Talk:Ancient North Siberian

Kostanki
Hi User:Wikiuser1314. Are you sure about the supposed derivation of the ANS from Kostenki-14? The sources I have read tend to say they just came from Southwest Asia... (as in my first version here ) पाटलिपुत्र  (Pataliputra)  (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not derived from Kostenki-14, but rather a sister lineage of that population. Rewording it to "The 'Ancient North Siberians' (ANS) are thought to have derived from a sister lineage of 'Early West Eurasian' hunter-gatherers (Kostenki-14, c. 40,000 BP)..." should make it more clear. - Btw., as suggested by Austronesier in the ANE disk., we may just redirect this article back to the archaeologic article, with the more detailed genetic explanation in the ANE article.Wikiuser1314 (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Wikiuser1314. I am afraid this is still a confusing and probably inexact way of defining the ANS... AFAIK, the 'Ancient North Siberians' (ANS) were derived from Early 'West Eurasians' themselves, not from "a sister lineage of 'Early West Eurasians'" as you write (For reference: "ANS is thought to have originated among West Eurasians soon after their divergence from East Eurasians about 43 ka BP." p.141). If anything, only Kostenki-14 could be described as "a sister" lineage to ANS, and Early West Eurasians are the "father" of them all. Here is a proposal:


 * पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)  (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The ANS lineage is described as to have formed from a sister lineage of Kostenki-14 (a sister lineage of European hunter-gatherers; factually, the "European" or "West-Eurasian" component is an unattested ghost population) with significant contribution from a Tianyuan-related population. This was not further admixture, but existential for the ANS lineage. Vallini et al. (2022): "admixture events in varying proportions between sister groups of Kostenki14 and Tianyuan is supported, and can indeed explain this observation (fig. 1A, purple leaves; Supplementary fig. S5 and Section 3.6, Supplementary Material online)". ANS was significantly admixed with its earliest attestation from Yana, therefore it would be misleading to state "future admixture". The 22% is cited by Sikora et al., which actually gives 22%, 25%, 29% and "a third" as possible amounts. I would prefer to stick to the solution of citing the actual range.
 * The ANS lineage is described as to have formed from a sister lineage of Kostenki-14 (a sister lineage of European hunter-gatherers; factually, the "European" or "West-Eurasian" component is an unattested ghost population) with significant contribution from a Tianyuan-related population. This was not further admixture, but existential for the ANS lineage. Vallini et al. (2022): "admixture events in varying proportions between sister groups of Kostenki14 and Tianyuan is supported, and can indeed explain this observation (fig. 1A, purple leaves; Supplementary fig. S5 and Section 3.6, Supplementary Material online)". ANS was significantly admixed with its earliest attestation from Yana, therefore it would be misleading to state "future admixture". The 22% is cited by Sikora et al., which actually gives 22%, 25%, 29% and "a third" as possible amounts. I would prefer to stick to the solution of citing the actual range.


 * Kostenki-14 is not a sister lineage of ANS, but a sister lineage of the West-Eurasian related component among the ANS.Wikiuser1314 (talk) 06:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Wikiuser1314. I think your wording is OK if you remove the word "sister" (except if you can find a direct quote saying that "the ANS derived from a sister lineage of early European hunter-gatherers", but I doubt that, "sister" is contradictory with the word "lineage", a bit like "horizontal" with "vertical"). I also think the "51%" seems quite marginal in the sources (non-mainstream, just one tentative graph you pointed me to), and 25%/30%/one third is indeed mainstream, so the 51% should be removed, in my opinion. पाटलिपुत्र  (Pataliputra)  (talk) 06:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with removing the "sister", but I will search if there is such specific description about them yet. - If the paragraph is meant for the lead, I am fine with the "mainstream" one third (around one third or c. 1/3), or just "significant contribution from Early East-Eurasians...", without specific estimations, but I would still mention the Vallini model in the detailed description of the article body (in the form of c. 22-51%). Massilani et al. 2020 speaks from 1/3 (graph showing 38-46%). The exact amount varies, henceforth I see no problem by mentioning this variation.Wikiuser1314 (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Great, let's move forward with that, I think "(about 1/3)" will be appropriate for the lead. पाटलिपुत्र  (Pataliputra)  (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Great, let's move forward with that, I think "(about 1/3)" will be appropriate for the lead. पाटलिपुत्र  (Pataliputra)  (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)