Talk:Yamnaya culture

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sorry but that's complete nonsense. Ario1234 (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

genomicatlas.org

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?  Tewdar  10:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

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.). –Austronesier (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there is a reference for that particular claim, though. So, I'm a-gonna nuke it, unless you already did. 😁  Tewdar  11:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Or add a convert template so we can have an unreliable source in feet and inches. Why not, eh?  Tewdar  17:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, even measurements in feet and inches need a reliable source. If have not seen an argument in favor of its reliability, unless silent persistence has become a positive criterion. Btw, the IP is blocked now for 72h. They were reported for disruptive editing in Plotinus. –Austronesier (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)