Talk:Botai culture

Botai and horses
This AP article (published in the Boston Globe), implies that the Botai may have been the first to domesticate horses. Presumably it is based on a more scholarly article, if anyone can find that. GRBerry 15:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's from Science. I've update the main post. The Science article is not available to nonsubscribers online, but I've reviewed both the New York Times and Associated Press versions of this report and linked to the Times' piece. The implication that the Boltai are the FIRST is media sensationalism and nowhere found in these articles. What the articles say is that the new evidence shows the Boltai did practice domestication much earlier than anyone else is known to have done. So they might be first, though that evidence would be hard to ever find. At the moment, they are the best candidate for inventing domestication. Ftjrwrites (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Ftjrwrites


 * Thank you for digging up the better source. And we have an article on horse domestication, Domestication of the horse, that is much fuller than this one, so I've copyedited to link it.  GRBerry 20:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

David Anthony
See writeup on David Anthony of Hartwick College. He has done archaeology of horse-riding in the prehistoric cultures of the Eurasian steppes. Also see "Bit Wear, Horseback Riding and the Botai Site in Kazakstan" (1998). Anthony has studied bit wear on horse teeth dug up from the Botai site. I've added this note because someone commented in the reference list about a dead link to a paper from Hartwick College. A later paper by Anthony et al. (2000) is at this link. EdJohnston (talk) 04:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Facts vs. views
Simply to cite a view ("Marsha Levine (1999) concludes that ... that horse domestication spread from west to east, i.e., from Dereivka to Botai, is erroneous.[3]") without giving arguments, is not scolarly, but is in particular known from totalitarian regimes. The author of this sentence should extract reproducable arguments, if there are any, or it will be deleted. 93.199.28.80 (talk) 06:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite right, thank you! Again HJJHolm (talk) 06:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

"Holocene epoch"
(Pre)historical articles have nothing to do with these not understood epochs, without any understanding introduced by geologists here. Note that these only refer to flora developments in Western Europe. In contrast, archeologists and historians refer to eras like Bronze Age, Iron Age, and so on. 93.199.28.80 (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Botai culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120128025518/http://www.carnegiemnh.org/anthro/olsen-botai4.html to http://www.carnegiemnh.org/anthro/olsen-botai4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of content with the justification of sockpuppet edits
Can you please explain this edit you've made, reverting my clarification, which is supported by the source given, under the pretext of some sockpuppet edit and added completely nonsensical content that Erminwin had to revert. If this is some automated edit, please revise your program, since this situation is ridiculous. - Sarilho1 (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Genetics
"Haplogroup R1b occurs almost exclusively in non-European populations." was complete nonsense. This is however, true for M478 in the foregoing sentence, to which I referred it now.HJJHolm (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense sentence
"They are show share more ancestry with East Asians." This is ungrammatical. Perhaps the writer said "They also share more ancestry with East Asians", but had their meaning mangled by the tech they used? yoyo (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Map doesn't retain labels when enlarged
The first map depicted in the right sidebar, captioned "The Botai culture, with contemporary cultures c. -3000", does not retain its labels when being enlarged. And as it stands, the map's labels are too small to be readily legible in thumbnail form, so its informational potential is largely lost. Can someone find a way to preserve the labels in its enlarged version? Thank you. Bricology (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Damgaard et al. 2018 + general cleanup of the Genetics section
The article currently says: "Damgaard et al. 2018 could model the Botai individuals as approximately ≈75% ANE (West Eurasian) and ≈25% AEA (East Asian)." I couldn't find these figures in the paper. Damgaard et al. do a lot of qpAdm-modeling, but not for Botai. In Figure S28 (qpGraph), the ratio is 88%:12%. Maybe they are derived from arithmetics based on Fig. S19-21?

do you have an idea, maybe I've overlooked something (which wouldn't be the first time LOL).

Also, I suggest to the "dechronologify" (Tewdar's Coinage of the Year) the presentation. Instead of building content source-by-source, the gist could be as follows:
 * Botai is very similar to WSHG (Narasimhan 2019, Zhang 2021)
 * Both derive their ancestry mainly from ANE with a significant East Asian admixture (Damgaard 2018, Jeong 2019), the latter one being higher for Botai than for WSHG (Narasimhan 2019, Zhang 2021)
 * There is additional detectable geneflow from European hunter-gathers (Jeong 2019)
 * The best proximal source for European hunter-gathers ancestry is EHG which itself is highly ANE enriched (Narasimhan 2019, Zhang 2021)
 * The model EHG + ANE + AEA can be simplified to EHG + Tarim_EBA for WSHG, since Tarim_EBA has the "right" mix of ANE + AEA (Zhang 2021)
 * Botai nevertheless needs an extra-splash of AEA in the EHG + Tarim_EBA-model. (Zhang 2021)

Thoughts? Austronesier (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find those figures either (the citation says "supplement p16", but I'm pretty sure it's not there). The dechronologification plan looks great.  Tewdar   08:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I do not find this percentage either. In the Supplementary information it is written "We observe that Botai and Yamnaya differ in the amount of sharing with East Asians, with Botai showing higher values, but that the overall sharing of Botai and East Asians is very reduced, indicating small proportions of East Asian related ancestry in Botai not present in Yamnaya, consistent with the cline of ancestry shown on Fig. 2." Yep, to "dechronologify" may improve the quality.–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 07:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I just have carried out the dechronologification. I also found this recent paper which may be relevant here (or elsewhere): .–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 08:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I will add a bit of background info about WSHG, before someone gets the idea to create an article about the genetic profile of (so far) three sampled individuals LOL. But seriously, it turns a bit into a general content fork problem all over WP, so your position in Talk:Khövsgöl LBA is very much justified. After dechronologification, de-reification might become another important to-do.
 * Let someone who us fully "horse-compentent" have a look at Outram's new paper (good find, as always!). My knee-jerk reaction to Frontiers papers is "no, no" unless they get widely cited, but in the case of a caiblre like Outram, I'd be less hesitant. –Austronesier (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yep the problem I see is where would we stop if all regional sub-ancestry component variations get an own article, it would result in all likelihood in much redundancy and perhaps even contradicting information if not all these articles are maintained in the same way, basically unnecessary work.–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 10:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks to the diligent editors, however, the section is by far too convoluted for an encyclopedia, partly redundant, and patched together.Sorry.HJJHolm (talk) 07:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Achaeology timeline image typo
"Greek Peninsula" time interval text says "3400-1100BP" but the blue brackets seem to denote "3400-3100BP" — Preceding unsigned comment added by WbaKnwREVl (talk • contribs) 17:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Language
With all due respect to Václav Blažek, but the horse was known everywhere and the Indo-Europeans did not need the for the time already speculative Yeniseians to borrow their impeccably Indo-European coinage of the horse word. This is by far too far-fetched. Cf. (simplified), "aqua" = the 'running (water)'. - "equos" = the 'running (animal)'. HJJHolm (talk) 07:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I also find Blažek's theory quite unlikely, since the haplogroups don't match. Modern Kets have almost exclusively Q, which isn't found in remains of Botai people so far (moreover, their genetics don't look particularly resembling those of any modern population AFAIK). As for *éḱwos, I also find the internal PIE etymology convincing, since it fits the general PIE paradigm of naming animals after their attributes (see Napolskikh's criticism of Kulanda's proposal of this word being borrowed from North Caucasian languages). Finstergeist (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Figur substandard
I dared to take out the time line figure because it has too little to do with Botai. Regard alone the entry, "3400-1100 BP GREEK PENINSULA rhe oldest encountered ramains of horses". " BP " is unusable for prehistorians. And these surely are not the oldest horse remains. In addition there are too many gaps.HJJHolm (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)