Talk:Khövsgöl LBA
Redundancy problem and relevance[edit]
I am not sure if it is a good idea to have multiple articles on all of the derived clusters of the Ancient Northeast Asian lineage; preventing redundancy etc.... Clusters such as the Khövsgöl LBA are not diverged lineages, but a geographical associated cluster based on the samples of this region. They derive primarily from ANA (specifically ANA+ANE+Sintashta or Baikal HG+Sintashta). I think it would be better to move/merge the relevant content into the ANA article, and create a subsection on the Khövsgöl LBA, as we also do in other similar articles on population genomic lineages. Just my thoughts on this matter. Another possibility would be renaming the article to something like "Khövsgöl culture", with a wider scope on the whole material culture, would probably be a better solution.Wikiuser1314 (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Wikiuser1314 This cluster is highly relevant to the history of pastoralism in Mongolia, the Xiongnu and the Huns. So, imo, as far as relevance, it deserves a standalone article.
- This cluster is also associated with the Deer stones. A "Deer Stone Culture" article cannot be created as of now, but when it's created, this article could be merged into that one. I advise keeping this article for now, creating a redirect from Deer Stone Culture to here, and adding a "further/see also" template in the Khovsgol section at ANA. Fries Montana (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- What about moving/renaming it to "Khövsgöl culture"; about the material culture, with the genetic stuff in an own subsection?Wikiuser1314 (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- Does the concept of ""Khövsgöl culture" exist in the literature? पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- Not really either, it's part of the pastoralist culture of Mongolia during the LBA: "Khövsgöl LBA sites" for example.[1] Perhaps expanding/shifting the main scope of the article to the material culture without moving/renaming would be an option? But I am only marginally concerned with it, if no one sees a problem I won't push for it.Wikiuser1314 (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Wikiuser1314 Exactly,so renaming it to Khovsgol Culture would only "move" the problem not solve it.
- Since I am confident they will label and describe extensively the culture in the near future I advise leaving it like this for now. There is also a lot of stuff on this page, it would probably had required an own page if had it published at ANA anyway. Plus, as mentioned LBA Khovsgol is relavant to several popular topics.
- ＃@Wikiuser1314 one question: am I right that LBA Khovsgol is not so close to modern Mongolians (or rather, closer to modern Mongolians than many other modern East Asian and Native American populations?)? Yet it appears to have given a huge contribution to Ulanzuukh/Slab Grave, from whom, according to other studies, the Mongolians largely descended. So how come the link to modern Mongolians isn't so evident? Or did they just forget to discuss it in the cited studies? Fries Montana (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Not really either, it's part of the pastoralist culture of Mongolia during the LBA: "Khövsgöl LBA sites" for example.[1] Perhaps expanding/shifting the main scope of the article to the material culture without moving/renaming would be an option? But I am only marginally concerned with it, if no one sees a problem I won't push for it.Wikiuser1314 (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed, as I said, it was a mere suggestion, I am not pushing for a change. We just have to take care to prevent redundancy, but with a clear cut between ANA and this article (which should work quite well with the available papers), I guess this will be no problem. - Regarding your question, the Mongolians seem to display high genetic affinity (and low distance) to both the Khovsgol and the Ulaanzuukh/Slab Grave samples (according to G25 data on Vahaduo). The lowest distance to Ulaanzuukh/Slab Grave is among the Khamnegan, followed by various other Mongol subgroups from Inner Mongolia, Outer Mongolia, Mongola and Mongol (Xinjiang). Less affinity is displayed by the Kachin Khakas, with quite high distance the Kyrgyz, Bijie and Kazakh. The same is true for Khovsgol, but the highest affinity this time is observed among Kachin Khakas, Mongol (Xinjiang), and other Mongol groups, followed by Kyrgyz and Kazakh (less distant than the Ulannzuukh/Slab Grave). This suggests that they are indeed closest to Mongolian groups. I can't answer why this has not been discussed in these studies. However based on preferred ancestry components, the Khovsgol do not seem to have contributed much to modern Mongolians and modern Kazakhs or historical Kipchak, but rather to Altaians, Khakass, Ket, etc. Mongols derive their Eastern ancestry from a slightly different source, more Slab Grave or Amur_N like. This is also true for Kazakhs or Kyrgyz (although at lower levels, especially for historical Kipchak, who score even less). Hope that helps a bit, but caution that the above mentioned results are from Vahaduo (G25) and not necessarily correct ;) .Wikiuser1314 (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Wow. Thanks so much for your answer!
- Cool, feel free to remove any redundant stuff from the article. I will myself also try and compare this and ANA's articles and do some trimming ASAP. We could still create a subsection at ANA, adding a link to this article as we wait for more stuff about the material culture to be found or produced, after which we will rename this article after the culture.
- So they are close genetically because of a common "kindred" or "stock" between the Slab Grave/Amur_N and the Khovsgol, but the "branch" from whom modern Mongolians descend is chiefly Slab Grave/Amur_N right?
- I think all this stuff is so interesting and needless to say relevant to this article, since this culture is from Mongolia. Is there any study mentioning, even briefly, the relation of Khovsgol to modern Mongolian/Turkic peoples? Could Vahaduous data be used as a primary source or isn't it even that reliable? We could add the info plus the data with a comment and place a template requesting a secondary source till one is found or produced. Fries Montana (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Yes, they are close but "different branches". Furthermore they have different admixture proportions, a important difference. Khovsgol is neither Baikal_EBA nor ANA, but Baikal_EBA+Sintashta (or ANA+ANE+Sintashta). - I do not think that we can use Vahaduo results here, as this is kind of self-published/personal. Although the datasets are from "officially" published papers, all results a user gets are original research.–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 10:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Right. Hopefully some study where they discuss the relationship between Khovsgol and modern Mongolians will be produced.
- Then again, since you say Khovsgol is 1/2 Baikal_EBA, it's possible the latter is mentioned in connection to Mongolians in some already existing study. If so we could add something like "Khövsgöl descend from Baikal_Eba [source], which is also a main component of modern Mongolians [source]." I think this would be borderline OR, but for me still okay, especially because I know for sure the information to be correct.
- I don't know if any study on modern Mongolians mentioning their Baikal_EBA descent exist though. I will look it up and I invite any interested editor to do the same. Fries Montana (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Yes, they are close but "different branches". Furthermore they have different admixture proportions, a important difference. Khovsgol is neither Baikal_EBA nor ANA, but Baikal_EBA+Sintashta (or ANA+ANE+Sintashta). - I do not think that we can use Vahaduo results here, as this is kind of self-published/personal. Although the datasets are from "officially" published papers, all results a user gets are original research.–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 10:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed, as I said, it was a mere suggestion, I am not pushing for a change. We just have to take care to prevent redundancy, but with a clear cut between ANA and this article (which should work quite well with the available papers), I guess this will be no problem. - Regarding your question, the Mongolians seem to display high genetic affinity (and low distance) to both the Khovsgol and the Ulaanzuukh/Slab Grave samples (according to G25 data on Vahaduo). The lowest distance to Ulaanzuukh/Slab Grave is among the Khamnegan, followed by various other Mongol subgroups from Inner Mongolia, Outer Mongolia, Mongola and Mongol (Xinjiang). Less affinity is displayed by the Kachin Khakas, with quite high distance the Kyrgyz, Bijie and Kazakh. The same is true for Khovsgol, but the highest affinity this time is observed among Kachin Khakas, Mongol (Xinjiang), and other Mongol groups, followed by Kyrgyz and Kazakh (less distant than the Ulannzuukh/Slab Grave). This suggests that they are indeed closest to Mongolian groups. I can't answer why this has not been discussed in these studies. However based on preferred ancestry components, the Khovsgol do not seem to have contributed much to modern Mongolians and modern Kazakhs or historical Kipchak, but rather to Altaians, Khakass, Ket, etc. Mongols derive their Eastern ancestry from a slightly different source, more Slab Grave or Amur_N like. This is also true for Kazakhs or Kyrgyz (although at lower levels, especially for historical Kipchak, who score even less). Hope that helps a bit, but caution that the above mentioned results are from Vahaduo (G25) and not necessarily correct ;) .Wikiuser1314 (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
@Wikiuser1314 and पाटलिपुत्र: FYI, @Fries_Montana has been confirmed as a sockpuppet. Since this article was created in evasion of a block, WP:G5 ("Creations by banned or blocked users") can be applied here. However, only if there are "no substantial edits by others". I leave to whether you consider your contributions to this article "substantial edits". @पाटलिपुत्र, AFAICS, you have mostly provided visualizations and maps. @Wikiuser1314, you had serious reservations about having this genetic cluster as topic of a standalone article. So I leave it to your wisdom to merge this article into Ancient Northeast Asian. Basically, I agree with you. This is an interesting datapoint in Jeong et al. (2020), but only slightly shifted from Baikal_EBA.
Gnecci-Ruscone et al. (2021) use Khovsgol_LBA (as they spell it) as an "eastern Eurasian proxy" (p.3) to model various steppe populations on the first millenium BCE. In Fig.4A they talk about the "Steppe_LBA + Khovgol-like LBA Admixture cline". It doesn't look like they consider the Khövsgöl_LBA cluster the one and only pivotal ancestry component, but just a convenient proxy. That's not enough "significant coverage" needed for a standalone article. –Austronesier (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I will try to merge the article into the ANA article if I find time. I guess an own paragraph (just as in the case with Baikal EBA) is enough, with this one here being redirected. Does anyone has objections?-Wikiuser1314 (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)