User talk:Tewdar/sandbox/BeakerGenetics

CBV95

@Austronesier: take a look at this fellow, in this database from this paper. Notice anything...unusual? 😁 Tewdar 19:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an occidental equivalent of the Afanasievans. It would be interesting to know if this was a sole adventurer standed in the Far West, or if he belonged to an entire band that eventually assimilated into the more typical W European gene pool. –Austronesier (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit suspicious. Is that the one someone was calling Beakernaya on one of the blogs? What were they using to represent Yamnaya ancestry? Tewdar 21:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They just say "Yamnaya Samara" in the Supplementary Information, but I can't see from which library. I have taken a quick look at studies in Google Scholar that cite this paper, and it seems that none of them mention this outlier, unlike you would expect. –Austronesier (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another source

I found this secondary source which has a brief paragraph about Bell Beaker-related genomes. Not much really, but maby helpful to frame the whole thing with secondary sources. I can't help out much at this time because currently I do a lot of reading about the genetic history of (southern) East Asia and Southeast Asia as background research for my writing IRL.

Have you noticed that secondary review articles have been mushrooming up lately? Here's another one[1], which unfortunely has nothing explicit about BB. But it does a nice job with other topic areas (e.g. European Paleolithic AMHs). I'm sure I will be able to make use of both articles in many WP pages, including the Tarim mummy trainwreck 😁

One a small thing about the pitfalls of Wikivoice. Sure, we don't want to say "A says this, B says that, C says thon, D says yon...", but rather want to build coherent and readable text from multiple sources. But since information gleaned from them usually partially overlaps, we need to carefully disentangle the references for who says what. Like in "North and Central European Bell Beakers carry high levels (averaging around 50%[15]) of Yamnaya-related ancestry, consistent with a population formed by admixture between Corded Ware individuals, who were around 75% Yamnaya-related ancestry, and local Neolithic populations.[5][1][7][9][2][16]", you really need to sort out which source supports the ancestral structure of the CWC samples, which one talks about the Bell Beakers samples, and which one explicitly supports the "consistent with".

Anyways, great job so far! –Austronesier (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the new source, and comments about conglomerating... I just find I can make nicer sentences more easily if I shove all the references on the end, but I'll separate them if you think it best...I suppose it is a bit SYNTHy and hard to verify. Tewdar 21:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that having a ref after every other word sucks, but at least for conclusion-type content ("consistent with"), it's better to split it out some way or other. –Austronesier (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]