local the
[54:57] women came from
[55:00] another area 60 kilometers away
[55:04] and why do we know that
[55:06] because
[55:08] the arrowheads in their bodies in the
[55:10] bodies
[55:12] came were not called where they came
[55:13] from a neighboring neolithic group still
[55:16] surviving
[55:17] in the mountains
[55:19] there come down they had abducted the
[55:22] women
[55:23] and now came revenge
[55:26] and we have similar
[55:28] uh
[55:29] massacres here in poland where neolithic
[55:33] groups are killed
[55:35] probably
[55:38] possibly by yamanaya or early court
[55:41] aware groups
[55:44] so even if there must have been periods
[55:46] of more peaceful interaction
[55:48] there's much to suggest that this was
[55:51] quite violent
[55:53] and went on for several hundred years
[55:56] and four hundred years later
[55:58] there are no
[56:00] new leading male lines or hyper groups
[56:03] left they're gone
[56:07] uh we also
[56:09] see these differences between males and
[56:11] females in the burials here's a huge
[56:13] study
[56:16] you see the person here like that and
[56:19] then you see how grave goods are located
[56:23] and what they show is that
[56:25] the female barriers show a lot local
[56:28] variation
[56:30] because also they came from more locally
[56:33] the males
[56:35] show a lot more and but this is a little
[56:38] paradoxical because the women came from
[56:40] outside and the males were
[56:42] normally local but one of the things we
[56:44] can show is that the males were
[56:47] sent out as foster
[56:49] sons
[56:50] when they were young and then they would
[56:52] sometimes come back
[56:54] or or stay out there
[56:57] and then they look local of course if
[56:59] they have get off when they're very
[57:01] small
[57:03] so the male burials look nearly all the
[57:06] same
[57:08] if you take a ball here in jotland and a
[57:09] bird down here
[57:11] in netherlands and is a male boy
[57:14] you can't see the difference
[57:17] they must have had these brotherhoods
[57:20] and these travels where they
[57:23] uh where
[57:24] they knew exactly how things should look
[57:28] like
[57:30] whereas the females were allowed to have
[57:32] local variation and and create local
[57:35] variation
[57:36] there's still much we don't understand
[57:41] so
[57:44] why
[57:45] did the nearly males disappear
[57:50] in this book here that came two years
[57:52] ago
[57:53] by calorie cameron captives how stolen
[57:56] people changed the world she has done a
[57:58] global study
[58:00] of captives
[58:02] and the
[58:03] from ethnographic societies to early
[58:05] historic
[58:07] and and from
[58:09] developed hunter-gatherers
[58:11] to uh chieftains not states
[58:16] and globally speaking you see the same
[58:18] thing one of the most important
[58:20] activities
[58:21] that this society engages
[58:24] is in raiding outside their own ethnic
[58:26] group
[58:28] for women
[58:31] and what do they do
[58:32] they
[58:33] take the women for reproduction and
[58:35] labor
[58:36] and they kill the male systematically
[58:39] to prevent them from
[58:41] returning and make events
[58:43] as we saw it would happen
[58:46] this is the universal
[58:48] captives make up from 10 to 35 percent
[58:50] of populations in all pre-state society
[58:53] globally
[58:54] where we have
[58:56] information
[58:58] it's quite shocking
[59:02] uh
[59:04] and but these women also bring
[59:07] a lot of
[59:09] innovation
[59:10] as we see record where they bring new
[59:13] knowledge
[59:14] uh innovation
[59:16] so the in a way they're very important
[59:19] for keeping these societies developing
[59:21] and in the next generation they become
[59:23] full members of society many of them
[59:27] so migrations and ethnic violence follow
[59:31] a millennial pattern of mass killings
[59:34] as we saw with the early farmers
[59:37] or selective killing of males abduction
[59:39] of women always outside your own ethnic
[59:41] group
[59:42] so ethnicity
[59:44] is a way to
[59:48] to demonize the other that is not part
[59:51] of your ethnic group and that will allow
[59:53] you to kill them
[59:57] so ethnic identities are extremely
[59:59] strong during migration and settling
[01:00:01] down as we can see in the archaeological
[01:00:03] cultures
[01:00:05] of the quarter ware
[01:00:06] it's very very strong
[01:00:09] and they reinforce internal coherence
[01:00:12] and demonize the other
[01:00:16] and this goes a long way in my opinion
[01:00:18] to explain the complete dominance of
[01:00:20] cordless male lines
[01:00:24] r1a r1b
[01:00:26] only two
[01:00:29] and we have more and more archaeological
[01:00:31] documentation of such massacres
[01:00:35] the reason we haven't found it before is
[01:00:37] that they are normally outside
[01:00:39] formal cemeteries
[01:00:41] it's only through rescue archaeology of
[01:00:43] the last 40 years where you use big
[01:00:45] machines and you take away a lot of soil
[01:00:49] then they turn up
[01:00:52] so they have been hidden for us
[01:00:56] now we get more and more of them
[01:00:59] there is a dark side to the past
[01:01:03] that we have
[01:01:05] overlooked
[01:01:08] and ideology assign rewards from the
[01:01:10] gods
[01:01:12] so
[01:01:13] you create myths and tales of
[01:01:16] how a warrior should behave
[01:01:18] and how you get rewarded
[01:01:23] i should stop now because i have been
[01:01:25] drunk for one hour
[01:01:26] and i'm
[01:01:27] not quite there yet
[01:01:31] but anyway
[01:01:33] we see the final
[01:01:35] this was not the end of the step
[01:01:37] migrations
[01:01:38] when they reached the english channel
[01:01:41] and the north sea
[01:01:43] and the atlantic
[01:01:45] again they had a barrier met a barrier
[01:01:50] these were inland people
[01:01:52] they knew nothing about sailing or
[01:01:55] maritime
[01:01:57] behavior
[01:01:59] so either they stopped
[01:02:02] or adopted
[01:02:05] they adopted
[01:02:06] how did they do that
[01:02:09] they adopted the so-called bell beaker
[01:02:11] packets from iberia these bell-beaker
[01:02:14] people were
[01:02:15] see were maritime people
[01:02:17] they were masters of the sea
[01:02:22] maritime bell beakers
[01:02:25] that's a special category
[01:02:27] of pots
[01:02:28] they were masters of the sea
[01:02:30] they were masters of metallurgy
[01:02:33] and what happened the cord aware people
[01:02:35] stole
[01:02:36] their knowledge
[01:02:38] but without genetic
[01:02:41] admixture
[01:02:42] very little
[01:02:44] they met
[01:02:46] they learned
[01:02:47] that
[01:02:48] and they took the bell big package which
[01:02:51] became bigger they jumped into their
[01:02:53] boats and went on
[01:02:55] to uh the british isles
[01:02:58] in ireland
[01:02:59] and the same story
[01:03:02] within 300 years
[01:03:05] all neolithic people are more or less
[01:03:07] gone all males are gone
[01:03:09] there's only r1b r1a
[01:03:14] here we see the picture
[01:03:16] this was a big big study we where
[01:03:19] the only time all the big labs
[01:03:21] collaborated
[01:03:23] normally we compete
[01:03:25] but here we collaborated because we knew
[01:03:28] none of us could tell the whole story
[01:03:29] but we said we we met and we sat down
[01:03:32] and said okay if we pull we have
[01:03:35] the the real big story
[01:03:39] and
[01:03:40] that
[01:03:41] show it they adopted both technology
[01:03:46] and here we have again the languages
[01:03:48] they brought along
[01:03:51] protein european germanic up to the
[01:03:53] north italy celtic over here
[01:03:56] later moving down here
[01:03:59] and celtic moving on
[01:04:01] here
[01:04:04] and again the same
[01:04:06] so
[01:04:09] we are
[01:04:10] on our way towards a new european
[01:04:12] prehistory but may one we may not like
[01:04:17] i mean
[01:04:19] patrilinean
[01:04:21] male warriors
[01:04:23] killers
[01:04:25] abduction of women
[01:04:30] it's like stereotypes
[01:04:32] but this is
[01:04:34] what the evidence tells us
[01:04:37] i'm sorry
[01:04:39] we i'm sure we there may be counter
[01:04:41] stories out there and they will turn up
[01:04:43] one day but
[01:04:44] right now this is what we see this is
[01:04:47] what the evidence shows
[01:04:50] so the force of history are more
[01:04:52] dramatic and violent than we've been
[01:04:54] used to
[01:04:56] but it brings pre-history more in line
[01:04:59] with ethnographic knowledge
[01:05:01] and historical evidence
[01:05:03] kept things of captives killing of
[01:05:06] defeated males
[01:05:08] so
[01:05:09] in conclusion history has happened
[01:05:12] but not always to our liking
[01:05:15] but we have to follow the path towards
[01:05:18] the truth and even if there are many
[01:05:21] truths and pre-history also in the past
[01:05:24] there were problems in truth
[01:05:26] you had my truth
[01:05:28] thank you
[01:05:29] [Applause]
[01:09:26] you

Summary of the Meeting: Archaeology Meets Molecular Biology

The meeting commenced with a warm welcome, emphasizing the intersection of archaeology and molecular biology, a topic that exemplifies cross-disciplinary collaboration. The speaker highlighted the significance of ancient DNA research, which has emerged as a pivotal source of knowledge in archaeology, particularly since the first sequencing of an ancient human genome in 2010. This advancement has introduced new methodologies for testing established theories in archaeology and history, revealing previously unknown data.

However, the integration of molecular biology into archaeology has sparked competition between disciplines regarding claims to truth. Established archaeologists express concerns about the potential oversimplification of human history through genetic data, arguing that it may overlook the complexities of human actions, migration, and cultural development. The historical debate surrounding the source of ivory trade during the Viking Age exemplifies this conflict, where historians and biologists present contrasting views on the contributions of ancient DNA to our understanding of historical events.

The discourse reflects a broader philosophical debate regarding the nature of scientific knowledge. For biologists, empirical testing and the capacity to falsify hypotheses are fundamental to scientific inquiry. In contrast, historians often prioritize the confirmation of established theories, leading to differing interpretations of what constitutes scientific novelty. This divergence exemplifies the clash of methodologies between the humanities and the natural sciences, raising questions about the evolution of knowledge in these fields.

The speaker outlined three significant transformations in prehistory, namely the farming, pastoral, and metal ages, each linked to various forms of migration. The first transformation involved the colonization of Europe by Anatolian farmers around 6,000 years ago, driven by climate change. This migration resulted in significant demographic shifts and dietary changes, which had profound implications for human health and social structures.

The pastoral transformation, characterized by the emergence of steppe nomads, introduced new forms of mobility and cultural practices. The genetic impact of these migrations is evident in contemporary European populations, where various male lineages have been traced back to these historical movements. The integration of ancient DNA studies has revealed complex patterns of interaction between migrating populations and indigenous groups, including instances of violence and competition for resources.

The discussion also touched on the implications of the third science revolution, which has fundamentally altered our understanding of prehistory. The introduction of advanced genetic techniques has enabled researchers to rewrite narratives about human history, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of societal changes. The speaker emphasized the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration in this evolving landscape, advocating for a balanced approach that recognizes the contributions of both archaeology and molecular biology.

As the meeting progressed, the focus shifted to the challenges and opportunities presented by ancient DNA research. The integration of genetic data with archaeological findings has the potential to enhance our understanding of historical social processes, but it also necessitates careful consideration of the context in which these samples are found. The importance of collaboration between archaeologists and biologists was underscored, as both disciplines must work together to ensure accurate interpretations of data.

The closing remarks highlighted the need for ongoing dialogue and debate within the scientific community. While ancient DNA has revolutionized the field of archaeology, it is essential to approach findings with caution and recognize the limitations of genetic data. The speaker encouraged a continued exploration of the complexities of human history, emphasizing that science is an ever-evolving discipline that must remain open to new evidence and perspectives.

In summary, the meeting provided a platform for discussing the intersections of archaeology and molecular biology, highlighting the potential for collaborative research to deepen our understanding of human history. The integration of ancient DNA into archaeological practice presents both challenges and opportunities, necessitating a thoughtful approach that respects the complexities of cultural and historical narratives.

In the realm of archaeology, the advent of ancient DNA (aDNA) analysis has transformed our understanding of human ancestry, migration, and genetic diversity. The use of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y-chromosomal DNA allows researchers to trace maternal and paternal lineages, respectively, providing insights into population structure and historical migrations.

Ancient DNA serves as a powerful tool in understanding the genetic relationships between ancient populations and their modern descendants. For instance, mtDNA is particularly useful in studying maternal ancestry, as it is passed down through generations without significant recombination. This allows for clearer lineage tracing and has revealed complex patterns of human dispersal.

The analysis of autosomal DNA, which includes contributions from both parents, has enabled researchers to infer population admixture and genetic divergence. By comparing ancient and contemporary genomes, scientists can identify when populations split and how they interacted. This is particularly relevant in discussions of admixture, where ancient populations interbred with neighboring groups, leading to a more intricate understanding of genetic diversity.

Moreover, the integration of aDNA data with archaeological findings has provided a more comprehensive view of human history. For example, ancient DNA can confirm hypotheses regarding migration routes, as it often aligns with archaeological evidence of population movements. The DNA Revolution has thus not only added a genetic perspective to traditional archaeological narratives but has also challenged previous assumptions about human interactions and migrations.

• [01:00] "It’s a new source of knowledge into the past; it’s a new method of testing established theories."
• [02:10] "An analysis of ancient DNA data brings anything new...but the biologists say that this has been a theory but it has never been substantiated by data other than inferences from anecdotal evidence."
• [12:00] "With the DNA Revolution, we can put them aside because now we know; now we have converted relative knowledge to Absolute knowledge."

The transcript provides insights into human dispersal patterns over the last 200,000 years, particularly emphasizing how genetic evidence reshapes our understanding of migration routes, timings, and settlements across continents. The DNA Revolution has led to significant breakthroughs in recognizing the complexities of human migration.

One of the key claims made is that ancient DNA analysis allows researchers to pinpoint specific migration events and the interactions between different populations. For instance, the speaker references the farming transformation, which indicates a colonization of Europe by Anatolian farmers around 6000 years ago, driven by climate changes that necessitated new territories for survival.

Furthermore, the pastoral transformation is highlighted, detailing how nomadic pastoralists moved westward, significantly impacting the genetic landscape of Europe. This period saw a blending of cultures and genetic material, illustrating how migration was not merely a linear process but involved various forms of mobility, including interbreeding with local hunter-gatherer populations.

While the speaker acknowledges the importance of these findings, they also emphasize that many interpretations remain hypotheses rather than definitive conclusions. The integration of genetic data with archaeological findings challenges previous narratives and supports more nuanced understandings of human history. Overall, the transcript suggests that as genetic evidence continues to evolve, so too will our understanding of ancient human dispersal.

• [12:27] "Migration is a general concept about mobility; there are many different forms of migration, not only one type."
• [22:40] "The plague is 5,000 years old... we had the hypothesis at the time that the plague traveled before the migrations and killed off people..."
• [46:30] "History happened not always to ways of our liking... but that’s how science is; we have to follow it until new evidence appears."

The transcript references several landmark studies and influential researchers in the field of ancient DNA and archaeology, which have significantly advanced our understanding of human history. Here is a summary of notable mentions:

• First Ancient Human Genome Sequencing (2010): This landmark event marked the beginning of the DNA Revolution in archaeology, enabling the analysis of ancient human populations and their migrations.
• Kin Boy's Book: "My European Family" (2017): The book discusses migration into Europe from the East and how genomic sequencing has provided insights into the spread of people and culture, inspiring further research and public interest in the subject.
• Studies on the Plague (2021): Recent research identified the earliest form of the plague in a megalithic grave in Sweden, linking it to significant population declines and migrations during the Neolithic period. This study provides a new understanding of how diseases influenced human movements and societal changes.
• C13 Dating Revolution (1950): The introduction of carbon dating fundamentally changed how archaeologists date artifacts and understand historical timelines, allowing for more accurate correlations between archaeological evidence and genetic data.

These studies highlight the dynamic interplay between genetics and archaeology, offering profound insights into how we interpret human history and the factors that shaped ancient populations.

• [12:14] "The benefit of being able to convert relative knowledge into absolute knowledge was very clear with the c14 revolution."
• [24:18] "Here is a passage grave with all the burials we are now analyzing... we have demonstrated the oldest mother of all plague..."
• [51:44] "The two sciences, archaeology and DNA... it’s been like a cycle going up and down which has been governed just as much by ideology of the present than by science."

The transcript provides several explicit dates and timeframes related to human evolution and migration, linking them to significant events or claims:

• 6000 BC: The period when the first major farming transformations occurred, marking the migration of Anatolian farmers into Europe due to climatic changes.
• Circa 3700 BC: A significant time identified for the origin of the plague, which likely played a role in population declines and migrations.
• 3000 BC: Noted as a time when health and population dynamics shifted, indicating a new transformation in dietary practices and social structures.
• 1950: The introduction of carbon dating (C14) which revolutionized archaeological dating methods and allowed for a more accurate understanding of prehistory.
• 2010: The year when the first ancient human genome was sequenced, marking the beginning of significant advances in the understanding of human ancestry and migration patterns.

These dates illustrate a timeline of critical advancements in archaeology and genetics, which collectively inform our understanding of human history and migration.

• [06:04] "The first time it happened was what we can call the Darian Revolution between 1850 and 60..."
• [12:21] "The farming transformation... was a true colonization of Anatolian Farmers..."
• [22:14] "The plague is 5,000 years old..."

The transcript discusses the complex interactions between ancient human populations and their interbreeding with other hominins, particularly during significant migrations. One of the most notable claims is regarding the interactions between early farmers and local hunter-gatherers during the Neolithic in Europe. The speaker emphasizes that the migration of Anatolian farmers into Europe led to a distinct genetic imprint, suggesting that these farming populations maintained their genetic identity while coexisting with indigenous hunter-gatherers.

This coexistence implies a pattern of interbreeding, particularly as demographic pressures and the need for survival strategies arose. The text highlights that these interactions were not merely about conflict but also involved cultural exchanges and shared knowledge, contributing to the genetic diversity seen in modern Europeans.

Moreover, the transcript refers to the mixing of populations during the pastoral transformations, where nomadic pastoralists, likely male-dominated groups, migrated into already settled areas. This migration further complicated the genetic landscape, as these groups also interbred with local populations.

Thus, the evidence suggests that the genetic impact of these interactions is profound, influencing modern genetic profiles in Europe and contributing to ongoing discussions about ancestry and identity.

• [19:54] "What we see here is the Neolithic Revolution is one of rise and decline..."
• [32:19] "This is the darker side of history..."
• [34:26] "The migrations were also full of conflict and competition..."

The transcript mentions genetic evidence from various regions, highlighting the diversity and complexity of human populations across different continents. Here are key findings related to specific regions:

• Africa: While the transcript does not provide extensive detail on Africa, it acknowledges the continent as the origin of modern humans, emphasizing its foundational role in genetic diversity.
• Middle East: The transcript discusses the migration of Anatolian farmers, indicating that this region was crucial for early agricultural development and subsequent population movements into Europe.
• Europe: Significant findings include the colonization of Europe by Anatolian farmers around 6000 BC, leading to a distinct genetic signature. Additionally, the transcript notes the impact of pastoral migrations on the genetic landscape of Europe, where nomadic groups intermixed with existing populations.
• Asia: The document references the spread of the plague from Asia into Europe, which facilitated migrations and demographic changes, though specific genetic evidence from Asia was not detailed.
• Oceania: The transcript does not mention Oceania, indicating a gap in the discussion of genetic evidence from this region.
• Americas: There are no specific references to the Americas in the transcript, suggesting that the focus remained primarily on European and Asian contexts.

Overall, the strength of evidence varies, with some regions like Europe having substantial genetic data, while others remain less explored in this specific transcript.

• [12:19] "The introduction of new knowledge into the field of history and archaeology..."
• [46:36] "This is the genetic mix of modern Europeans..."
• [49:30] "...the only way forward is to do good science and to go do good popularization..."

The transcript highlights the connections between genetic evidence and various scientific disciplines, particularly archaeology, paleoanthropology, and linguistics. These connections underscore how DNA analysis both confirms and refines existing knowledge while challenging previous assumptions about human history.

Firstly, the integration of ancient DNA with archaeological findings has provided a nuanced understanding of human migrations. For instance, the sequencing of ancient genomes allows researchers to align genetic data with archaeological artifacts, such as burial sites. This has led to a more comprehensive view of how populations moved and interacted across landscapes.

Secondly, the transcript mentions instances where genetic evidence has confirmed long-debated theories. For example, the C14 carbon dating revolution allowed archaeologists to date artifacts more accurately, thereby enabling a clearer timeline that aligns with genetic data. This convergence of evidence supports claims about the timing and nature of migrations, such as the movement of Anatolian farmers into Europe.

Moreover, the speaker notes that genetic evidence often challenges established narratives, leading to re-evaluations of migration routes and admixture events. This interplay of genetics with other fields illustrates a growing recognition of the importance of interdisciplinary approaches in understanding the complexities of human history.

• [12:38] "The introduction of new knowledge into the field of history and archaeology..."
• [51:44] "...the two sciences... it’s been like a cycle going up and down..."
• [51:54] "It takes some effort from both sides to understand the other disciplines' methodology..."

The transcript addresses several limitations and uncertainties associated with ancient DNA analysis, highlighting the challenges researchers face in drawing definitive conclusions from genetic data. One major concern is the issue of sampling bias and the preservation of ancient specimens. The quality and condition of DNA samples can vary significantly, affecting the reliability of results. For instance, the transcript suggests that some ancient DNA may be contaminated, leading to potential misinterpretations.

Moreover, it notes that the dating of samples can be problematic, particularly when relying on techniques like radiocarbon dating. While these methods have revolutionized archaeology, they can still introduce uncertainties, especially when calibrating results against genetic data.

The transcript also emphasizes that many interpretations of genetic findings remain hypotheses rather than established facts. This distinction is crucial, as it underscores the need for caution when communicating results to the public, given the potential for misrepresentation or oversimplification of complex narratives.

Lastly, the speaker indicates that the interplay between genetic evidence and historical narratives is not always straightforward. Conflicting interpretations can arise, necessitating ongoing debates within the scientific community about the implications of genetic findings on our understanding of human history.

• [12:58] "...testing is not that essential and a confirmation of established theories is not a scientific novelty."
• [22:48] "...the plague traveled before the migrations and killed off people..."
• [49:27] "...we should be careful and sensitive to the way we present..."

Technological advancements have played a critical role in the evolution of DNA analysis and its application in archaeology. The transcript mentions several key innovations that have revolutionized the field of ancient DNA research:

• Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS): The advent of NGS technology has dramatically reduced the costs of sequencing DNA, making it more accessible for researchers. This has led to a significant increase in the number of ancient genomes sequenced, allowing for a broader understanding of human migrations and population structures.
• Selection of Biological Material: The transcript highlights the importance of selecting the right type of biological samples for DNA extraction. For example, specific bones, such as the petrous bone, have been found to yield higher quantities of endogenous DNA, enhancing the quality of genetic data obtained from ancient specimens.
• Radiocarbon Calibration: Improvements in radiocarbon dating methods have provided more precise timelines for archaeological findings, allowing researchers to correlate genetic data with archaeological evidence more effectively. This has facilitated a more integrated approach to understanding human history.
• Statistical Tools: Advances in statistical methodologies have improved the analysis and interpretation of complex genetic data, enabling researchers to model population dynamics and migration patterns with greater accuracy.

These technological developments have collectively transformed how researchers study ancient populations, allowing for more comprehensive analyses of human history and the factors influencing demographic changes.

• [12:40] "The benefit of being able to do that was very clear with the C14 revolution..."
• [22:40] "The plague is 5,000 years old... we had the hypothesis at the time..."
• [46:10] "We have to follow it until new evidence appears..."

The speaker's main position on human origins and dispersal emphasizes the pivotal role of genetic evidence, particularly through ancient DNA analysis. The transcript illustrates how modern genetic research has reshaped our understanding of human history, migration patterns, and population interactions. The integration of archaeology and molecular biology has emerged as a vital interdisciplinary approach, allowing researchers to uncover new narratives about our past.

The speaker asserts that the sequencing of ancient genomes has provided critical insights into the timing and nature of migrations, such as the movement of Anatolian farmers into Europe around 6000 BC. This migration not only highlights the introduction of agriculture but also reveals complex interactions with indigenous hunter-gatherer populations. The evidence suggests ongoing admixture and cultural exchanges that have left lasting genetic legacies in modern populations.

Moreover, the concept of the DNA Revolution is framed as a transformative period in the field, akin to earlier scientific revolutions that fundamentally changed our understanding of prehistory. The speaker's assertion that relative knowledge can now be converted into absolute knowledge through genetic analysis underscores the transformative power of this research.

In conclusion, the speaker advocates for a continued exploration of genetic evidence to refine and sometimes challenge existing historical narratives, emphasizing the dynamic interplay between genetics and archaeology in understanding our collective human heritage.

• [12:19] "The introduction of new knowledge into the field of history and archaeology..."
• [46:10] "We have to follow it until new evidence appears..."
• [51:19] "It takes some effort from both sides to understand the other disciplines' methodology..."

The transcript does not explicitly mention claims or evidence regarding the Sumerians, Akkadians, Assyrians, or Babylonians. It primarily focuses on broader themes of human migration, genetic evidence, and the integration of molecular biology with archaeology to understand ancient populations. Specific references to these ancient civilizations, their origins, genetic signatures, or links to earlier migrations are not detailed within the provided content.

However, it does discuss the impacts of migrations and interactions among various groups over time, suggesting potential parallels to the movements and cultural developments seen in the contexts of these ancient civilizations.

[00:01] good afternoon it's a great pleasure for
[00:03] me to uh wish you all welcome to uh this
[00:07] uh meeting in the uh Academy the meeting
[00:10] of two cultures archaeology meets
[00:13] molecular biology that's a wonderful
[00:16] topic for a science academy it's a cross
[00:19] discipline topic it's a topic uh about
[00:23] new scientific methods it's a topic
[00:26] where mind meets matter and culture
[00:29] meets nature
[00:30] wow I'm sure that we will have a very
[00:33] interesting afternoon uh discussing
[00:35] these
[00:37] issues the issue of uh uh ancient DNA as
[00:43] a data for
[00:45] archaeology uh is really at the
[00:47] frontiers of
[00:49] knowledge it was in 2010 that uh the
[00:53] first sequencing of uh or the sequencing
[00:56] of the first ancient Human Genome took
[00:58] place so it's not many years ago we're
[01:00] really at where it's happening at the
[01:02] time now uh it's a new source of
[01:05] knowledge into the past it's a new
[01:07] method of testing established
[01:09] theories uh and it's the introduction of
[01:12] new hither to unknown data into uh the
[01:16] field of history and
[01:18] archaeology but it's also uh an issue of
[01:21] competition between disciplines over
[01:24] claims to truth and uh we see it's a new
[01:28] emerging discipline making claims into
[01:30] the field of an old and established
[01:32] discipline which always uh is the
[01:35] potential for conflict uh and
[01:38] discussions from the point of view of
[01:40] the old discipline focus on genetics May
[01:43] imply a rekindling of old and ostracized
[01:45] theories of migration ethnicity and
[01:49] territory some claim that it may lead to
[01:52] a disregard of the complexity of human
[01:54] actions and
[01:56] development uh and some may feel that
[01:59] there's a claim of precedence of a data
[02:01] and understandings constructed over
[02:02] archaeological data and cultural
[02:06] artifacts we have already seen uh some
[02:10] instances of a clash between the
[02:12] disciplines uh in our Norwegian debate
[02:15] uh on the discussions on the source of
[02:17] ivory trade to Europe through the Viking
[02:19] age in Middle Ages does an analysis of
[02:22] ancient DNA data bring anything new has
[02:24] been the question the historian at least
[02:27] one historian says no we have already
[02:30] known this but the biologists say that
[02:34] this has been a theory but it has never
[02:35] been substantiated by data other than
[02:38] inferences from anecdotal
[02:42] evidence the discussions show two
[02:45] different approaches to both the
[02:47] understanding of the main task of
[02:48] Science and to the concept of novelty in
[02:51] science it really goes deep into
[02:53] questions of the philosophy of knowledge
[02:55] and science to the biologist the concept
[02:58] of empirical testing of hypothesis is
[03:01] essential new ways of testing theories
[03:03] and the possibility of falsifying
[03:05] alternative hypothesis is a main object
[03:08] of research nuclear evidence is a
[03:11] novelty to the historian testing is not
[03:14] that essential and a confirmation of
[03:16] established theories is not a scientific
[03:19] novelty so it's really a meeting of two
[03:22] very different cultures and approaches
[03:23] to
[03:24] knowledge this represents positions from
[03:27] different Traditions fruitful science
[03:29] and emerges from the clash between
[03:31] different minds and different Traditions
[03:33] the humanities are used to a situation
[03:35] where mutually incompatible schools of
[03:38] thought exist side by side
[03:41] constructivism versus empiricism for
[03:44] example in the social sciences both
[03:46] exist as uh disciplines of science they
[03:49] don't recognize each other but they're
[03:50] both recognized as scientific approaches
[03:53] to society to Natural Sciences this is
[03:57] an intolerable situation other than in
[03:59] the time of paradigmatic Revolutions in
[04:01] the understanding of
[04:04] what will emerge from the meeting
[04:06] of archaeology and molecular biology a
[04:09] new discipline the development of
[04:11] different schools or a scientific
[04:14] revolution well we might come closer to
[04:16] the answer here tonight so I give the
[04:18] word to Professor Chris or Eric Boer
[04:21] perhaps who will introduce uh
[04:25] christansen Eric Boya I've organized
[04:28] this meeting together with the honest
[04:31] berland and I'm happy to see so many
[04:34] people here to discuss this important
[04:37] subject it might be worth be worth to
[04:40] mention that uh an and I came into this
[04:43] maybe the same way but uh not really in
[04:46] a planned way we I think it's fair to
[04:50] say that we are both novices in
[04:52] archaeology and history to say the least
[04:56] so we're sorry if we have insulted
[05:00] anyone on our way when we have published
[05:03] some material on on this and I must say
[05:06] that the the point was to provoke some
[05:08] of you guys to come here and I'm glad
[05:11] I've succeeded at least a little
[05:17] bit yeah for both Anna and myself the
[05:20] whole thing started with reading kin
[05:22] boy's book entitled my European family
[05:26] the the last 5 thou 54,000 years
[05:30] Years the book is about migration into
[05:33] Europe from the East and how genomic
[05:36] sequencing brought new information about
[05:38] the spreading of people and
[05:42] culture the more we read about the
[05:44] subject the more interested we got and
[05:48] it ended up as a subject for the Academy
[05:51] like uh our president underlined here
[05:55] this is an ideal subject for the Academy
[05:57] because it encompasses all almost all
[06:00] the groups that we have
[06:04] represented to Enlighten us for this
[06:06] meeting we have collected a group of
[06:08] three excellent
[06:10] scientists first we would like to
[06:13] welcome Christian
[06:15] Christiansen he received his PhD degree
[06:17] in archaeology from orus University in
[06:20] 1975 so he's
[06:23] Danish for many years he served as the
[06:25] Director of the Danish archaeological
[06:27] Heritage Administration
[06:30] and he's now professor of archaeology
[06:32] and department chair at the University
[06:34] of gothenberg
[06:36] Christian is an expert in the movement
[06:39] of people objects animals and
[06:42] ideas especially during the Bronze Age
[06:45] in Europe it's fair to say that
[06:48] Christian is a prominent figure both on
[06:51] the international
[06:52] scene of archaeology and I should
[06:56] mention that Christian has been kned so
[06:59] we have a night amongst us he bited by
[07:02] Dr margara for reorganizing the Danish
[07:05] archaeological
[07:08] Heritage thank you for coming here we
[07:10] appreciate this a lot the the floor is
[07:13] yours and the title of his talk is the
[07:16] third science Revolution and its
[07:18] possible consequences in
[07:20] archaeology please uh we have been uh
[07:24] through what I have called in an earlier
[07:27] work the third Science re reolution I'll
[07:30] come back to that in a moment um but
[07:33] basically the genetic Revolution that we
[07:35] saw happen in 2010 and 10
[07:39] has
[07:41] changed uh the whole Foundation of our
[07:44] understanding of of the past and that's
[07:46] what I'm going to talk about I also have
[07:48] to say that my my own background for
[07:50] doing this is that I started working
[07:53] together with geneticist when we uh when
[07:56] when I I applied for a big European
[07:59] Grant in 2010 or
[08:01] 11 uh where I met esow in Copenhagen and
[08:04] invited him on board um because I knew
[08:07] there was this breakthrough so we have I
[08:10] have been working with uh the Copenhagen
[08:11] group ever since uh and uh and still do
[08:16] so this is work in progress uh and uh
[08:19] things may even change also in the
[08:22] future uh we are we are in the middle of
[08:26] the third science Revolution there's
[08:28] more to come so there will be chances to
[08:32] come back here in a few years time and
[08:34] tell what has happened next uh I called
[08:38] it the third science Revolution for the
[08:40] for the reason
[08:42] that I suggest we have had uh two
[08:46] before and science revolutions are T are
[08:49] periods where science and
[08:53] archaeology has gone together and joined
[08:56] forces and created something radic Al
[09:00] knew the first time it happened was what
[09:03] we can call the Darian Revolution
[09:05] between 1850 and 60 when soy geology and
[09:09] archaeology collaborated and was able to
[09:12] show that there was a prehistory beyond
[09:15] the
[09:16] Bible that was truly a revolution and it
[09:19] created the discipline of archaeology as
[09:22] a scientific uh discipline as along with
[09:25] the other disciplines the second time it
[09:28] happened was here uh around 1950 when we
[09:33] got the c14 carbon 14 Revolution
[09:37] suddenly you could do a Dream came
[09:40] through you could date
[09:42] absolutely um and before that time most
[09:46] of the uh datings of early Stone AG
[09:49] culture have been
[09:50] guesswork um we have uh written sources
[09:54] back to perhaps 2,500 BC beyond that we
[09:59] have to
[10:00] calculate and then came
[10:02] c14 and it turned out that our
[10:05] calculations have been so
[10:09] wrong uh that was a shock but also an
[10:12] inspiration because you had to rewrite
[10:16] prehistory in the light of this new
[10:19] knowledge and now we are in the middle
[10:21] of a third science Revolution that in
[10:22] the same way has totally undermined what
[10:25] we um what we believed in in a
[10:28] surprising way and we are now starting
[10:30] also to rewrite prehistory for the
[10:33] second time or third
[10:36] time but what is the good thing about it
[10:40] uh is also uh and that's the strength of
[10:44] collaboration between Humanities and
[10:46] science that you convert relative
[10:48] knowledge into absolute
[10:51] knowledge and the benefit of of being
[10:54] able to do that was very clear with the
[10:56] c14
[10:57] revolution before the c14 revolution
[11:00] most of the intellectual labor of
[11:04] archist went into dating finding uh ways
[11:09] to relatively date the different periods
[11:11] there was very little time left to think
[11:14] about interpretation and
[11:16] history once you had c14 you freed a lot
[11:19] of intellectual
[11:21] space uh to think about more interesting
[11:25] questions about Society economy and
[11:29] things like that uh so there was a huge
[11:32] leap forward from the 1960s onwards till
[11:35] today where we got to know a lot more
[11:38] about the way societies worked in the
[11:41] past now with the uh DNA Revolution the
[11:45] same thing happens we there are things
[11:47] we have debated for 150 years without
[11:49] never really agreeing now we can put
[11:52] them aside because now we know now we
[11:55] have convert relative knowledge to
[11:56] Absolute knowledge and again
[11:58] intellectual space is
[12:00] freed uh for us to ask more interesting
[12:05] questions such
[12:06] as why uh and how do migrations happen
[12:12] so in that sense it's also these
[12:14] revolutions are truly
[12:17] productive uh in an academic sense and
[12:19] deep now
[12:21] understanding uh what I'm going to talk
[12:23] about are three turning points uh uh in
[12:27] prehistory uh the farming
[12:30] transformation the Pastoral
[12:33] transformation and the metal AIDS
[12:35] transformation and each of
[12:38] them are linked to various forms of
[12:41] Mobility migrations but let me be clear
[12:44] here from the very beginning migration
[12:47] is is a general concept about Mobility
[12:50] there are many different forms of
[12:52] migrations not only one type and we'll
[12:55] see that in a
[12:56] moment also uh there are various things
[13:01] that may lead to Transformations I
[13:03] cannot in this brief presentation where
[13:06] I prefer to present you a grand
[13:08] narrative rather than going very deep
[13:10] into a single story I cannot deal with
[13:13] all of them so there are things I don't
[13:16] talk about it doesn't mean that I I'm I
[13:18] don't know about them or they could be
[13:20] important but I have selected where I
[13:22] think is is the more interesting things
[13:27] right now but d Health demography
[13:30] disease environment ecology
[13:32] environmental change they all contribute
[13:34] to
[13:34] change and still today what we don't
[13:38] know really yet is the balance between
[13:40] them we are working to establish that
[13:44] balance
[13:46] also what happened here with the First
[13:48] Transformation was a true colonization
[13:52] of Anatolian
[13:54] Farmers there was a big climate change
[13:57] at that time around 6,000 that forced
[13:59] Farmers to move on to find new
[14:01] territories to survive and they went
[14:03] first into the balans Greece the
[14:07] balans um and you had an incredibly
[14:10] rapid uh increase in demography due to
[14:15] food stuffs were more readily available
[14:16] and you can store food
[14:19] stuffs uh there's a real change of diet
[14:22] um which is also in from a biological
[14:25] evolutionary point of of view a very
[14:27] interesting thing because
[14:29] what does that lead to in terms of
[14:31] mutations and and inherited
[14:34] diseases uh another big question I will
[14:37] not go into
[14:39] tonight um but the interesting thing is
[14:42] that this colonizing population they
[14:44] kept for themselves they didn't add mix
[14:47] or or had sex with Hunter
[14:50] gathers they um they re retained their
[14:54] Dean pool because there were whole
[14:56] communities that uh that uh migrated
[15:00] um and um so in a way we have two
[15:04] parallel lifestyles in Europe coexisting
[15:08] for several thousand years which is in
[15:10] itself an interesting
[15:12] story we also see of course development
[15:15] of new diseases when people and animals
[15:17] are close
[15:19] together so here we have the first uh
[15:22] big migration of farming into
[15:24] Europe um which took place between after
[15:28] six
[15:29] in the 6th century and into the mid 4th
[15:32] Century then it began to expand it had
[15:35] reached the limit of his carrying
[15:37] capacity but that second chapter I will
[15:40] not go into so northern Europe
[15:42] Scandinavia came late and that story is
[15:45] still being worked on genetically so
[15:48] that'll be for another
[15:49] time but there is a big change taking
[15:53] place in Hungary uh around this time the
[15:57] farmers move up through the Balkans and
[16:00] then they stop why do they stop there
[16:04] because they reach the ecological
[16:06] barrias of of their lifestyle they lived
[16:10] in TS kind of semi-urban settlements
[16:14] they lived in clay built houses they
[16:17] were adapted to warm climate without
[16:19] lots of
[16:21] rain uh and they reach simply the
[16:24] climatic border of that of that uh
[16:27] economy and the way of life
[16:29] so either they had to stop or they had
[16:32] to reinvent
[16:33] themselves so some of them went up north
[16:37] to Romania and further up and they could
[16:39] more or less retain the old lifestyle
[16:42] but others went into the colder and more
[16:44] rainy temperate Europe and they found
[16:47] out Timber houses are
[16:50] better and smaller groups
[16:53] so they transformed themselves started
[16:57] building huge Timber houses long houses
[17:00] and adopting to a new climate and became
[17:03] very
[17:06] successful
[17:08] uh these people were truly Farmers also
[17:12] in a cultural and civilizational sense
[17:15] it's very clear that that they had a
[17:19] deliberately avoided hunting and and and
[17:24] game that was below their level they
[17:29] were clearly the Civilized people who
[17:31] didn't intermix with these lower hunter
[17:34] gatherers eating those wild animals the
[17:37] right civilized way of living was to eat
[17:40] you know bread and musle you know grain
[17:45] food uh and um they
[17:49] did only the poor households we can show
[17:52] now had to supply their their their
[17:55] meals with some game in a way it was a
[17:58] lot health
[17:59] CIA uh because these people over the
[18:02] time they had deteriorating Health they
[18:06] got terrible bad
[18:08] teeth uh and um so that very onesided
[18:15] cereal di diet wasn't that wasn't really
[18:19] in the long run uh very uh healthy they
[18:23] had some milk or milk products and some
[18:26] and some meat but it was mainly based on
[18:32] Cals there was a very rapid increase of
[18:34] populations at the
[18:37] time and uh once they had filled up the
[18:40] territory of the good
[18:43] soils demographic pressure led to
[18:45] competition of land and soon we see we
[18:49] see um massacres competition
[18:54] Warfare uh and
[18:57] um here's one of them and basically what
[19:02] we witness here and is a pattern that
[19:05] was to continue throughout the
[19:08] Millennia uh there are two types of of
[19:11] massacr one where you make extend a
[19:14] whole Community because you want to take
[19:15] over their Village and their and their
[19:17] fields their land so you get rid of all
[19:20] of them the other type is where you only
[19:23] kill the males and you go away with the
[19:27] women uh um I'll come back to that uh
[19:31] but that pattern we see already here
[19:33] from the be from the beginning once
[19:36] they're starting being competition
[19:38] between groups this is also when they
[19:40] For the First Time start to interbreed
[19:42] with H Hunter gathers because they need
[19:45] it and they need their knowledge when
[19:47] they're going to expand further out into
[19:49] the deep forest of unknown
[19:52] territories so the story of this
[19:54] Neolithic Revolution is one of su of
[19:57] rise and decline
[19:59] as it often happens in the beginning it
[20:02] was a big
[20:03] advantage and people raiseed a stature
[20:07] males and females but over
[20:10] time stature decline which is a very
[20:13] clear indication that their diet was not
[20:15] the best in the world and then we see
[20:19] here suddenly woo it goes
[20:22] up why does it suddenly raise
[20:26] significantly around 3,000 in the
[20:28] millennium BC the reason is another
[20:32] economic uh transformation another big
[20:35] change of
[20:36] diet uh but first we have to have a
[20:39] little Prelude to that
[20:41] transformation
[20:44] because it transformed uh in a Neolithic
[20:48] societies more or less
[20:50] disappeared in the process how how was
[20:54] it possible that this except that they
[20:56] were not the most healthy people in the
[20:58] world but then still they lived in huge
[21:01] societies that were very well organized
[21:03] some of them lived in mega settlements
[21:06] of 10 15,000 people in in Ukraine like
[21:10] here this is these are
[21:12] houses uh highly organized this is from
[21:15] Iberia a little bit later so these were
[21:18] highly organized but what we see here we
[21:21] have colleagues who have who have
[21:23] calculated 10,000s of c14 dates over
[21:26] time and there you get the rise and fall
[21:28] of of the netic
[21:30] populations because what you see here is
[21:33] netic coming in here the rise here of
[21:35] activities and populations then you see
[21:37] a mysterious decline here this is
[21:39] Northern Europe there are similar graphs
[21:41] for all of Western Europe all over
[21:43] temporate Europe there's a mysterious
[21:46] decline in the force Millennium mid to
[21:50] late Force Millennium in most regions a
[21:54] few regions they escape it and some
[21:57] regions like here in KU is deep steep
[22:01] steep decline what
[22:04] happened something U mysterious happened
[22:07] here that decimated activities and
[22:11] populations the answer is the
[22:14] plague the plague is 5,000 years old not
[22:18] thousand years
[22:19] old uh something we have documented uh
[22:22] four years ago for the first
[22:25] time and we had the hypothesis at the
[22:30] time uh at that time we could show the
[22:32] step population the pastor groups I'm
[22:34] going to talk about in a minute They
[22:37] Carried the plague uh and the plague
[22:40] spread from alai in uh in the East to
[22:45] Baltic to the Baltic in the
[22:48] west and we had the hypothesis that the
[22:52] plague traveled before the migrations
[22:55] and killed off people like in America
[22:58] and open a window of opportunity to go
[23:02] in and
[23:03] settle but we hadn't proved it until now
[23:06] this is a paper we published last year
[23:10] where we demonstrated the oldest the
[23:12] mother of all plague we found in a
[23:16] passage grave a megalite in Western
[23:18] Sweden with 60 people buried within a
[23:22] very very short period of time in one
[23:24] generation and we have analyzed now
[23:26] three individuals and found the plague
[23:29] the the earliest form all later plague
[23:32] or Black Death as it's called in
[23:34] historic times are linked to that one
[23:38] form can be Trace back to that one form
[23:41] when did it happen that mutation that
[23:44] created plague uh we can say based on
[23:47] the evolutionary clock must have taken
[23:49] place no later than 3,700 BC where did
[23:53] it take place most likely in environment
[23:56] where many humans and animals are
[23:58] together there's a lot of garbage and
[24:01] and and and um mutations can take place
[24:06] here is a passes grave with all the
[24:08] burials we are now analyzing the other
[24:10] 50
[24:11] burials and many other places but here
[24:14] is our model of what we think uh was uh
[24:18] the origin of the plague in these big
[24:20] Mega settlements in
[24:22] ukraina where you had 10 15,000 people
[24:25] living with animals and garbage and Ro
[24:28] and we know plague live with
[24:31] rodents uh this is hypothesis that
[24:34] started there uh but we need hypothesis
[24:37] to go out and look for evidence and
[24:39] we'll see in a few years
[24:42] time uh if this is the right scenario
[24:46] but it reached Scandinavia around 3,000
[24:50] BC and very soon you you it created new
[24:54] strains uh diverged and mutated again
[24:57] and spread rapidly over all of Western
[25:03] Eurasia and into the Bronze Age it
[25:05] became bubonic a new
[25:09] mutation uh and um here we have the
[25:13] different place we have analyzed all
[25:14] over Western Eurasia what we can show is
[25:18] when if you if we compare to the to the
[25:21] Black Death there many similarities the
[25:23] Black Death started with one uh variant
[25:27] of plague that spread very rapidly a
[25:29] wide region then there were several new
[25:33] outbreaks where where there were new
[25:35] strains new mutations and gradually over
[25:38] time it became less and less and people
[25:41] became immune so after 400 years it more
[25:44] or less died out it's not of course gone
[25:46] we still have the plague um but uh there
[25:49] are the same thing happened here uh in
[25:52] the third
[25:53] millennium you have new strains
[25:55] developing spreading out so it must have
[25:58] been quite violent since it developed
[26:01] new new strengths uh several
[26:06] times and
[26:08] um what happened after the plague well
[26:11] at that time we had seen the formation
[26:14] of the first Nomads in the in the step
[26:18] lands uh of present day Russia and
[26:20] Ukraine uh they started out of they
[26:24] called yamaya they they exploited the
[26:28] the invention of wheel and wagon
[26:30] suddenly you could had mobile homes you
[26:32] could move around with your animals in
[26:34] the step and let them Grace and water in
[26:37] the rivers seasonally suddenly the step
[26:41] became a huge economic potential that
[26:44] had not existed before and in a few very
[26:47] short time there was an incredible
[26:49] population explosion and explosion of
[26:51] animals and cattle 80% cattle I think it
[26:55] is in most places and they needed a lot
[26:58] of land and once people the ne League
[27:01] population started to die of the plague
[27:03] it opened a window of of opportunity
[27:06] that they exploit and moved
[27:08] West uh we demonstrated that in uh in a
[27:11] paper in 2015 along with another one
[27:14] from our competing group at
[27:17] Harvard um and we came to similar resol
[27:21] which was good and it therefore it was
[27:24] published back to back in nature in the
[27:26] same the editor was enough to say we
[27:29] want to publish them back to back and
[27:31] that had um and there we showed that
[27:35] there were these migrations taking place
[27:37] from the Russian step into Europe
[27:40] temporate Europe and there was a very
[27:42] very
[27:43] rapid genetic um admixture process or
[27:46] replacement process where Anatolian
[27:49] farmer DNA nearly disappeared and was
[27:52] heavily reduced and replaced by step
[27:55] DNA and here is the one of the
[27:58] illustration we published that shows the
[28:00] migrations and it created a new culture
[28:02] here C where from the yam NAA so in a
[28:07] way there is a good reason why the why
[28:09] archology could be mistaken because on
[28:12] the surface it looked like two different
[28:14] kind of material cultures but if you had
[28:16] looked a little deeper into the bual
[28:18] ritual and uh then you would have
[28:21] realized that they have the same bar
[28:22] ritual and bur R is the most Central
[28:25] institution in all societies
[28:28] uh and that links them together and I
[28:31] think Martin agrees on
[28:34] that
[28:35] uh so here we they created a new
[28:39] culture but why did they create a new
[28:42] culture where once they had migrated
[28:44] that has to do with also the what
[28:47] happens when people
[28:48] settle
[28:51] uh but the diet and the lifestyle they
[28:55] brought with them was a revolution again
[28:59] they lived on a diet of milk products
[29:02] and meat and
[29:05] blood no no bread
[29:09] musle they were not farmers in the step
[29:14] they learned started to learn farm once
[29:16] they arrived in
[29:17] Europe and the question is
[29:20] how they had a very healthy lifestyle
[29:23] because they moved around with the
[29:25] animals so they became tall and healthy
[29:28] and actually there is a gene for
[29:30] tallness that we have inherited from the
[29:32] from from the from these people all tall
[29:36] people can go take that go back to that
[29:40] Gene uh and um once they were in Europe
[29:44] and had settled they continued Westward
[29:47] and ended up they didn't stop until they
[29:49] reached the Atlantic in
[29:52] Ireland the same genetic mixture the
[29:55] same uh but then they took on another
[29:59] culture again we call the beaker culture
[30:02] so they transformed thems along the way
[30:05] by adapting to local conditions very
[30:08] successfully and once they reached the
[30:10] English Channel they stopped because
[30:13] they had reach the limit of their
[30:15] environment these were in pastoral
[30:18] people they didn't know how to
[30:20] sail but they learned it from people
[30:23] coming up from Iberia with Maritime
[30:25] skills and they took over their
[30:26] knowledge smart people and they set over
[30:29] the channel and they settle in England
[30:32] Scotland Ireland and in 3 400 years all
[30:36] the near people were
[30:39] gone here we have the from that article
[30:42] that came what it two years one and a
[30:44] half year ago this is the only time all
[30:47] the labs have worked
[30:49] together uh to solve a big problem uh
[30:53] normally we compete but uh here we we p
[30:58] all our samples in one big bag to be
[31:01] able to write that final story of how
[31:04] they expand the whole the whole
[31:06] expansion
[31:09] Westward and this obviously also
[31:11] represent an expansion in the early IND
[31:13] European languages and in that way
[31:16] solved of a very old
[31:19] dispute
[31:21] um what later became Germanic was those
[31:24] who went North we don't know what
[31:26] language they spoke when they they went
[31:28] North but it later became Germanic and
[31:31] in Central Europe Italo
[31:35] Celtic and in the Baltic and west of the
[31:39] RS what lat became Baltic IND Iranian
[31:43] but that's another
[31:45] story now we have this
[31:48] puzzle or we can call it the elephant in
[31:51] the
[31:52] room how was it possible not only that
[31:57] these
[31:59] decentralized step pastoralist could
[32:02] wipe out these near well organized NE
[32:04] Society yes the plague helped but once
[32:09] they settled and started to adopt some
[32:14] farming what happened was that all neic
[32:19] mail lines they died
[32:21] out neurolytic female lines continues
[32:24] and is still with us the male lines
[32:29] disappeared nearly all European males H
[32:33] uh we have we share two mail lines r1b
[32:37] and R1
[32:39] a which uh dominated started to dominate
[32:44] here how is that possible there was a
[32:47] paper some years ago that showed there
[32:48] was this enormous decline of mail lines
[32:50] globally sometime they couldn't say they
[32:54] hypothesized when it was but around the
[32:56] fifth Force millennium BC an incredibly
[33:00] huge decline in in in M lines globally
[33:03] and uh a group of uh of of of young
[33:06] researchers uh one year ago or two years
[33:09] ago proposed increased male uh
[33:13] competition where you wipe out other
[33:15] mail lines the what we you could call
[33:18] the Denis Khan effect like Denis Khan
[33:20] has 50
[33:21] million uh link to his line so it's it's
[33:26] it's not an unknown phenomenon
[33:28] but you see the female lines they could
[33:30] go on and expand something very very
[33:33] dramatic happens
[33:35] here and it has something to do with
[33:38] also the way uh the the mobility takes
[33:44] place here we have the farming uh
[33:48] colonization here is a paper that
[33:51] shows the how many women and and male
[33:55] and females took place the the M farming
[33:58] migration was a true colonization of
[34:01] whole communities of family
[34:03] groups women and men but the Step
[34:07] migrations The Nomad from the step they
[34:11] were dominantly males they didn't bring
[34:15] the
[34:17] women uh which meant that they had
[34:20] to get women from other
[34:24] places so here's a model we published a
[34:26] few years ago
[34:29] that these male groups which and we know
[34:32] about these male groups uh and why they
[34:36] expanded from IND European literature as
[34:38] well because you have premature in IND
[34:40] European speaking societies oldest son
[34:43] in herit all other son have to go out
[34:46] and make their own
[34:47] career which create an enormous social
[34:50] drive and they are trained as Warriors
[34:52] and herders and so on when they're
[34:54] teenagers and then they go
[34:56] out uh and they needed women so they
[35:01] marry
[35:03] in neic women we could demonstrate that
[35:06] in a paper two years ago when we
[35:10] analyzed some cemeteries of these CT
[35:12] wear
[35:13] people and we could show that they had
[35:17] um most of the women were
[35:20] non-local coming in from the
[35:23] outside and they had most of them had a
[35:25] neic diet in their childhood
[35:28] so they came from ex still existing new
[35:32] settlements probably
[35:36] abducted I go over that one and uh so it
[35:40] raised a question what was the nature of
[35:43] these
[35:44] migrations well we tend and I do here
[35:47] too tend to stress the uh the that that
[35:53] the such migrations were also full of
[35:56] conflict and competition they were I'm
[35:58] sure there were also Daily Life had to
[36:00] go on uh but there were massacres like
[36:04] this one of a netic group that have been
[36:07] massacred probably by C aware people
[36:10] published recently but also C aware
[36:13] people could sometimes M be massacred by
[36:16] neic groups like this one from AA and
[36:19] they were buried in small family groups
[36:21] here and and and both DNA and strum
[36:23] could show that they were fathers and
[36:25] mothers and children but
[36:28] the strum showed that the women were
[36:30] non-local and come from a netic group 60
[36:32] kilometers away they had probably been
[36:36] abducted because the arrows of those who
[36:39] killed them were not CW they came from
[36:42] that netic group so they were the
[36:45] killers coming back taking
[36:48] reveng so there were hostile relations
[36:52] at least at uh during periods of time
[36:59] and that makes sense when we look at
[37:03] etnographic and historic sources this is
[37:06] a recent book about captives and the
[37:09] role of people stolen
[37:11] people where this uh Kathy Cameron shows
[37:15] that she go through
[37:17] all a whole series of societies
[37:20] pre-state societies and she demonstrates
[37:23] in all of them without exception rating
[37:26] for women
[37:28] is a very important activity you rate
[37:30] outside your own ethnic group and you
[37:32] bring them in for labor and
[37:34] reproduction then their children can
[37:37] become part of society she also shows
[37:40] interestingly that these women often
[37:42] bring new ideas invention into these
[37:45] societies so in a way it's it's also has
[37:48] a very productive side to it like the
[37:52] neurolytic women they brought knowledge
[37:54] of farming uh to these uh St
[37:58] people when they migrated and they
[38:00] learned how to
[38:01] farm and when a colleague of my G Cronin
[38:05] could show that these words for corops
[38:07] were not IND European they were brought
[38:09] in by these women so they brought new
[38:16] skills but 10 to
[38:19] 35% of the populations were
[38:24] captives so this is the darker side
[38:28] of
[38:29] history now I shall if I have time what
[38:34] how much time I have I five
[38:36] minutes um let's go to the then briefly
[38:41] the bronze AG
[38:43] because the first migrations were
[38:46] colonizations of whole
[38:48] communities that was a farming
[38:51] uh
[38:54] transformation the second one was the
[38:56] more war like male dominated step
[39:00] pastoral
[39:02] migrations and that was the step um meat
[39:08] milk transformation and lactose
[39:11] tolerance started here actually that's
[39:13] another mutation that that was a result
[39:16] of that adaptation to that
[39:18] lifestyle so the fact that we can digest
[39:21] milk goes back to that uh Second
[39:25] transformation and that was in a way the
[39:28] age of migration to third millennium all
[39:30] of Europe became transformed and we
[39:34] still uh deeply influenced by that
[39:37] genetically at least the second
[39:40] Millennium is the bronze stage it's
[39:43] again a different form of Mobility now
[39:46] it's not major migrations they also
[39:49] exist but now it's more smaller groups
[39:51] of people who who
[39:53] travel uh Warriors traitors both male
[39:58] and and
[39:59] females so it's a much more it's a
[40:01] complex society but it's a society
[40:04] that's so well organized that you don't
[40:07] need to migrate you they are organized
[40:10] ways of
[40:12] moving and uh there was another thing
[40:16] that happened here in the bronze AES we
[40:18] see an enormous population
[40:20] explosion populations in Europe nearly
[40:23] double between 2,000 and 1500 BC so this
[40:26] is Europe Europe going up up up up here
[40:29] to 13 million people this is the near
[40:32] East going down because they apparently
[40:34] had some big epid epidemics and couldn't
[40:36] cope with climate change or whatever it
[40:38] was so Europe actually had the same
[40:42] level of population as the near East but
[40:45] spread
[40:48] out and here again we had a new wool
[40:51] economy people could dress more healthy
[40:54] you didn't have wool and textiles until
[40:56] after 2000 B
[40:58] we had new food treatment you could salt
[41:01] and smoke meat you could carry it on
[41:03] your
[41:06] travels uh
[41:07] so the exchange of Deans continued but
[41:11] it was a very different Society much
[41:13] more
[41:16] complex and we call
[41:19] it the first globalization in world
[41:22] history it's my colleague helan who has
[41:25] made that map this is the Bron States
[41:28] economy from China to Ireland they were
[41:31] all part of trade
[41:33] networks it was a truly globalized
[41:37] economy everyone needed copper and tin
[41:40] and it was produced only in a handful of
[41:43] Mines tin at least only in three four
[41:47] mines had to be distributed thousand of
[41:51] kilometers copper only in a few handful
[41:54] of mines in Europe had to be distributed
[41:57] hundreds of kilometers every settlement
[41:59] needed it it was like gas and oil
[42:03] today therefore you had to find ways
[42:07] of exchange and travels in a peaceful
[42:11] way therefore Warriors became important
[42:14] to protect the trade sometimes
[42:19] disrupted and all of Europe were linked
[42:21] together in a kind of um nearly sort of
[42:25] semi-modern economy where each region
[42:27] had something to bring to the table
[42:30] every region depended on each other
[42:32] because they had something the other
[42:33] needed region the other regions
[42:37] needed so commercial trade started here
[42:41] I mean truly commercial trade bulk trade
[42:45] huge
[42:46] quantities huge Caravans
[42:51] shipments a regional Division division
[42:54] of labor
[42:57] but also we had in the beginning some
[42:59] migrations because as I told you in
[43:02] Asia in the third millennium they had
[43:04] all gone
[43:06] west now they go
[43:09] east we could demonstrate that as well
[43:12] at that time in 2015 that now CED where
[43:16] or european people suddenly start moving
[43:18] West into Central
[43:20] Asia and later into Pakistan and India
[43:24] they go the whole way over to China
[43:27] uh
[43:29] sang and it's all based on a new
[43:34] invention in Warfare uh The
[43:37] Chariot this is a new form of Conquest
[43:40] where you control territories you
[43:43] control mines you control trade this is
[43:46] where the Silk Road
[43:48] Starts Now the control of trade is
[43:53] important and you they spread out and
[43:56] expand eastwards but the Chariot spreads
[43:59] all over the known world even to
[44:02] Egypt and it's a very smart and light
[44:05] construction you can easily assemble it
[44:07] and disassemble it weight like 25 kilos
[44:12] you bring it to the battlefield and you
[44:14] assemble it and you it's a firing
[44:20] platform and the result is that we have
[44:23] incredible
[44:24] similarities from China to scandin Ava
[44:28] here we have two pieces of dress one
[44:30] from tarim in syang western China and
[44:34] one from ill in Jutland both from around
[44:39] 14400
[44:42] BC same same religions in in those je
[44:46] regions and languages were very related
[44:48] Indo Iranian was a language that spread
[44:51] East uh to India and
[44:55] Iran in the aan we see the arrival also
[44:58] of Step people with Greek and in Italy
[45:01] we see and also the arrival kelto italic
[45:07] probably so we are on our way to rewrite
[45:11] prehistory at least at Western EUR
[45:15] Asia uh in many respects the new results
[45:19] Echo
[45:20] earlier interpretations of a generation
[45:23] earlier than the present one Gordon
[45:26] child gimb Mar gimbutas had such big
[45:31] scenarios of
[45:33] migrations and more of it was right than
[45:37] we have recognized over the last 40 50
[45:42] years uh but now we can provide detail
[45:47] now we can provide institutions now we
[45:50] can provide kinship now we can provide
[45:53] models of how Society functioned in
[45:56] detail
[45:57] they couldn't do that and therefore it
[45:59] tended to become
[46:02] simplified but obviously it's a more
[46:05] dramatic prehistory than we're used
[46:08] to uh and perhaps also a a prehistory
[46:13] that's a bit darker than I could have
[46:15] wished for but perhaps also more
[46:19] realistic so I as I say here history
[46:22] happened not always to ways of our
[46:23] liking
[46:28] but that's how science is we have to
[46:30] follow it until New Evidence appears and
[46:34] we are the result of that in Europe This
[46:36] is the genetic mix of modern Europeans
[46:40] and here we have the step from the
[46:42] migrations from a step uh in the third
[46:47] millennium here we have
[46:49] the uh neotic in northern Europe very
[46:53] little is left more in the Mediterranean
[46:57] and here we have our hunter gather
[46:59] genetic
[47:01] Heritage that balance of of of genetic
[47:05] ad mixture was created in the third
[47:06] millennium is still with
[47:10] us so in a way there are genetic links
[47:14] between past and present but that
[47:16] doesn't mean that the histories are the
[47:19] same transformation has changed
[47:21] societies
[47:23] fundamentally and also in uh today there
[47:27] are many people who wants to create fake
[47:29] news or invent history to serve
[47:33] political and ideological purposes we
[47:34] have to be incredibly careful when we uh
[47:38] communicate our new results we put a lot
[47:40] of effort into our press releases we try
[47:43] to control them as long as we
[47:45] can uh when we had when we came out with
[47:49] our cell paper after 3 days it had
[47:52] appeared in more than 100 media globally
[47:55] the news uh of the
[47:57] plague this is something that
[48:00] really hits uh in the
[48:04] media it's wonderful I mean when were we
[48:08] last uh publishing in Nature and Science
[48:11] and cell when were our stories last
[48:14] brought out to 100 media globally in 3
[48:18] days it's fantastic but it also put a
[48:23] lot of responsibility on our shoulders
[48:26] the way we commun communicate and some
[48:28] of the people like esas or swand poo
[48:31] they become
[48:33] Heroes and in a way uh a new form of
[48:37] academic Heroes because they become so
[48:39] popular there are written popular books
[48:42] about them or they write them
[48:44] themselves uh and um there are books
[48:47] like kind boys we have heard about here
[48:49] a huge bestseller you can buy in
[48:51] airports or could translate into 13
[48:55] languages or Vander Poo's book he was
[48:58] very proud he told me his was translated
[49:00] into 16
[49:02] languages so he felt
[49:05] he uh did a little better and uh now
[49:08] more recently Reich who also got in
[49:11] trouble because of some of the things
[49:12] she wrote there actually so we are here
[49:17] on on
[49:19] sensitive political ID ground we should
[49:21] not abstain from following and our
[49:25] search for the truth but we should be
[49:27] careful and and sensitive uh to the way
[49:32] we present
[49:34] it uh so basically we cannot prevent
[49:39] political
[49:41] misuse uh there are people who wants to
[49:43] do it and they have done it humanties
[49:46] history Archy has been used for
[49:48] political purpose since the
[49:51] beginning so the only way forward from
[49:54] the left and right the only forward is
[49:56] to do good s
[49:57] and to go do good
[50:01] popularization
[50:03] uh and
[50:07] then we should welcome debate that's
[50:10] also why I welcome that we will have
[50:14] second opinions here or and
[50:17] third and Martin here has written and
[50:20] with a lot of comments here but there
[50:22] have been others as well we have a
[50:24] debate going on this very important
[50:27] uh the last word has never been said in
[50:31] science so the two cultures as we
[50:34] started out
[50:36] with um you can always discuss how far
[50:40] apart are they how what are what are
[50:43] their languages can they really work
[50:45] together yes they can because I've been
[50:47] doing it we have been doing it for
[50:49] nearly 10 years I've been doing since I
[50:51] was a student first with P botanist and
[50:54] now with
[50:55] geneticist it takes some effort from
[50:57] both sides you must you know invest some
[51:00] extra labor in understanding the other
[51:03] disciplines methodology to be able to
[51:06] make good discussions and geneticist
[51:09] must know a little bit about archaeology
[51:11] so we can discuss and that's what we do
[51:14] not all our colleagues are willing to do
[51:16] that some come out with criticism
[51:18] Without Really knowing what they're
[51:19] talking about but on the
[51:23] whole people engaged and our we and at
[51:26] least a number of people are willing to
[51:28] do that extra work it demands extra work
[51:31] to do good interdisciplin or
[51:34] transdiciplinary
[51:35] research there's no way around it it's
[51:37] not easy but it's well worth it it's
[51:40] great
[51:42] fun uh
[51:45] so we have been and in a way as I write
[51:50] here uh I don't know if I do that
[51:52] actually but but the two Sciences
[51:55] archaeology and and and and here DNA in
[51:59] a way it's part of an impossible
[52:01] marriage or it's a l child of an
[52:03] impossible romance between Enlightenment
[52:05] and Romanticism it's been going on since
[52:09] the 18th century
[52:11] Enlightenment uh and there's been ups
[52:13] and downs in that love affair there's
[52:16] been period where Humanity said no no we
[52:19] don't I don't we don't want you in
[52:21] science and there have been periods
[52:23] where they have embraced them these are
[52:26] the science Revolution I talked about
[52:28] but it has been like a cycle going up
[52:31] and down which has been governed just as
[52:34] much by ideology of the present than by
[52:40] science uh so it's a complex
[52:44] world that put High demands but that's
[52:47] part of the fun thank you
[52:49] [Applause]
[52:49] [Music]
[52:56] yeah thank you very much for inviting me
[52:58] here and giving me the opportunity to
[53:00] comment on this talk by
[53:03] Christian first of all I want to state
[53:06] that I am just like Christian very much
[53:08] excited about this kind of AD Anda
[53:11] Revolution that we have had in
[53:12] archaeology which is surely one of the
[53:15] greatest you know impacts that it has
[53:18] hand on the archaeological science as
[53:21] long as I can think so it has
[53:23] fundamentally it has given us a
[53:25] fundamentally new data source we have
[53:27] now the possibility to look at the
[53:29] biological connections between humans
[53:31] between animals between pathogens and
[53:34] between a lot of other things that
[53:35] probably will come in the next uh few
[53:38] years probably and this allows us as
[53:40] archaeologists who are interested in
[53:43] historical social processes to to ground
[53:46] our models of social change on a vastly
[53:49] expanded pool of data but then of course
[53:51] as Kristen also have been talking about
[53:54] there have been problems there have been
[53:56] especially problems when it comes into
[53:58] the integration of these kind of
[53:59] different data sets the archaeological
[54:01] data sets with the biological data sets
[54:04] and also how we implement this in a
[54:06] model that is somehow representing the
[54:09] anthropological knowledge on uh
[54:11] historical or in Social processes and I
[54:14] would say that a lot of this has to do
[54:16] with a kind of lack of sophistication
[54:18] when it comes to the implementation of
[54:20] the kind of archaeological and
[54:22] anthropological Theory to this rather I
[54:25] wouldn't say straightforward but a
[54:26] little more clearly well objectivized um
[54:30] natural scientific data so I want to
[54:32] concentrate more on the issues on these
[54:34] conceptual issues that have to do with
[54:36] the integration
[54:39] into um of these different data sets and
[54:42] I would surely say that Christian is at
[54:45] the Forefront of this kind of effort to
[54:47] somehow better integrate these different
[54:49] data sources I will concentrate a lot of
[54:53] what I say on this middle part of his
[54:55] talk where it was about the thir
[54:56] Millennium this kind of pastoral
[54:58] migration into Europe where he has in my
[55:01] opinion provided probably the best model
[55:04] not probably the best model that is out
[55:06] there with this kind of scheme that
[55:08] we've seen here he has put forward a
[55:11] coherent anthropologically informed
[55:13] model uh of social change of migration
[55:16] that is a very well uh explicitly made
[55:22] starting point which then allows for
[55:24] constructive critical discussion which I
[55:27] want to do in the few minutes that I
[55:28] have here I want to criticize uh several
[55:31] points uh that are connected to this
[55:33] first of all conceptual premises which
[55:36] are a problem in the whole uh adna
[55:39] archaeology debate then I will discuss
[55:42] some of the underlying data that can be
[55:45] interpreted in different ways and I will
[55:47] go into some issues of simplification
[55:49] which I find problematic although
[55:51] simplification as such is of course not
[55:53] a problematic thing at all and I will
[55:56] look into some biases that I find are
[56:00] also underlying these kind of models to
[56:04] start with the conceptual premises I
[56:06] want to go back one step especially also
[56:09] for the non- archaeologists here and
[56:11] also someh just to remind people why
[56:14] migration as a explanatory framework was
[56:17] so much out of fashion before adna came
[56:20] and brought it back it was not only a
[56:22] kind of you know small-mindedness of AR
[56:26] ologists but it had to do with an
[56:29] association of the idea of migration
[56:31] with a very crude form of archaeology
[56:33] that's what we call the culture
[56:35] historical archaeology in the early part
[56:37] of the 20th century which then was also
[56:39] associated with the Nazi ideology and
[56:42] all these things this culture historical
[56:46] archaeology um was building upon a
[56:48] concept the concept of the
[56:49] archaeological culture that is basically
[56:51] here our uh units of classification the
[56:55] yamaya the cord were that we've heard
[56:57] about that were at that time more or
[56:59] less seen as if they would represent
[57:01] prehistoric peoples so a group of people
[57:04] with is culturally and biologically
[57:08] homogeneous as a kind of ethnic group as
[57:10] a group of like a national state that is
[57:14] then collectively moving back and forth
[57:16] in Europe and this was the kind of uh
[57:18] concept which was clearly modeled after
[57:20] the 19th century nation states that
[57:24] people thought were more or less the
[57:25] only only possible way in which human
[57:27] beings would organize themselves in the
[57:30] in the form of these closed ethnic
[57:32] groups and this have this this idea has
[57:36] then by anthropologists been totally
[57:38] deconstructed during the 20th century
[57:41] and we know of from a lot of
[57:44] anthropological work that ethnic
[57:47] identities are basically subjective self
[57:51] descriptions historical they
[57:53] historically changeable they're not
[57:55] based on biological similarity and they
[57:58] are also often not marked by a common
[58:00] set of material objects so ethnic groups
[58:04] are not static they are changeable
[58:06] they're not culturally homogeneous or
[58:08] not necessarily at least and of course
[58:11] they are not acting in a collective
[58:13] manner if you look towards agency you
[58:15] have to go to the individual level of
[58:17] individual human beings so because we
[58:21] have all had all this elaboration of
[58:23] these Concepts it was a little
[58:25] disturbing for a lot of archaeologist
[58:27] then when the adna papers uh you know
[58:31] came into or had its most effect for
[58:33] example in 2015 we have seen these
[58:35] papers that these ad& papers took these
[58:39] kind of archaeological cultures like
[58:40] yamnaya and cord Weare and took them to
[58:44] represent biological populations which
[58:46] was something that somehow looked like a
[58:48] kind of going back to this early 20th
[58:50] century situation and then they took
[58:52] this kind of premise to create this
[58:56] rather simplified uh Narrative of the
[58:58] yamaya people that migrate westwards and
[59:02] there they constitute a new group of
[59:04] people the corded Weare people this was
[59:07] one issue and the second issue was that
[59:09] Christian talked about it the concept of
[59:11] migration that was implemented in these
[59:14] early papers was then also a kind of
[59:17] stereotypical Mass migration concept so
[59:20] the idea of a kind of collective
[59:22] permanent one-way move of a Clos group
[59:24] of people from A to B this is the kind
[59:27] of romantic Legend this is the kind of
[59:30] migration that we think about though
[59:32] when we think about the migration period
[59:34] but which in reality if we look at the
[59:36] historical sources and anthropology
[59:38] never happened in this simplified way if
[59:41] we look into
[59:42] anthropology they are using migration as
[59:45] a kind of summary term for a a wide
[59:48] variety of different forms of human
[59:50] mobility and unless you specify what
[59:52] kind of human movement you're actually
[59:54] talking about the use of the term
[59:56] migration doesn't really mean
[59:59] much and this is again where I think
[01:00:02] Christians and his colleagues model is a
[01:00:05] huge step forward because they actually
[01:00:07] did as we have heard
[01:00:09] specify uh what kind of movements we're
[01:00:12] actually talking about so this Narrative
[01:00:14] of groups of male yamni Warriors that
[01:00:17] are migrating westwards and are killing
[01:00:20] all the native men and taking all the
[01:00:21] native women and US mixing to become a
[01:00:24] new uh C aware people and it is as we
[01:00:27] have seen built on a set of different
[01:00:30] data a pandemic that have been
[01:00:33] identifies the M dominated migration
[01:00:36] pattern an uptick and violence and a
[01:00:38] reduction of male lineages and while I
[01:00:42] think that these are all good arguments
[01:00:45] I think it is also important in order to
[01:00:47] get into a better understanding or more
[01:00:49] detailed understanding what we're
[01:00:51] actually talking about also to have a
[01:00:54] more detailed discussion about these
[01:00:56] different data sources so I don't want
[01:00:58] to take down this model Christian I want
[01:01:00] to in a way look into the kind of data
[01:01:03] that we have and I want to challenge
[01:01:06] them in order to probably get into a
[01:01:09] more detailed picture which for example
[01:01:11] could involve a lot of more uh a lot
[01:01:14] more Regional local variation in the
[01:01:17] different factors that you are talking
[01:01:18] about so just to give a few hints here
[01:01:23] with the uh identification of res pestis
[01:01:26] so the the plague pathogen which as a
[01:01:30] lot of colleagues from the biological
[01:01:33] sciences have stressed not necessarily
[01:01:36] mean that we are dealing with a pandemic
[01:01:38] in the Neolithic age in fact it seems to
[01:01:42] be the case that we have only found this
[01:01:45] kind of pathogen in a very low
[01:01:47] percentage of Neolithic Graves that have
[01:01:49] been sequenced which actually means or
[01:01:52] actually indicates that it might not be
[01:01:54] as violent as the kind of plague that we
[01:01:58] think about when we uh think about the
[01:02:00] medieval variant so this is something
[01:02:02] that needs to be analyzed F further of
[01:02:05] course the second point that is also in
[01:02:09] a way ambiguous or could be more
[01:02:10] ambiguous is the question of this kind
[01:02:12] of uptick of
[01:02:15] violence these uh Mass Graves that you
[01:02:18] showed are impressive and interesting as
[01:02:20] such but of course it is a kind of
[01:02:23] incidental uh evidence and if I think
[01:02:26] what we need a little more here is a
[01:02:28] kind of uh well a systematic view on the
[01:02:32] rates of violence as as well as we can
[01:02:34] see them and there are some Works have
[01:02:36] been done in this direction Heidi Peta
[01:02:38] for example who have looked at the
[01:02:41] German uh evidence of uh violence signs
[01:02:45] of violence on human bodies in burials
[01:02:48] and what she could find is that there is
[01:02:50] of course a high degree of violence here
[01:02:52] in the third millennium this would be
[01:02:54] called it where but it's not something
[01:02:56] that is in a way out of the ordinary so
[01:02:58] it wouldn't really um well justify this
[01:03:01] kind of genocide genocidal scenario that
[01:03:04] comes out of your model in the way that
[01:03:06] you told it and also this argument with
[01:03:10] the reduction of the why chromosome hler
[01:03:13] groups is as you said and you showed
[01:03:16] this uh um diagram here clearly a well a
[01:03:21] global phenomenon so it's actually then
[01:03:24] hard to use this kind of argument to
[01:03:26] explain something that specifically
[01:03:28] happened in the third millennium in
[01:03:30] Europe so I mean as such it is an
[01:03:32] interesting phenomenon but it is nothing
[01:03:34] that in my opinion really helps us to
[01:03:37] understand the specifics of the third
[01:03:38] millennium in
[01:03:40] Europe okay and then the question of the
[01:03:42] male dominated migration
[01:03:45] pattern also there there is a little
[01:03:47] more discussion among geneticists about
[01:03:49] the validity of this assessment we have
[01:03:51] talked about it just before uh in
[01:03:54] general I don't want to I I don't really
[01:03:56] doubt it so much because the archaeology
[01:03:58] actually confirms this kind of uh focus
[01:04:02] on male burials in this period so
[01:04:03] probably this is not such a good
[01:04:05] argument the the the biggest issue that
[01:04:08] I personally have had with your model
[01:04:11] from the beginning is an issue of
[01:04:13] simplification although I think that
[01:04:15] simplification is of course the essence
[01:04:16] of modeling that's clear but uh what I
[01:04:20] find a little disturbing or not it's not
[01:04:22] disturbing but I think where it needs
[01:04:24] Improvement is the idea that you have
[01:04:27] this kind of one phenomenon or this one
[01:04:29] process with which you uh explain
[01:04:32] everything that happens in the third
[01:04:33] millennium you explain the corded where
[01:04:36] the Bell Beaker archaeological material
[01:04:38] which in my opinion at least if you look
[01:04:40] at the material is very much more um
[01:04:43] varied regionally varied um all over
[01:04:48] Europe so it would of course benefit I
[01:04:51] think with a little more Regional
[01:04:54] differentiation
[01:04:55] allowing for different scenarios going
[01:04:57] on in different places the same is true
[01:04:59] when it comes to the use of
[01:05:02] anthropological models like uh for
[01:05:04] example something that features here in
[01:05:06] this uh model is the patrial exogamous
[01:05:10] marriage system as it somehow portrayed
[01:05:13] as being the most important maybe the
[01:05:16] main uh cultural phenomenon that is
[01:05:19] going on here and of course it is valid
[01:05:21] and the data also um is confirming it
[01:05:25] will show here one example we have uh in
[01:05:29] southern Germany there was a group
[01:05:30] around Philip stockhammer who was
[01:05:32] working in the Le Valley in southern
[01:05:35] Germany looking at uh burials from the
[01:05:37] third millennium and what they found
[01:05:40] here with their strum isotope patterns
[01:05:42] here the males here the females was that
[01:05:44] there are many more non-local women than
[01:05:47] men something which is interpreted as a
[01:05:50] female
[01:05:51] exoy patri local marriage system or
[01:05:54] something like this however ever if you
[01:05:56] take this and you remain here as this
[01:05:58] being the only uh cultural phenomenon
[01:06:02] you are pointing to you are missing a
[01:06:04] lot of other important information about
[01:06:06] this site for example you don't explain
[01:06:08] what is going on with a non-local men
[01:06:11] and you don't explain the fact which is
[01:06:13] actually quite significant that looking
[01:06:15] at the um genetics these non-local women
[01:06:20] actually do not have any offspring that
[01:06:22] is buried on this place so there must at
[01:06:24] least be something else going on for
[01:06:25] example the exchange of children or some
[01:06:28] other uh some other cultural phenomenon
[01:06:31] that we could also combine with these um
[01:06:35] non-local
[01:06:36] women and I also want to uh demonstrate
[01:06:40] something here with a second example
[01:06:42] from this period This is a burial mount
[01:06:46] a typical yamaya flat burial Mount from
[01:06:49] Hungary where there is a sequence of
[01:06:51] burials starting with a local woman and
[01:06:55] then later there is a sequence of
[01:06:57] secondary burials by males who are
[01:07:00] non-local from their isotopic signal who
[01:07:03] also buried in the yamnaya style and
[01:07:06] thus they are interpreted as yamaya
[01:07:08] migrants and I think it is
[01:07:10] significant that in all the literature
[01:07:13] that I've seen it is never even
[01:07:14] discussed if we are dealing here for
[01:07:16] example with a with a with a model of
[01:07:19] male exoy like a m local marriage system
[01:07:22] it seems that this is something that
[01:07:24] cannot be because because it is not
[01:07:26] somehow part of the overall narrative
[01:07:28] and and thus I think we are dealing here
[01:07:31] with some kind of bias that is
[01:07:34] underlying the model and has to do with
[01:07:36] this kind of idea that you will have one
[01:07:39] process that explains the whole
[01:07:41] phenomenon and thus it is hard to accept
[01:07:43] that there are different things going on
[01:07:45] on different places and thus you have
[01:07:48] here in the overall model agenda bias
[01:07:51] non-local men are migrants they are the
[01:07:53] conquerors and the non-local women they
[01:07:56] are a sign of a patrial mating system so
[01:07:58] the women are being handed around so
[01:08:00] they have basically no Agency on their
[01:08:02] own this is one bias which I find a
[01:08:04] little problematic and I think it but I
[01:08:07] think it's easily solvable but just
[01:08:09] focusing a little more on the role of
[01:08:10] women in these societies and the second
[01:08:13] bias that I think is problematic is uh
[01:08:17] what I've already talked about somehow
[01:08:19] the idea that you have these two
[01:08:21] different groups of people these these
[01:08:24] ethnicities of the yamaya varrior with
[01:08:27] specific cultural identities and
[01:08:29] specific ways of of of acting and then
[01:08:32] the C people has another one this is
[01:08:35] something I mean yamnaya and CW are
[01:08:39] terms created by
[01:08:41] archaeologists names for specific burial
[01:08:44] customs and it is important here that
[01:08:47] this is specific burial Customs that
[01:08:50] also provide good preservation of Bones
[01:08:51] and thus they are providing the a good
[01:08:53] source for adna sampling
[01:08:56] and this is okay this doesn't pose a
[01:08:59] large problem but I think it does pose a
[01:09:02] problem when you then take this kind of
[01:09:04] sample so yam as a sample an
[01:09:07] archaeologically available sample of
[01:09:09] probably a huge variety of people living
[01:09:11] on the steps and then you create these
[01:09:13] people because they have a specific
[01:09:15] veral ritual you create them as being
[01:09:17] one specific group of people with a
[01:09:20] specific biology and a specific cultural
[01:09:22] identity who do specific things in your
[01:09:25] Europe This is dangerous I think because
[01:09:28] it it really has political implications
[01:09:30] you went into this Christian in the end
[01:09:33] it is a biologization of social
[01:09:35] identities something that has been long
[01:09:37] overcome by social science and some
[01:09:40] something that is also uh not really
[01:09:43] anymore part of at least our humanistic
[01:09:45] way of looking at
[01:09:48] societies biology to biolog or to bi
[01:09:52] biologized social identities is to
[01:09:56] imply that throughout human history from
[01:09:58] the beginning there have been
[01:10:01] biologically defined
[01:10:03] cultures this would be if if it is I
[01:10:06] mean it it leads people to believe when
[01:10:09] we archaeologists construct these things
[01:10:12] and put them in the prehistory it looks
[01:10:14] as if these right-wing person who think
[01:10:17] that we are living here in a kind of
[01:10:20] period where there are people with
[01:10:21] different qualities because of their
[01:10:23] biology and they are having a culture a
[01:10:25] clash and they are extinguishing each
[01:10:27] other this is something that really
[01:10:30] feeds into ideologies that I think we
[01:10:33] should not U support so yes it is a new
[01:10:38] prehistory that we may not like I would
[01:10:40] go further and say that the kind of uh
[01:10:43] model that's being made here so the idea
[01:10:46] of biologically determined social groups
[01:10:49] fighting each other um the absence of
[01:10:52] individual agency in the overall uh um
[01:10:55] model and also the subordination of
[01:10:58] women uh under men this is actually not
[01:11:01] only a prehistory that we may not like
[01:11:03] it is a view of human nature a politic
[01:11:06] political ideology that we should not
[01:11:10] support I will sum up now I think my
[01:11:13] time is up also all in all definitely
[01:11:16] what I wanted to uh show here is that
[01:11:19] the integration of DNA and social theory
[01:11:22] that we are interested in in archaeology
[01:11:24] it start started out on a wrong foot but
[01:11:27] uh Christian you have surely been one of
[01:11:30] the persons who have best helped to
[01:11:32] steer the discourse into the right
[01:11:34] direction I mean I wouldn't take any of
[01:11:36] this away you highlight social processes
[01:11:39] you use anthropological knowledge and I
[01:11:41] think especially when we look at the
[01:11:43] third
[01:11:44] millennium um your model is a good
[01:11:46] starting point but it is clear that it
[01:11:48] shouldn't be seen as a kind of final
[01:11:50] narrative I don't think you do that
[01:11:52] either it needs to be open to critique
[01:11:54] of some some of the empirical data it
[01:11:57] needs to be especially I think open for
[01:11:59] more Regional local
[01:12:01] variation and of course it could benefit
[01:12:04] from a broad array of anthropological
[01:12:06] models to explain what is actually going
[01:12:07] on and definitely I think there is no
[01:12:09] need for these biologized Yuma quw
[01:12:12] peoples they're actually not necessary
[01:12:13] at all for this model functions very
[01:12:15] well without thank
[01:12:22] you migrate again and ch then to migrate
[01:12:26] to the country resembling New Zealand
[01:12:28] the most which is Norway and they have
[01:12:30] been in Norway since
[01:12:32] 2008 uh where they have been both
[01:12:35] establishing themselves as researchers
[01:12:37] and now um basan together with his wife
[01:12:40] is uh running the first Norwegian
[01:12:43] ancient DNA lab uh at the University of
[01:12:46] Oslo and because of strong competition
[01:12:49] they concentrate on other DNA than human
[01:12:52] DNA we will hear more about that I think
[01:12:54] now
[01:12:59] thank you very much it's really nice to
[01:13:00] be here and thank you for your kind
[01:13:01] introduction so as uh uh as you already
[01:13:05] heard so indeed my focus lies actually
[01:13:08] not on Ancient DNA of humans I I
[01:13:11] predominantly work with different
[01:13:12] species different animals and for us
[01:13:14] having uh having uh uh uh and therefore
[01:13:18] also are the stories that we're working
[01:13:20] on and the the questions that we ask are
[01:13:22] slightly different from than from the
[01:13:23] human ancient DNA field
[01:13:25] so I would like to talk a bit about what
[01:13:28] makes this ancient DNA uh technology so
[01:13:32] prevalent these last couple of years and
[01:13:34] how what can we do with this and uh what
[01:13:36] sort of what sort of technological
[01:13:38] advances underly the the the the the the
[01:13:42] huge Revolution if you've just heard and
[01:13:44] how we can assess the past as a proper
[01:13:47] uh uh archa no sorry uh uh ancient DNA
[01:13:50] person we have a Twitter account almost
[01:13:52] all ancient DNA people have Twitter
[01:13:54] accounts so we're now super following
[01:13:55] suit and I would like to stress that for
[01:13:57] me ancient DNA is much more than human
[01:13:59] ancient DNA what we're really interested
[01:14:01] in is understanding the past from a
[01:14:03] variety of species and for us ancient
[01:14:06] samples are fantastic because these
[01:14:08] provide a window of opportunity to look
[01:14:10] into the past before humans have had a
[01:14:12] massive impact on the natural world or
[01:14:14] so we think so what I would like to
[01:14:16] stress is that you can get ancient DNA
[01:14:18] from from from herar herbarium specimens
[01:14:21] there on the top right you can get it
[01:14:23] from different kinds of biological
[01:14:24] science
[01:14:25] and you can get it even from sedimentary
[01:14:27] ancient DNA and for a bi for a biologist
[01:14:30] this is fantastic material especially
[01:14:32] for example from the sedimentary ancient
[01:14:33] DNA if these are nicely layered sediment
[01:14:36] layers we can really try to better
[01:14:38] understand the past distribution of
[01:14:39] species and animals and in that sense
[01:14:42] understand for example things like
[01:14:43] climate change or human impacts on
[01:14:45] particular species distributions and
[01:14:47] this is for us as biologist a f
[01:14:49] fascinating tool and and we're still
[01:14:51] learning about what we can do with
[01:14:53] ancient DNA and we're still learning
[01:14:55] learning about samples that we can
[01:14:56] actually use and I just wanted to
[01:14:58] highlight for me a fascinating example
[01:14:59] that was just recently published and
[01:15:01] there is pair here in the room he knows
[01:15:03] more about this as well is how people
[01:15:06] got ancient DNA out of old Birch sap uh
[01:15:10] chewing gums that were up to 10,000
[01:15:12] years old and in that sense you're
[01:15:13] basically looking at the person persons
[01:15:15] who chewed that stuff 10,000 years ago I
[01:15:18] find that a fascinating source of
[01:15:20] ancient DNA forensics that for me was
[01:15:22] still mindblowing in my work I do work
[01:15:25] regularly with archaeologists and I do
[01:15:28] like to think that we work well with
[01:15:30] archaeologists but for me I'm going to
[01:15:31] talk to my archology friend and say that
[01:15:33] the work that we do together frees up
[01:15:35] their intellectual property I find that
[01:15:37] thank you I'm taking that away from this
[01:15:39] uh this evening in in in any case so I
[01:15:43] just like to stress the
[01:15:46] phenomenal technological advances that
[01:15:48] have only recently really knocked
[01:15:50] through the the biological sciences what
[01:15:53] you see here is a graph with a couple of
[01:15:55] dates only up to 2017 and what you see
[01:15:58] here on the white is moors law and Moors
[01:16:00] law comes actually from the from the uh
[01:16:04] from The computational Sciences and it
[01:16:06] represents a doubling of the amount of
[01:16:08] chips that we have every two roughly two
[01:16:10] years and in that sense this is a
[01:16:12] straight line but it's actually an
[01:16:14] exponential line and it's the line that
[01:16:16] has made sure that the telephone that
[01:16:17] you're carrying right now in your pocket
[01:16:19] has more power than any computer that
[01:16:21] you would could could buy as a consumer
[01:16:23] in the '90s for example so it goes
[01:16:25] extremely fast what we see here then is
[01:16:28] an even faster drop in sequencing costs
[01:16:31] right and this is beyond the exponential
[01:16:33] and this means that we completely change
[01:16:35] the way that we can analyze and obtain
[01:16:37] our data so for example I myself was
[01:16:39] personally involved in the sequencing of
[01:16:40] the Atlantic Cod genome that was a
[01:16:42] Norwegian effort it was in
[01:16:44] 2011 when we did this this was a project
[01:16:47] that we worked on with several
[01:16:50] postdocs a couple of phds and it took us
[01:16:54] several years and then in the end we
[01:16:55] published this in nature which was a
[01:16:56] great result what we do now we've just
[01:16:59] got a PhD who's doing a similar type of
[01:17:02] project on his own it's going to be a
[01:17:04] chapter in his thesis we hope published
[01:17:06] in nature but we probably won't manage
[01:17:09] and we do this of a nonsense ground okay
[01:17:11] so this is just 5 years it's a complete
[01:17:14] change of what we do it's a complete
[01:17:16] change in how we can work and this has
[01:17:18] been the major driver in what we can do
[01:17:21] and obtain data in the ancient DNA world
[01:17:24] and because there you need a lot of
[01:17:26] sequencing okay so another reason why
[01:17:30] ancient DNA and especially melan anci
[01:17:33] DNA has been so successful and
[01:17:35] reproducible the last couple of years is
[01:17:37] by finding out that we need to select
[01:17:39] the right type of biological material
[01:17:41] and that is found in 2014 already what
[01:17:44] you see here is a comparison oh it's
[01:17:47] working per individual sample of a bone
[01:17:50] called The Petal bone the petus bone and
[01:17:53] this is a bone that sits inside the m
[01:17:54] alen skill it's a tiny bone and that
[01:17:57] bone carries a lot more endogenous DNA
[01:18:00] than any type of other bone in the human
[01:18:02] or mamalian body and this is a game Cher
[01:18:05] because suddenly rather than having very
[01:18:08] little endogenous DNA and endogenous DNA
[01:18:11] is the DNA of the specimen that you're
[01:18:12] interested in and not some sort of DNA
[01:18:15] of of the of the microbials or whatever
[01:18:17] it is that you can find in your ancient
[01:18:19] sample that completely changes how we
[01:18:21] can actually obtain DNA and that
[01:18:23] completely changes a also puts a lot of
[01:18:25] pressure on these type of sample because
[01:18:27] with these type of sample you can answer
[01:18:29] specific questions that you cannot do
[01:18:31] with other samples and we know this from
[01:18:33] ourselves as well so uh we working for
[01:18:36] example on Ancient sheep samples and
[01:18:38] what you see here is a list of samples
[01:18:40] here on the on the on the xaxis and on
[01:18:42] the y axis you see the amount of
[01:18:44] endogenous DNA and what you can see here
[01:18:47] most of these samples are petus bone and
[01:18:50] what you can see here is that most of
[01:18:51] our samples have some DNA and a large
[01:18:54] number of them also have a high amount
[01:18:56] of DNA okay so this means that most of
[01:18:58] these samples we can do something with
[01:19:00] it for example onethird of these samples
[01:19:02] we have taken on to do deep sequencing
[01:19:04] and go further with and this means this
[01:19:07] is actually really a change from the
[01:19:09] earlier ancient DNA world where we
[01:19:10] didn't know so much and what we actually
[01:19:12] have to work with is a large screening
[01:19:14] data set where we have to screen
[01:19:15] hundreds of samples and only a few of
[01:19:17] them work so this changes the way again
[01:19:19] how we obtain
[01:19:21] DNA so this has led to a prolif eration
[01:19:25] and you've just seen a few of these
[01:19:26] examples here presented by by by by
[01:19:28] Christian about how much and this is
[01:19:31] still mindboggling to me how much how
[01:19:33] fast this has evolved as well so just a
[01:19:35] few years ago the number of ancient
[01:19:37] human genomes that you that were
[01:19:39] published is just a handful it's just
[01:19:41] one or two and by now we have data sets
[01:19:44] being published that contain hundreds if
[01:19:46] not thousands of human ancient human
[01:19:48] genomes and also of particularly of
[01:19:51] increasingly high of increasingly high
[01:19:54] quality as well with more than what we
[01:19:56] biologists like to call One X coverage
[01:19:58] which means that you have screened all
[01:19:59] the bases in the genome at least once on
[01:20:02] average okay and this also has led of
[01:20:05] course to a complete change in the focus
[01:20:07] of these manuscripts initially this was
[01:20:08] a lot of technological advancements we
[01:20:10] sequenced the oldest genome we sequenced
[01:20:13] the oldest genome in this part of the
[01:20:15] world right and what we see now is that
[01:20:17] there is coming on comparative
[01:20:19] population data sets containing hundreds
[01:20:21] of individuals and and in that sense
[01:20:23] also addressing some of Martin's concern
[01:20:25] as well increasingly detailed hypothesis
[01:20:27] can be tested by more and more samples
[01:20:31] okay and this is just going to continue
[01:20:34] so for me still it's a a a a fascinating
[01:20:38] uh fascinating realization that from
[01:20:41] sometimes bones that you normally would
[01:20:43] with that very little phenotypic or or
[01:20:46] or or or or or other kind of
[01:20:48] zooarchaeological measurements you might
[01:20:51] be able to obtain DNA from such a bone
[01:20:54] and that DNA
[01:20:55] is directly comparable to a wide range
[01:20:57] of modern algorithms that are exquisit
[01:21:00] and it's exquisitly adaptable to those
[01:21:02] things so all kinds of analysis that we
[01:21:05] like to do and that have been developed
[01:21:07] for modern DNA can be immediately
[01:21:09] transferred to ancient DNA with some
[01:21:11] certain uh with with some some uh some
[01:21:14] some some some small limitations
[01:21:18] and but then with the greater advantage
[01:21:21] that these are spaced in time so this
[01:21:23] really allows then to address spatial
[01:21:25] temporal questions in a way not not seen
[01:21:27] before and we've seen the example of
[01:21:28] that with with Christian's paper like I
[01:21:32] said from a biolog biological
[01:21:34] perspective for us these samples are
[01:21:36] invaluable because they allow us to
[01:21:38] transfer back our biological Knowledge
[01:21:40] from before human influence and this is
[01:21:42] of course our biological uh interest as
[01:21:44] well so but I like to stress that what
[01:21:47] we've learned so far and what we've been
[01:21:49] talking about so far is mainly human
[01:21:52] only and the applications that we see
[01:21:54] here indeed rely exquisitly on on on an
[01:21:58] excellent genome assembly on extensive
[01:22:01] uh comparative reference data sets and
[01:22:03] this is not available for all the
[01:22:05] species that we or at least as a
[01:22:07] biologist is that I'm interested in so
[01:22:09] mainly the story of ancient DNA so far
[01:22:12] has been regarding uh humans as we've
[01:22:14] seen or regarding domesticated species
[01:22:17] for which also such tools are available
[01:22:20] but I would like to say that if we want
[01:22:21] to work with a lot more species and
[01:22:23] better understand the biological IC work
[01:22:25] we're going to need and we're going to
[01:22:26] get more of those uh more of those uh
[01:22:29] those genomic
[01:22:35] tools but I would also like to stress
[01:22:37] and this is something that I I find more
[01:22:39] and more in my work and we've seen
[01:22:40] really fantastic examples here already
[01:22:42] is that ancient DNA is not the golden
[01:22:44] bullet it's just one of the tools
[01:22:46] available to understand the past and we
[01:22:49] really need all kinds of inference like
[01:22:51] stable isotope analysis there's a whole
[01:22:53] range of different methods there certain
[01:22:56] kinds of dating carbon dating uranium
[01:22:58] dating all of these aspects population
[01:23:00] genetics time seress analysis and then
[01:23:02] very importantly if we do not understand
[01:23:04] the archaological context of a sample
[01:23:06] for a biologist such a sample is
[01:23:08] immediately worth a lot a lot less we
[01:23:10] really need to work together with the
[01:23:12] archaeologist and to obtain to obtain
[01:23:15] the context I can't do that I can't even
[01:23:17] assess whether an excavation has been
[01:23:19] done properly or not uh historical
[01:23:21] context that's not my expertise I really
[01:23:23] need the people around to really help uh
[01:23:26] to help uh to help to help make this
[01:23:29] project or make this multidisiplinary
[01:23:31] inference for the integration for the
[01:23:33] best inference so for myself and this
[01:23:36] was mentioned in the introduction is we
[01:23:39] recently published a story on the trade
[01:23:41] of Atlantic wvs from Greenland and this
[01:23:43] was a DNA based study only and I don't
[01:23:45] really want to go into details here
[01:23:47] because I have no time but one of the
[01:23:49] findings was that we could trace the
[01:23:51] biological origin of of of hunted rers
[01:23:53] as a medieval Europe based on their DNA
[01:23:56] but that that this method was imperfect
[01:23:58] in that we could actually Trace one
[01:24:00] variant with certainty but the other
[01:24:02] variant we had to take some assumptions
[01:24:04] and what we now have and I can't publish
[01:24:06] you I can't show you these results is
[01:24:07] that based on additional inference from
[01:24:10] stable isotopes and from Zoo
[01:24:12] archaeologic zo zoo archaeology we can
[01:24:14] create a much richer narrative about
[01:24:17] where these samples have come from and
[01:24:19] in fact show that there has been uh uh
[01:24:23] which which changes some of our
[01:24:24] assumptions and creates this richer
[01:24:26] narrative so this is a story that we'll
[01:24:28] be submitting soon and for me was a real
[01:24:30] eye opener how I stable isotopes can
[01:24:33] actually help the inference of the of
[01:24:35] the of the DNA uh of the DNA
[01:24:38] world so where do we go from here so
[01:24:41] it's still a very young discipline from
[01:24:43] a biological perspective this means that
[01:24:45] we're still going to see improved
[01:24:46] methodology we're going to see more
[01:24:48] samples pop up we're going to see better
[01:24:50] way of ways of dealing with these
[01:24:51] samples in the lab and we're going to
[01:24:52] see more ancient DNA proc uh
[01:24:55] methological uh approach is being
[01:24:58] developed as well this is going to be a
[01:25:00] continuing thing for for I don't know
[01:25:01] how long and it's going to it's going to
[01:25:03] keep on so but I also think we're going
[01:25:06] to see more
[01:25:08] papers like the one Martin referred to
[01:25:11] and like the one Christian referred to
[01:25:12] where we see a greater in integration of
[01:25:14] methods it's not going to be just
[01:25:16] ancient DNA I think it's going to be
[01:25:17] especially for the human narrative it's
[01:25:19] going to be an integration of methods
[01:25:20] where we're going to use multiproxy
[01:25:22] influences to really figure out what has
[01:25:23] happen to to these samples how were
[01:25:26] these samples found how were they
[01:25:28] actually uh and what their diet was for
[01:25:30] example all kinds of Integrative methods
[01:25:32] will will will will certainly improve
[01:25:34] the inference here
[01:25:36] now one of the things is is that there
[01:25:38] was of course a discussion about the
[01:25:40] dominance of certain labs in the ancient
[01:25:42] DNA world but by now many many Labs of
[01:25:44] ancient DNA have been popping up and
[01:25:46] this is of course also because all these
[01:25:48] dominant labs they also produce posts
[01:25:50] that go up and go and make their own
[01:25:51] labs and this is actually not the most
[01:25:53] recent one because in way we have now
[01:25:55] three ancient DNA Labs so what I also
[01:25:57] would hope is that it's not rocket
[01:25:59] science ancient DNA and it should become
[01:26:01] increasingly available as a method for
[01:26:03] investigation for a wide range of
[01:26:04] archaeologists and then you don't have
[01:26:06] to go to these dominant Labs because
[01:26:07] they're the only player in the world and
[01:26:09] I think in that sense it would also
[01:26:10] allow for a much larger democratization
[01:26:12] of ancient
[01:26:14] DNA whether it's going to become even
[01:26:16] more Laboratories or not I don't know
[01:26:18] but there is already quite a few out
[01:26:20] there what I also think is that there is
[01:26:23] a real emphasis on obtaining more
[01:26:26] reference genomes so like like like like
[01:26:29] projects like the genome 10K that aims
[01:26:31] to sequence 10,000 vertebrate genomes
[01:26:33] and invertebrate genomes or even more
[01:26:35] ambitious the Earth biogenome Project
[01:26:37] which aims to sequence all for all ukar
[01:26:40] at life on Earth in a 10 year pre in a
[01:26:43] 10-e period which if they would only
[01:26:45] partly succeed would mean a complete
[01:26:47] revolution of the sequencing industry
[01:26:49] again because we don't currently don't
[01:26:51] have the infrastructure to even almost
[01:26:53] contemplate such efforts but regardless
[01:26:56] whether this is going to go through or
[01:26:57] not such data will make more and more
[01:27:00] species available for archaeological
[01:27:03] inference and allows us then to T to
[01:27:05] Target more and different
[01:27:07] questions and then finally I still think
[01:27:09] we're going to also see a further
[01:27:11] integration between the archaeological
[01:27:13] and biological sciences at the moment
[01:27:15] I'm part of a international training
[01:27:17] Network which is actually led by an
[01:27:18] archaeologist whereby we really go and
[01:27:21] basically train a new breed of
[01:27:22] scientists that sits on the interface
[01:27:24] between these two disciplines which I
[01:27:26] hope would help also create a better
[01:27:28] narrative between the two disciplines
[01:27:30] because we do have different cultures
[01:27:33] biology is not archaeology we do publish
[01:27:36] in different journals we have different
[01:27:37] styles of writing we have different
[01:27:39] styles of presenting and like Christian
[01:27:41] said it's not easy to dis to to cross
[01:27:44] these discipline it requires effort from
[01:27:46] both sides Andes longer work uh the
[01:27:50] papers will go a bit slower because you
[01:27:51] have to really sit together and talk
[01:27:53] things through and appreciate each other
[01:27:55] from the different
[01:27:57] fields yeah and with that I'd like to
[01:27:59] thank you
[01:28:01] [Applause]

The video explores the groundbreaking work of Beth Shapiro in the field of ancient DNA and its implications for understanding climate change and human evolution. Shapiro discusses the discovery of well-preserved mammoth bones frozen in permafrost, highlighting their potential for providing insights into past ecosystems and climatic shifts.

Initially drawn to genomics through her interest in glaciers and climate change, Shapiro joined one of the earliest ancient DNA labs at Oxford University. Despite her lack of experience in molecular biology, she capitalized on advancements in next-generation sequencing technologies, which enabled scientists to analyze even the smallest fragments of DNA. This technological leap allowed for the extraction of DNA from ancient specimens, such as a mammoth fossil from Siberia, revealing that only half of the recovered DNA was mammoth, with the rest comprising other organisms like bacteria and fungi.

Shapiro's research has significantly contributed to our understanding of human evolution, revealing how ancient populations interacted and adapted to environmental changes. By comparing genomes of modern and archaic humans, her team identified specific genetic adaptations that differentiate humans from Neanderthals and Denisovans, suggesting a focused future research direction on these mutations as indicators of what defines humanity.

The video emphasizes the relevance of paleogenomics in informing conservation efforts. Shapiro posits that examining ancient ecosystems, particularly during rapid warming events 10,000 to 15,000 years ago, can provide crucial insights into community resilience amid climate change. The emergence of new technologies allows for the recovery of DNA from environmental samples, enabling a broader understanding of past ecosystems and their dynamics. This knowledge is essential for making informed decisions about preserving contemporary ecosystems in the face of ongoing climate challenges.

The transcript discusses the significant advancements in the field of ancient DNA and its applications in understanding ancestry, population structure, and migration patterns. Initially, the extraction of DNA relied heavily on polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which required longer and more intact fragments of DNA. However, with the advent of next-generation sequencing (NGS), scientists like Beth Shapiro could analyze even the smallest and most degraded DNA fragments, opening up new avenues for research.

In the context of ancient DNA analysis, Beth mentions, "we could target and recover even the tiniest shortest most broken fragments of DNA". This ability has enabled researchers to conduct detailed population genetics studies, allowing them to trace lineage and migration routes over time. For instance, when analyzing a mammoth fossil from Siberia, it was discovered that only about half of the DNA recovered was from the mammoth itself, while the other half comprised bacterial and microbial DNA. This indicates the complex interactions within ecosystems and highlights the importance of understanding environmental contexts when interpreting genetic data.

Furthermore, the transcript touches on how comparing genomes from ancient and modern humans has unveiled insights into human evolution. By examining the neanderthal and denisovan genomes, researchers can identify regions of the genome shared by all humans, which may have contributed to adaptive changes. These genetic insights provide invaluable information on how different populations have diverged and interacted over millennia, shedding light on human ancestry and admixture.

•  
  • [01:39] "It was really with the advent of next generation sequencing technologies, where we could target and recover even the tiniest shortest most broken fragments of DNA."
  • [02:21] "By comparing each one of those tiny fragments of DNA to the online database of all the fragments of DNA that have ever been published..."
  • [03:53] "Comparing the genomes of modern and archaic humans has also led to a deeper understanding of what makes us different from our ancient cousins."

The transcript provides a glimpse into the understanding of human dispersal over the last 200,000 years through genetic evidence. While specific routes, waves, and timings of migration are not explicitly detailed, it implies significant insights derived from studying ancient DNA. The analysis of ancient DNA has allowed scientists to construct a more nuanced understanding of how humans interacted with each other and adapted to changing environments during the Neolithic period.

Beth Shapiro mentions that genome-wide data from hundreds of human remains from archaeological sites around the world has facilitated a comprehensive understanding of human movements and interactions. This suggests that there were multiple migration waves, as humans dispersed from Africa and settled across continents.

Although the transcript does not provide explicit dates or detailed timelines, it refers to the Neolithic era's impact on human evolution, indicating a period of significant change and adaptation. The advent of agriculture and domestication of animals during this time likely influenced human population dynamics and settlement patterns, although the precise timings and routes of these migrations remain open to further research.

In summary, while the transcript does not provide a detailed timeline or specific migration routes, it points to the importance of genetic studies in elucidating human dispersal and adaptation across different geographical regions over the last several millennia.

•  
  • [03:11] "We now have genome-wide data from hundreds of human remains from archaeological sites from across the world..."
  • [03:27] "...how environmental changes and the neolithic, the use of domestic animals and plants really changed our lineage helped us to adapt to become what we are today."

The transcript does not provide specific landmark studies, papers, or projects directly by name. However, it does mention several key areas of research and discoveries that are foundational in the field of ancient DNA. Beth Shapiro's involvement in one of the earliest ancient DNA labs at Oxford University signifies a crucial development in this field. Her work exemplifies the early days of ancient DNA research, where the focus was on understanding how DNA is preserved in the remains of organisms after they die, paving the way for future studies.

One notable breakthrough discussed is the use of next-generation sequencing technologies, which allows researchers to analyze tiny fragments of DNA that were previously difficult to study. This technological advancement has led to significant discoveries about population genetics and historical migrations, as evidenced by the analysis of mammoth DNA, which revealed that a considerable portion of the recovered DNA came from microbes rather than the mammoth itself.

Additionally, the transcript highlights the broader implications of ancient DNA research in understanding human evolution, particularly through comparisons between modern and archaic human genomes, including the neanderthal and denisovan genomes. These studies have provided insights into adaptive changes and genetic differences between ancient and modern human populations.

While the transcript does not cite specific studies or researchers beyond Beth Shapiro, it underscores the transformative impact of ancient DNA analysis on our understanding of human history and evolution.

•  
  • [01:16] "I ended up at Oxford University where one of the earliest ancient DNA labs was, and had an opportunity to join this field."
  • [04:12] "...the next phase of research in human evolution is really i think going to focus in part on these mutations because these are the clues to what it is that makes us human."

The transcript provides limited explicit dates regarding human evolution or migration but does mention a significant timeframe when discussing climate change and its effects on ecosystems. It refers to a rapid warming event that occurred approximately 10,000 to 15,000 years ago, following the last ice age. This period is critical as it was associated with mass extinctions and a reshuffling of ecosystems and communities, which would have had profound implications for human populations and their dispersal patterns.

Additionally, while discussing the Neolithic period, the transcript implies a timeframe of significant human development and adaptation through the domestication of plants and animals. This period is generally understood to have begun around 10,000 years ago, marking a transition from hunter-gatherer societies to more settled agricultural communities.

Overall, while the transcript does not provide a detailed chronological timeline linking specific dates to events, it highlights the significance of the last 10,000 to 15,000 years in understanding human evolution and adaptability in response to climate change and environmental shifts.

•  
  • [04:35] "If we want to understand what happened during a period of rapid global warming we only have to look as far back as about 10 to 15 000 years ago..."
  • [03:27] "...how environmental changes and the neolithic, the use of domestic animals and plants really changed our lineage..."

The transcript discusses the genetic impact of admixture and interbreeding with other hominins, specifically referencing Neanderthals and Denisovans. Beth Shapiro mentions that comparing the genomes of modern humans with those of Neanderthals and Denisovans has led to a better understanding of shared genetic traits. She notes, "are there regions of the genome where all humans share variants?" This inquiry indicates ongoing research into the genetic legacy left by these interactions, particularly in identifying adaptive changes that modern humans possess but Neanderthals do not.

Shapiro suggests that the next phase of research in human evolution will focus on these mutations, which are clues to what makes modern humans unique. This points to the idea that admixture with archaic human species has had a significant impact on the genetic structure of contemporary populations.

While the transcript does not provide specific data on the extent of admixture or the exact genetic contributions from Neanderthals or Denisovans, the implications of such interbreeding are profound. It suggests that modern human populations may carry genetic traits that enhance adaptability and survival, shaped by their interactions with these archaic relatives.

•  
  • [03:42] "Comparing the genomes of modern and archaic humans has also led to a deeper understanding of what makes us different from our ancient cousins."
  • [03:48] "...are there regions of the genome where all humans share variants?"

The transcript does not explicitly mention genetic evidence specific to regions such as Africa, the Middle East, Europe, Asia, Oceania, or the Americas. However, it emphasizes the broader implications of genetic studies in understanding human evolution and dispersal. Beth Shapiro refers to genome-wide data from human remains found in archaeological sites across the world, which suggests that diverse populations have been studied.

By analyzing ancient DNA, researchers can uncover patterns of migration and adaptation that may have occurred in various regions, though specific evidence from these named areas is not detailed in the transcript. The mention of the Neolithic period indicates that significant changes in human populations and their interactions with the environment likely occurred globally, affecting various regions.

Overall, while the transcript provides insights into the methodologies and significance of ancient DNA research, it lacks detailed summaries or key findings related to specific geographical regions. This limitation indicates a need for further data and analysis in different global contexts.

•  
  • [03:05] "We now have genome-wide data from hundreds of human remains from archaeological sites from across the world..."
  • [04:06] "...the next phase of research in human evolution is really i think going to focus in part on these mutations..."

The transcript emphasizes the interconnections between genetic evidence and our understanding of human evolution, particularly in relation to archaeology and paleoanthropology. Beth Shapiro discusses how ancient DNA analysis has provided a new lens through which to view human history, highlighting its role in refining our understanding of human dispersal and interaction over time.

For instance, the ability to access ancient DNA has allowed researchers to compare genomes from modern humans and archaic human species such as Neanderthals and Denisovans. This genetic comparison reveals insights into shared traits and adaptations, which complement archaeological findings about human behavior and migration patterns. Shapiro states, "We’ve managed to narrow this down to actually a really small portion of the genome..." This indicates that genetic evidence can confirm and refine archaeological interpretations of human evolution.

Additionally, the transcript touches on the implications of ancient DNA in understanding the climatic and ecological systems of the past. By analyzing not just human remains but also the broader ecosystem, including plants and microbes, scientists can paint a more comprehensive picture of how environmental changes impacted human populations. This holistic approach reflects a growing trend in research that intertwines genetic evidence with archaeological and paleoanthropological data.

In summary, while the transcript does not delve deeply into specific archaeological or linguistic evidence, it highlights the potential of ancient DNA research to enhance our understanding of human history and evolution by integrating genetic findings with other scientific disciplines.

•  
  • [03:53] "Gathering ancient DNA provides a unique insight into climatic and ecological systems of the past."
  • [04:12] "...the next phase of research in human evolution is really i think going to focus in part on these mutations..."

The transcript acknowledges several limitations and uncertainties inherent in the study of ancient DNA. For instance, Beth Shapiro mentions that in the early days of ancient DNA research, scientists could only access DNA through PCR methods, which required long fragments of intact preserved DNA. This indicates a potential limitation in the types of samples that could be analyzed effectively. As she states, "we needed to find relatively long fragments of intact preserved DNA." This suggests that many samples may not have been suitable for analysis, leading to biases in the data.

Moreover, she expresses disappointment when discovering that only about half of the DNA recovered from a mammoth fossil was actually mammoth DNA; the rest comprised bacteria and microbes. This underscores the challenge of contamination and the difficulty in isolating specific genetic material from ancient samples, which can complicate the interpretation of results.

Shapiro also alludes to the broader implications of ancient DNA analysis in understanding historical ecosystems, noting that most specimens worked with have very little endogenous DNA. This limitation emphasizes the need for careful interpretation of genetic data, as the conclusions drawn may be affected by the preservation state of the samples. Furthermore, she points to the need for ongoing research and advancements in technology to improve the resolution and accuracy of findings.

In conclusion, the transcript highlights the critical need to acknowledge these uncertainties and limitations in ancient DNA research, as they can significantly affect the confidence in conclusions regarding human evolution and migration.

•  
  • [02:46] "Most of the specimens that we work with have very little DNA that is endogenous to that animal."
  • [02:26] "We were super disappointed we thought oh no it’s actually going to take us so much more sequencing to get a whole mammoth genome."

The transcript highlights several technological and analytical advances that have significantly changed the study of ancient DNA. The initial reliance on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) limited researchers to longer and more intact DNA fragments, which constrained their ability to analyze ancient samples effectively. Beth Shapiro notes, "In the early days we could only access DNA using PCR." This method imposed limitations on the types of samples that could be successfully analyzed, often leaving many potentially valuable specimens unexamined due to their degraded state.

However, the advent of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies marked a transformative shift in this field. With NGS, researchers can now target and recover even the tiniest, most broken fragments of DNA, as Shapiro explains: "we could target and recover even the tiniest shortest most broken fragments of DNA." This capability allows for more comprehensive studies of ancient populations and ecosystems, enabling scientists to conduct population genetics at scale.