Jump to content

Talk:Yamnaya culture: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Yamnaya culture/Archive 1) (bot
(22 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Archaeology |class=C |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Archaeology |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Central Asia|class=C|importance=mid|Kazakhstan=yes|Kazakhstan-importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Central Asia|importance=mid|Kazakhstan=yes|Kazakhstan-importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Ukraine|class=C|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Ukraine|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Romania|class=C|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Romania|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Moldova|class=C|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Moldova|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Russia|class=C|importance=Mid|hist=yes|ethno=yes}}
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=Mid|hist=yes|ethno=yes}}
}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
Line 18: Line 18:
}}
}}


== Yamnaya phenotype-physical appearance ==
== No mention of South Caucauses/Iranian influence ==


In the supplementals in this study we can see that they had dark brown and black hair (almost 100% of them), brown eyes (100%) and half had intermediate skin and the other half intermediate to dark skin and dark skin
Interestingly, there is no mention of the Iranian/South Caucauses influence on Yamnaya, even though most researchers (Reich, Wang, and Max Plank Institute) have repeatedly noted the clear influence from Iranian and the South Caucauses. Most of the "CHG" component conflated, is actually Iranian in origin. In other words, transitively, the Yamnaya were Iranian/S. Caucasian, according to a lot of recent studies in the field.


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982221005352
:Read carefully. [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span>]] -[[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span>]] 05:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


I suggest this is added in the physical appearance section, it's the most up to date study about examining how yamnaya individuals looked (how their genes expressed) I could find [[Special:Contributions/62.74.110.28|62.74.110.28]] ([[User talk:62.74.110.28|talk]]) 22:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
== Parpola (2015): Late Tripolye → Yamnaya ==


:I'm gonna assume that you thought that it meant that Yamnaya were as dark as South Asians but do you realize that South Europeans also score the same results? That is misleading people because of what they consider intermediate and dark results. Intermediate-to-dark skin = South European results therefore the Yamnaya had the same skin color as South Europeans. Obviously when someone that has never seen what others score on programs such as Hirisplex they will assume that the Intermediate-to-dark = East African/South Asian type of color but that's wrong and misleading. [[User:Itisme3248|Itisme3248]] ([[User talk:Itisme3248|talk]]) 11:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
We cite Parpola (2015) for the hypothesis that the Yamnaya culture is the result of an expansion of the Late Tripolye culture in to the steppe and subsequent fusion with local pastoralist cultures. I've seen now in Mallory (1989) on p. 243 that he attributes a pretty similar narrative (which he rejects) to Colin Renfrew (''Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins'', 1987). Two questions here: 1) Is anyone of you sufficiently familiar with Renfrew's book so we could mention him here too? 2) What is the critical reception of Parpola's more recent proposal? His argument is of course somewhat peripheral to the main topic of his book, but I'm sure this must have elicited some response from peers. –[[User:Austronesier|Austronesier]] ([[User talk:Austronesier|talk]]) 16:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


::The supplementary information for [https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq0755 this] paper contains several unambiguous statements about the typical Yamnaya phenotype: brown hair, brown eyes, intermediate skin, with no blondes and no blue eyes. Hopefully this is the final nail in the coffin of the Blonde Yamnaya Hoax 😁. (I think there was a predicted blonde Afanasievo though, so there must be a blonde Yamna out there somewhere...) [[User:Tewdar|<span style='font-family:"sans-serif";color:#fcaf17;background-color:#000000;'><b>&nbsp;Tewdar&nbsp;</b></span>]] 10:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
:I'm unacquanited with Renfrew; Parpola's proposal seems unlikely, as far as I can see, but I've forgotten why. And it's my conclusiin; I don't know of any review of this particular idea, except that it doesn't seem to have gained any traction. How exactly Yamnaya and CW are related is still a mystery. [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span>]] -[[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span>]] 17:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
:Yet this "study" has the same issue as all the recent "studies" who reveal coloured or black skin in the ancestry of caucasians. It does not explain where this brown people dissapeared, because you can not whiten people, you can only make their skin darker, since white is recessive and no migration can bring 100 whites for every black person. Meaning, where people are white in the "old world", they were always white. Including north Africa and middle east, where those of color today are the result of recent migration, or slavery. [[Special:Contributions/46.97.168.69|46.97.168.69]] ([[User talk:46.97.168.69|talk]]) 14:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
:It's unlikely because Trypillia and Yamnaya material culture have practically nothing in common (quite remarkable, given that they were next door neighbours). Parpola's hypothesis, if he hasn't expanded on it in another publication, is also just a paragraph of speculation with no corroborating archaeological or genetic evidence. Unless others have picked up on it, I don't think it's due weight to include it here. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 21:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
::Sorry but that's complete nonsense. [[User:Ario1234|Ario1234]] ([[User talk:Ario1234|talk]]) 17:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
::The only other publication by Parpola I have found about it is [https://researchportal.helsinki.fi/en/publications/proto-indo-european-speakers-of-the-late-tripolye-culture-as-the- this paper] presented at WeCIEC, which has only 22 citations on Google Scholar[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=287324349791198013&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en], and most of these focus on the wheel part of his hypothesis. Searching for "Parpola"+"Tripolye"+"Yamnaya" (plus "Trypillia" + "Yamna" in all possible permutations) gives even less results. Per @Joe, I agree to remove this as a peripheral low-impact pet theory of an otherwise notable and eminent scholar. –[[User:Austronesier|Austronesier]] ([[User talk:Austronesier|talk]]) 14:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
::Delusion white supremacy crap. Gross [[Special:Contributions/2601:8C:B80:6660:E147:79D1:8764:FE1F|2601:8C:B80:6660:E147:79D1:8764:FE1F]] ([[User talk:2601:8C:B80:6660:E147:79D1:8764:FE1F|talk]]) 20:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


== Does this fall under MEDRS? ==
== New Article ==


Won't have time to go through this one in any detail for a while, but here is a [https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ade2451 fascinating new article] especially as to dating Yamnaya horseback riding. Cheers, all. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 19:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
{{tq|A 2022 study by Marnetto et al. found that high levels of Yamnaya ancestry in modern populations is associated with a strong physique, larger hips and waist, increased height, black hairs, and high cholesterol concentrations.}}


== What does this sentence in the article actually add? ==
Any comments... yes, you at the back, no not you Hunan201p... 😁 [[User:Tewdar|<span style='font-family:"sans-serif";color:#cfb53b;background-color:#000000;'><b>&nbsp;Tewdar&nbsp;</b></span>]] 11:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
The top section of the article (as of date of posting) contains the following paragraph:
:Yo Tewdar, I basically agree with Hunan201p not to cite Marnetto et al. here, although probably for different (and less "legally" defined) reasons. It's a new, still uncited research paper, which I generally discourage to use, and its main content is about physical features of ''present-day'' populations—a potential minefield and prone to abuse by the wandering circus of identity ideologists and other chauvinists from all corners of Europe (and wider Eurasia).
{{quote frame|There is now a rough scholarly consensus that the common ancestor of all Indo-European languages, with the possible exception of Anatolian, originated on the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and this language has been associated with the people of the Yamnaya culture.[13] Additionally, the Pontic-Caspian steppe is currently seen as the most likely candidate for the original homeland (German, Urheimat) of the Proto-Indo-European language, including the ancestor of the Anatolian branch.}}
:I don't want to cite [[WP:MEDRS]] here, but just [[WP:UNDUE]]. The (in)famous RfC at RSN says: {{tq|However, primary sources describing genetic or genomic research into human ancestry, ancient populations, ethnicity, race, and the like, should not be used to generate content about those subjects, which are controversial. High quality secondary sources as described above should be used instead. Genetic studies of human anatomy or phenotypes like intelligence should be sourced per WP:MEDRS".}} @Hunan201p: it says ''should'', not ''must''. The world isn't always as it should be, and there often good reasons for it. We all know that there are few review-type secondary sources in the field (because the most prolific cutting-edge researchers don't have time for it), and those which exist aren't necessarily "high quality", but rather perfunctory and defective. And even if there's a good secondary review article (like [http://www.pivotscipub.com/hpgg/2/1/0001/html this one]), it won't keep incompetent LTAs from citing the very parts of the study which contain ''novel'' terminology or categories instead of the actual summary of previous research. We can cite high quality primary sources ''if'' they are much-cited and well-supported by subsequent research. [https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aat7487 Narasimhan et al.] is a prime example for due inclusion in relevant WP articles. –[[User:Austronesier|Austronesier]] ([[User talk:Austronesier|talk]]) 14:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
To me, it seems like the second sentence reiterates the points of the first on, while also contradicting it by stating that no, the general consensus does not in fact exclude the Anatolian branch in this conjectured history of the origin of the Indo-European family. It's definitely possible that there are nuances here that are lost on me (and presumably others too) without the elaboration undoubtedly provided further on in the article. If that's the case, this paragraph should be rewritten to more clearly state the intended message. Otherwise, the second sentence should be incorporated into the first to avoid confusing people. In either case, this is most likely not the only occurrence of mismatched sentences in the article, so I think this article could probably benefit from a proof-read by someone more knowledgeable and specialized in this subject matter. {{nw}} --[[User:110521sgl|110521sgl]] ([[User talk:110521sgl|talk]]) 09:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


:I have exactly the same question. While Yamnaya is associated with Proto-IE, so is also Corded-Ware. While Corded-Ware also came from this region, it does not mean, that Corded Ware evolved from Yamnaya.
::Yeah, zero citations is stretching things a bit too far I think. 😂 [[User:Tewdar|<span style='font-family:"sans-serif";color:#cfb53b;background-color:#000000;'><b>&nbsp;Tewdar&nbsp;</b></span>]] 16:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
:Also, people might not be aware, but Yamnaya had a lot of influences from cultures of Caucasus - that included language. [[User:GrimDawn|GrimDawn]] ([[User talk:GrimDawn|talk]]) 16:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Marnetto, et al. actually did run a GWAS analysis on Yamnaya, and found that in contrast to the Estonian results, Yamnaya were more likely to have light eyes and light hair than dark hair or light eyes. They also predicted atypical phenotypical results for Western Hunter Gatherers (see the WHG GW plot indicating blond hair odds), in conflict with virtually every other study conducted prior. See [https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0960982222001087-gr3.jpg graph 3, figure B]. So if we include Marnetto we should definitely mention that their predictions for the Yamnaya themselves were light hair + light eyes, rather than the Estonian experiment which the authors suggest are not reflective of Yamnaya. -- [[User:Hunan201p|Hunan201p]] ([[User talk:Hunan201p|talk]]) 03:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
::::Nevertheless I am against adding for reasons Austronesier mentioned + [[WP:MEDRS]], since the paper does include risk factors. The standards exist for a reason. - [[User:Hunan201p|Hunan201p]] ([[User talk:Hunan201p|talk]]) 03:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Hunan201p}} - {{tq|Yamnaya were more likely to have light eyes and light hair than dark hair or light eyes.}} - if we were to include this article, we should probably go with the authors' stated conclusions, though, rather than trying to interpret the candidate region or whole-genome results ourselves and coming up with (incorrect) WP:OR like this. [[User:Tewdar|<span style='font-family:"sans-serif";color:#cfb53b;background-color:#000000;'><b>&nbsp;Tewdar&nbsp;</b></span>]] 09:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
:::::I'm also assuming you meant to say "... than dark hair or '''dark''' eyes" above. [[User:Tewdar|<span style='font-family:"sans-serif";color:#cfb53b;background-color:#000000;'><b>&nbsp;Tewdar&nbsp;</b></span>]] 09:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|Tewdar}} Please demonstrate where I was incorrect in my statement aside from the typo. The pigmentation GWAS results are in figure B, and clearly show that Yamnaya are shifted toward light eyes and light hair. As stated by the authors:
::::::::{{tq2|An enriched Yamnaya ancestry in the pigmentation candidate regions, '''in contrast with the genome wide analysis''', is linked to dark eye and hair colors, consistently with what inferred from aDNA data from the Baltic region6.}} - [[User:Hunan201p|Hunan201p]] ([[User talk:Hunan201p|talk]]) 09:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
::::::::: Is that from the pre-print? That sentence did not make it through peer review. Why do you consider the whole genome data to be the most "important" part of the study? [[User:Tewdar|<span style='font-family:"sans-serif";color:#cfb53b;background-color:#000000;'><b>&nbsp;Tewdar&nbsp;</b></span>]] 09:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::Just because the exact sentence is not in the Cell Biology paper doesn't mean it isn't there. I know it is, but can't retrieve it now. The GWAS data from Yamnaya aDNA is the most relevant to this article, because the article is about Yamnaya. To quote Austronesier, this study is mainly {{tq|...about physical features of ''present-day'' populations}}, and what you're adding is exactly that. The only thing relevant to Yamnaya in this paper is the actual GWAS study using their DNA samples. The paper actually acknowledges that the ancestry-trait associations are not reflective of the ancient population's phenotypes, so to add the paper's suggestion that Yamnaya ancestry is linked to hip size, or cholesterol, or whatever, in Estonians, is not really appropriate. Especially since it's a primary source. - [[User:Hunan201p|Hunan201p]] ([[User talk:Hunan201p|talk]]) 09:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::::Verbatim: {{tq|An enriched Yamnaya ancestry is linked to a strong build, with tall stature (in agreement with previous studies6,8) and increased hip and waist circumferences, both at genome-wide and region-specific levels, but also to black hairs and high-cholesterol concentrations when focusing on candidate regions.The associations of Yamnaya and WHG ancestries to respectively higher and lower cholesterol levels, together with the observed signatures of selection at loci connected to cholesterol and BMI, add a new component to our understanding of post-neolithic dietary adaptation with potential implications to disease risk and outcomes in present-day populations.}} [[User:Tewdar|<span style='font-family:"sans-serif";color:#cfb53b;background-color:#000000;'><b>&nbsp;Tewdar&nbsp;</b></span>]] 09:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::::{{tq|The paper actually acknowledges that the ancestry-trait associations are not reflective of the ancient population's phenotypes}} - well, here's what they say in the published paper: {{tq|Importantly, our inferences are applicable to contemporary individuals of European ancestry, where the phenotypes were collected. Conversely, using them to extrapolate features of ancient populations, although tempting, should be done with caution due to the interaction of their genetic legacy with a radically different lifestyle and environment. Furthermore, when seeking a biological interpretation of our results, it should be kept in mind that certain narrowly defined, contemporary phenotypes such as caffeine consumption may point to broader biological pathways.}} [[User:Tewdar|<span style='font-family:"sans-serif";color:#cfb53b;background-color:#000000;'><b>&nbsp;Tewdar&nbsp;</b></span>]] 10:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::Ok, so the Yamnaya ancestry-trait relation does corroborate ancient DNA results for hip size, height and build, but not for black hair or cholesterol levels, as shown by the GWAS data. But selectively quoting that passage doesn't change the fact the authors clearly said that "[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-10489451/Europeans-owe-height-Asian-nomads-blue-eyes-hunter-gatherers.html ...the researchers stressed that the links between a trait and a given ancestry was not an indication that it was predominant in a particular ancient population or absent in all other groups. Environment and other evolutionary forces have to be considered too, they said]". - [[User:Hunan201p|Hunan201p]] ([[User talk:Hunan201p|talk]]) 10:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::::{{tq| Importantly, our inferences are applicable to contemporary individuals of European ancestry, where the phenotypes were collected}}... but not ancient individuals of Yamnaya ancestry. - [[User:Hunan201p|Hunan201p]] ([[User talk:Hunan201p|talk]]) 10:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
{{od}} {{tq|but not ancient individuals of Yamnaya ancestry.}} - no, this is not what they say. This is your own [[WP:OR|original]] interpretation of text which I literally just gave you. They say that {{tq|Conversely, using them to extrapolate features of ancient populations, although tempting, should be done with caution}} [[User:Tewdar|<span style='font-family:"sans-serif";color:#cfb53b;background-color:#000000;'><b>&nbsp;Tewdar&nbsp;</b></span>]] 10:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::::That is to say, it should be done with caution, by future researchers, because we aren't doing it in our paper. You forgot the keywords "'''our inferences'''". Also: [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-10489451/Europeans-owe-height-Asian-nomads-blue-eyes-hunter-gatherers.html ...the researchers stressed that the links between a trait and a given ancestry was not an indication that it was predominant in a particular ancient population or absent in all other groups. Environment and other evolutionary forces have to be considered too, they said]" - [[User:Hunan201p|Hunan201p]] ([[User talk:Hunan201p|talk]]) 10:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

* I did not omit any" keywords".

* The Daily Mail, eh? 😂👍

* I am not claiming that the paper proves anything about ancient populations. Only you are making such claims:{{tq|Yamnaya were more likely to have light eyes and light hair}} 😂 [[User:Tewdar|<span style='font-family:"sans-serif";color:#cfb53b;background-color:#000000;'><b>&nbsp;Tewdar&nbsp;</b></span>]] 10:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
::You did in fact omit entire sections from the quoted passage. The authors clearly said that ''their inferences'' (meaning, the ancestry-trait correlations) aren't used to determine the phenotypes of any of these ancient populations. The GWAS data on the other hand ''could'' feasibly be used to do that, since it is raw data from actual Yamnaya bones, but you'll note that from the very beginning I have been opposed to the inclusion of this study in the [[Yamnaya]] article. And although I'd never cite DailyMail in the article, it does go to show you're looking quite lonely in your insistence that this paper does in fact offer ancient phenotype predictions based on the ancestry-trait correlation data. Everybody else seems to believe that it does not. - [[User:Hunan201p|Hunan201p]] ([[User talk:Hunan201p|talk]]) 10:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

:::{{tq|You did in fact omit entire sections from the quoted passage.}} this is a lie, I quoted the entire passage - ctrl+F for "well, here's what they say in the published paper"...

:::{{tq|your insistence that this paper does in fact offer ancient phenotype predictions based on the ancestry-trait correlation data}} - Where? When? [[User:Tewdar|<span style='font-family:"sans-serif";color:#cfb53b;background-color:#000000;'><b>&nbsp;Tewdar&nbsp;</b></span>]] 11:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
::::In edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yamnaya_culture&oldid=1085773951 10:24, 2 May 2022] you neglected to include the "'''our inferences'''" bit. Chopping up quotes as you go along can make the authors say anything you want, but it's clear that the whole quote implies that their inferred ancestry-trait correlation does not allow for a prediction of Yamnaya phenotypes.
::::Most of your commentary in this discussion is inconsistent with your stated opinions. See edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yamnaya_culture&oldid=1085775502 10:37, 2 May 2022], in which you brushed off a science editor's remarks that echo my own, based on the publisher. Why would you have any problem with Sam's statement that the paper offers no phenotype predictions for ancient populations, if that isn't something that you yourself agree with? In any case if you agree that the paper does not have relevance to Yamnaya, I'm not sure why you would want to put it in the article. - [[User:Hunan201p|Hunan201p]] ([[User talk:Hunan201p|talk]]) 11:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

:::::In edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yamnaya_culture&oldid=1085773951 10:24, May 2 2022] I was correcting only the part of your [[WP:OR|original]] analysis which misrepresented what the authors were saying, ''after'' having quoted the passage in its entirety. You said {{tq|but not ancient individuals of Yamnaya ancestry.}}, which I *corrected* to {{tq|Conversely, using them to extrapolate features of ancient populations, although tempting, should be done with caution}}. Having already quoted the entire passage, verbatim, I saw no need to do so again.
:::::{{tq|it's clear that the whole quote implies that their inferred ancestry-trait correlation does not allow for a prediction of Yamnaya phenotypes}} - once again, this is ''not what the authors say''.
:::::Again, just to be clear, the paper apparently demonstrates a correlation between certain traits in modern populations (or Estonians, at least) and Yamnaya-related ancestry. That's all I added to the article. I did not say that the article demonstrates that Yamnaya themselves had these traits. Also, to be even more clear, I already agreed that this paper should not be cited in the article yesterday.
:::::This discussion was started by your claim that the paper demonstrates that '''Yamnaya themselves''' had {{tq|light eyes and light hair}}, remember? [[User:Tewdar|<span style='font-family:"sans-serif";color:#cfb53b;background-color:#000000;'><b>&nbsp;Tewdar&nbsp;</b></span>]] 11:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

== Yamnaya phenotype-physical appearance ==

In the supplementals in this study we can see that they had dark brown and black hair (almost 100% of them), brown eyes (100%) and half had intermediate skin and the other half intermediate to dark skin and dark skin

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982221005352

I suggest this is added in the physical appearance section, it's the most up to date study about examining how yamnaya individuals looked (how their genes expressed) I could find [[Special:Contributions/62.74.110.28|62.74.110.28]] ([[User talk:62.74.110.28|talk]]) 22:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

:I'm gonna assume that you thought that it meant that Yamnaya were as dark as South Asians but do you realize that South Europeans also score the same results? That is misleading people because of what they consider intermediate and dark results. Intermediate-to-dark skin = South European results therefore the Yamnaya had the same skin color as South Europeans. Obviously when someone that has never seen what others score on programs such as Hirisplex they will assume that the Intermediate-to-dark = East African/South Asian type of color but that's wrong and misleading. [[User:Itisme3248|Itisme3248]] ([[User talk:Itisme3248|talk]]) 11:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


== Subdivision ==
== Male CHG bias in the formation of the Yamnaya ==


It is a good custom in all other culture articles to give Genetics a paragraph of its own, instead of, as here (recently?), including it in the introduction, for which the topic is much too extensive.[[User:HJJHolm|HJJHolm]] ([[User talk:HJJHolm|talk]]) 10:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Here Lazaridis explains how the CHG/west asian ancestry in Yamnaya was mostly male mediated instead of the other way around. Posting for clarity. Archived from his twitter (wiki doesn't post the link for some reason): archive . ph/nLBXB [EDIT: relevant part here. "The evidence for male CHG bias is not super strong so we did not dwell on this point in the Southern Arc paper. But, I thought it would be useful to report here as I want people to be aware that the data don't point to a male EHG:female CHG mix and if anything the opposite."] [[Special:Contributions/5.55.62.130|5.55.62.130]] ([[User talk:5.55.62.130|talk]]) 21:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


== genomicatlas.org ==
== new result ==


"However, according to Heyd, et al. (2023), the specific paternal DNA haplogroup that is most commonly found in male Yamnaya specimens cannot be found in modern Western Europeans, or in males from the nearby Corded Ware culture. This makes it unlikely that the Corded Ware culture can be directly descended from the Yamnaya culture, at least along the paternal line."
Who's running that? And, is it a good enough source for the average height of Yamnaya? No proper studies are given for the recently added claim, can't we find something better? [[User:Tewdar|<span style='font-family:"sans-serif";color:#fcaf17;background-color:#000000;'><b>&nbsp;Tewdar&nbsp;</b></span>]] 10:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
This is correct, early CWC is a remix between GAG and EARLY YAMNAJA (Dniepr-Proxy R1a) what came 2750 BCE about Bohemia to Germany middle Elbe-Saale Area (R1a-Z283), and a SECOND EXPANSION to EAST EUROPE especialy Poland, Balticum, CZ, SK.
:No authors, no credentials → no reliability. The only good thing is that they give their sources, so we can cross-check and switch the reference to the actual source (but only after considering due weight etc.). –[[User:Austronesier|Austronesier]] ([[User talk:Austronesier|talk]]) 10:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Souce: David Anthony, April 2024 Conference in Budapest about Yamnaya migration. CWC Horses from Hohle Fels show a pre-DOM2 Horse breed with import of a Repin Stallions and local germany wild horse mares. [[Special:Contributions/2A0A:2782:3FD:7800:F082:7977:F286:DE0F|2A0A:2782:3FD:7800:F082:7977:F286:DE0F]] ([[User talk:2A0A:2782:3FD:7800:F082:7977:F286:DE0F|talk]]) 20:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:10, 22 June 2024

Yamnaya phenotype-physical appearance

In the supplementals in this study we can see that they had dark brown and black hair (almost 100% of them), brown eyes (100%) and half had intermediate skin and the other half intermediate to dark skin and dark skin

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982221005352

I suggest this is added in the physical appearance section, it's the most up to date study about examining how yamnaya individuals looked (how their genes expressed) I could find 62.74.110.28 (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna assume that you thought that it meant that Yamnaya were as dark as South Asians but do you realize that South Europeans also score the same results? That is misleading people because of what they consider intermediate and dark results. Intermediate-to-dark skin = South European results therefore the Yamnaya had the same skin color as South Europeans. Obviously when someone that has never seen what others score on programs such as Hirisplex they will assume that the Intermediate-to-dark = East African/South Asian type of color but that's wrong and misleading. Itisme3248 (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The supplementary information for this paper contains several unambiguous statements about the typical Yamnaya phenotype: brown hair, brown eyes, intermediate skin, with no blondes and no blue eyes. Hopefully this is the final nail in the coffin of the Blonde Yamnaya Hoax 😁. (I think there was a predicted blonde Afanasievo though, so there must be a blonde Yamna out there somewhere...)  Tewdar  10:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yet this "study" has the same issue as all the recent "studies" who reveal coloured or black skin in the ancestry of caucasians. It does not explain where this brown people dissapeared, because you can not whiten people, you can only make their skin darker, since white is recessive and no migration can bring 100 whites for every black person. Meaning, where people are white in the "old world", they were always white. Including north Africa and middle east, where those of color today are the result of recent migration, or slavery. 46.97.168.69 (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but that's complete nonsense. Ario1234 (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delusion white supremacy crap. Gross 2601:8C:B80:6660:E147:79D1:8764:FE1F (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Article

Won't have time to go through this one in any detail for a while, but here is a fascinating new article especially as to dating Yamnaya horseback riding. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does this sentence in the article actually add?

The top section of the article (as of date of posting) contains the following paragraph:

There is now a rough scholarly consensus that the common ancestor of all Indo-European languages, with the possible exception of Anatolian, originated on the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and this language has been associated with the people of the Yamnaya culture.[13] Additionally, the Pontic-Caspian steppe is currently seen as the most likely candidate for the original homeland (German, Urheimat) of the Proto-Indo-European language, including the ancestor of the Anatolian branch.

To me, it seems like the second sentence reiterates the points of the first on, while also contradicting it by stating that no, the general consensus does not in fact exclude the Anatolian branch in this conjectured history of the origin of the Indo-European family. It's definitely possible that there are nuances here that are lost on me (and presumably others too) without the elaboration undoubtedly provided further on in the article. If that's the case, this paragraph should be rewritten to more clearly state the intended message. Otherwise, the second sentence should be incorporated into the first to avoid confusing people. In either case, this is most likely not the only occurrence of mismatched sentences in the article, so I think this article could probably benefit from a proof-read by someone more knowledgeable and specialized in this subject matter. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --110521sgl (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have exactly the same question. While Yamnaya is associated with Proto-IE, so is also Corded-Ware. While Corded-Ware also came from this region, it does not mean, that Corded Ware evolved from Yamnaya.
Also, people might not be aware, but Yamnaya had a lot of influences from cultures of Caucasus - that included language. GrimDawn (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subdivision

It is a good custom in all other culture articles to give Genetics a paragraph of its own, instead of, as here (recently?), including it in the introduction, for which the topic is much too extensive.HJJHolm (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

new result

"However, according to Heyd, et al. (2023), the specific paternal DNA haplogroup that is most commonly found in male Yamnaya specimens cannot be found in modern Western Europeans, or in males from the nearby Corded Ware culture. This makes it unlikely that the Corded Ware culture can be directly descended from the Yamnaya culture, at least along the paternal line." This is correct, early CWC is a remix between GAG and EARLY YAMNAJA (Dniepr-Proxy R1a) what came 2750 BCE about Bohemia to Germany middle Elbe-Saale Area (R1a-Z283), and a SECOND EXPANSION to EAST EUROPE especialy Poland, Balticum, CZ, SK. Souce: David Anthony, April 2024 Conference in Budapest about Yamnaya migration. CWC Horses from Hohle Fels show a pre-DOM2 Horse breed with import of a Repin Stallions and local germany wild horse mares. 2A0A:2782:3FD:7800:F082:7977:F286:DE0F (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]