Talk:Mal'ta–Buret' culture

Location
ok, Buret' is in the Bokhansky District of Ust-Orda Buryat Okrug according to this, but according to google maps, it is just outside the Ust-Orda Buryat Okrug. --dab (𒁳) 12:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

pribaikal.ru is probably correct. The border probably runs along the river, even if google maps shows it inaccurately, and the Buret' is on either side of the river. Google labels it on the right side, but perhaps the main village is on the left. --dab (𒁳) 12:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Mal'ta skeleton
The paper Upper Palaeolithic Siberian genome reveals dual ancestry of Native Americans is the latest publication on this. It does not mention Mongoloid features although it does say "Gene flow from the MA-1 lineage into NativeAmerican ancestors could explain why several crania from the First Americans have been reported as bearing morphological characteristics that do not resemble those of east Asians." We should not use blogs/tweets as sources for articles such as this one and should reply directly upon the publications involved. Dougweller (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I used a blog source and scientific review paper source. Just because that article didn't mention Mongoloid features doesn't mean they didn't before.  Besides they reported the boy to be only 1/3 European which this wiki page didn't even bother to mention
 * " Archaeology and Languages in Prehistoric Northern Eurasia "

shinku.nichibun.ac.jp/jpub/pdf/jr/IJ1507.pdf


 * " Debetz (1946) identified the remains of “nothern Asian Mongoloids” at the site of

Afontova Gora 2; they included a fragment of the frontal bone. Mongoloid features had been originally acknowledged in the skeletal remains of a child found at the site of Malta. Alexeev (1998, 323) in his later publication was more cautious, stating that this area was “inhabited by a population of Mongoloid appearance.”


 * It is denying these data what makes wikipedia so garbage and bias. The whole wiki page sound like some eurocentrist motive to prove something. Mal'ta boy had haplogroup R and mtDNA U, yet genetic shows Native Americans have mtDNA X instead.

Mercurynightwarrior (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The Mal'ta-1 lineage is extinct
They made no genetic contributions to modern humans nor the Yamna people. The Mal'ta-1 lineage is a dead branch; populations genetically very similar to the Mal'ta lineage are the ones who made the genetic contributions, so the wording here is problematic and needs to be rephrased: Fraenir (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Research published in 2013 and 2016 indicates that the Mal'ta people belonged to a population who made a substantial contribution to the genetic ancestry of Siberians, Native Americans and bronze age Yamnaya people.[1][2] The Mal'ta-Buret' population were also found to be genetically closer to modern-day Native Americans, Kets, Nganasans and Yukaghirs.[3]"

Mal'ta boy skeleton Mongoloid
I've tried to explain why I'm unhappy with but failed. By the way, the spelling is Alekseev, easier to find with the correct spelling. All I know was that in the middle 60s the skeleton was thought to be mongoloid, but that doesn't seem to have any recent backing. And what the Nature article has to do with this I have no idea. Doug Weller talk 15:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)  you all are still around, comments? Doug Weller talk 15:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

chronology
I changed the place of the given dates to after the culture, because up to that (after uP) it mistakenly suggested to give the dates of the Upper Palaeolithic.2A02:8108:9640:AC3:615B:E55B:1575:BA91 (talk) 09:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Kanazawa et al 2017
In case anyone wants to dispute what is currently written about the paper, here is the entire passage from the paper itself in case anyone wants to read it. It's important to give enough context about the findings rather than just positing the findings of a paper that admits to contradicting previous studies.

"We constructed maximum-likelihood population trees (ML tree) using TreeMix to investigate the phylogenetic relationship and the presence of admixture events between Sanganji Jomon and other human populations. When three migration events were assumed, the gene flow from Sanganji Jomon to JPT (modern Japanese) appeared (Figure 4) (bootstrap probability=42%). The directionality of this gene flow event was as expected, however, the inferred gene flow from Karitiana to Mal’ta MA1 (Supplementary Results S2; Supplementary Figures S16b-j and S17c-j), was in the reverse direction to what was reported by Raghavan et al. who used a much larger sequence data. This result might have been caused by using a relatively small SNP data set. We therefore used only modern human data, and reran TreeMix. We used a much larger 0.7 million SNP loci data. However, the resulting tree showed some anomalous gene flow directions; from Papuans to Denisovans (bootstrap probability=98%) and CEU to Papuans (bootstrap probability=86%), whereas the tree topology was consistent with that of Figure 4 (see Supplementary Figure S19). The reason for this anomaly may be that some filtering steps between our analyses and Reich et al. and Meyer et al. are different, and/or homozygous diploid genotypes in individual genome (that is, Denisovan, Papuan and so on) were used instead of their original genotype, though gene flow from Mal’ta MA1 to Karitiana correctly appeared in both all sites and transversion only when we add Mal’ta MA1, Karitiana and Ust’-Ishim to the large SNP loci data (data not shown)." 50.92.71.79 (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You actively modify the study results. The statement about the reverse geneflow concerns the ANE to Native Americans. However fig. 4 found that East-Eurasian like geneflow into the base of Europeans and MA1 occurred to 21% at a bootstrap probability of 86% as explained in the TreeMix of Fig. 4. Your paragraph is before Fig.4 and about a different estimation which found additional geneflow into ANE from Native Americans which is in contradiction with previous studies. You actively try to erase East-Eurasian ancestry from ANE for whatever reason. This is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR.--46.125.250.46 (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The entire context of the study is already presented. The paragraph before Figure 4 is giving explicit information about the findings (including what is shown in figure 4) including the fact that the Karitiana->MA1 direction of gene flow is in the opposite direction of previous studies. I didn't "erase" any East Eurasian ancestry findings regarding MA1 when my edits are more specific than yours (Karitiana instead of East Eurasian as shown in figure 4)... 50.92.71.79 (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)