Talk:Yamnaya culture

No mention of South Caucauses/Iranian influence

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.

Read carefully. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Parpola (2015): Late Tripolye → Yamnaya

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. –Austronesier (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2021 (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. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:54, 22 August 2021 (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. – Joe (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The only other publication by Parpola I have found about it is this paper presented at WeCIEC, which has only 22 citations on Google Scholar[1], 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. –Austronesier (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Does this fall under MEDRS?

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.

Any comments... yes, you at the back, no not you Hunan201p... 😁  Tewdar  11:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

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).

I don't want to cite WP:MEDRS here, but just WP:UNDUE. The (in)famous RfC at RSN says: 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 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. Narasimhan et al. is a prime example for due inclusion in relevant WP articles. –Austronesier (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, zero citations is stretching things a bit too far I think. 😂  Tewdar  16:37, 1 May 2022 (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 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. -- 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. - Hunan201p (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: - 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.  Tewdar  09:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm also assuming you meant to say "... than dark hair or dark eyes" above.  Tewdar  09:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@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:

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.

- 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?  Tewdar  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 ...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. - Hunan201p (talk) 09:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Verbatim: 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.  Tewdar  09:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

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: 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.  Tewdar  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 "...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". - Hunan201p (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Importantly, our inferences are applicable to contemporary individuals of European ancestry, where the phenotypes were collected... but not ancient individuals of Yamnaya ancestry. - Hunan201p (talk) 10:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

but not ancient individuals of Yamnaya ancestry. - no, this is not what they say. This is your own original interpretation of text which I literally just gave you. They say that Conversely, using them to extrapolate features of ancient populations, although tempting, should be done with caution  Tewdar  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: ...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" - 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:Yamnaya were more likely to have light eyes and light hair 😂  Tewdar  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. - Hunan201p (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

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"...

your insistence that this paper does in fact offer ancient phenotype predictions based on the ancestry-trait correlation data - Where? When?  Tewdar  11:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

In edit 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 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. - Hunan201p (talk) 11:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

In edit 10:24, May 2 2022 I was correcting only the part of your original analysis which misrepresented what the authors were saying, after having quoted the passage in its entirety. You said but not ancient individuals of Yamnaya ancestry., which I *corrected* to 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.

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 light eyes and light hair, remember?  Tewdar  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 62.74.110.28 (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Male CHG bias in the formation of the Yamnaya

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."] 5.55.62.130 (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)