Talk:Archaeogenetics of the Cucuteni–Trypillian culture

This article needs to be rated

If anyone cares to add a "Class" and "Importance" rating for this article in the categories left undone above, please feel free to do so. Thanks. --Saukkomies ^talk 15:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Have done the first assessment.

Would love to move class to Start but there is more ref and links than body of text at the moment.

"provided important insights" I think expansion of this is needed. - what insights did it provide and how were they important to understanding the culture could be easily expanded in the background section or even a new section

Chaosdruid (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for rating it CD. This is on my "to-do" list, but not a high priority. Maybe Cristian Chirita will come and write up a bunch of stuff! LOL! --Saukkomies ^talk 04:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits and WP:BRD

A recent edit removed almost the entire content of this article on the premise that the material was not related to the subject of archaeogenetics. I looked at the deleted content, and came to the conclusion that this was an incorrect and invalid assesment. Although this article does need a lot of work still, it would be unfounded to throw out the entire content of the article, some of which does have pertinent value. Editors should feel free to improve this article, not merely throw everything into the dustbin because some of it is not up to par. --Saukkomies ^talk 10:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi all

I am a neutral editor, asked to provide a third opinion.

I have reverted the edits back to the last agreed consensus, the stable version reverted to by Saukkomies.

Any major changes should be discussed first, as the newly edited parts need to find consensus amongst editors.

An unchallenged edit is not the same as consensus. Any edits that are challenged must follow WP:BRD

In this case the IP editor boldly edited, Saukkomies reverted, discussion now takes place to see what issues are felt need addressing by the IP editor, and the two of you need to find consensus as to what material should be removed/included.

I understand that this is a difficult situation, when one sees an "error", one wishes to "fix" it as soon as possible; however, we need to make sure that all involved editors get a chance to respond, and that may take some time.

Now the BRD process is started, others may come and join in, and they may not. I would suggest an initial period of 3-5 days to discuss, and see if any other interested parties join the discussion.

I would remind both parties that canvassing is not really acceptable, and if necessary you can go to the third party opinion board, via an RFC, or escalate - these are things that are further down the line.

I have looked at the page several times and, as a member of Wiki Project Ukraine (while doing Ukraine Project assessments and rewrites for WP:GOCE), I was the one that brought the article to Saukkomies attention after assessing it. I am thus an interested party, and so he has informed me of this ongoing discussion. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• The ISP has a point - the material at issue is mainly that introduced in this edit, which seems a good deal more general, and is also pretty indigestable. Has this been copied from another article? Equally, it is far from obvious that the material added by the ISP in these edits, which seems clearly relevant, should be removed. Chaosdruid needs to explain why he removed this section; Saukkomies' strictures above seem to contrast with this action. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the IP and with User:Johnbod. In its previous state the article was about the archaeogenetics of the European Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in general (based on modern population genetics studies, which I think it's fair to say most archaeologists wouldn't be happy tying to particular cultures), not archaeogenetics of the Cucuteni–Trypillian culture. Correct me if I'm wrong but none of the cited sources seem to mention the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture specifically. The anon. IPs contribution is specifically relevant because it's talking about ancient DNA recovered from a Cucuteni-Tripolye site.

I think what has happened is that, in his very thorough expansion of the main article a few years ago, User:Saukkomies has ended up writing an article on background information that is relevant to many more cultures than Cucuteni-Tripolye. I suggest we merge the current content to Neolithic Revolution#Archeogenetics, which is in need of expansion. The IP's contributions could stay here, or since they only amount to a paragraph we could merge them back into Cucuteni-Trypillian culture. Joe Roe (talk) 08:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

First off, thank you all for your time and attention to this matter. I want to clarify what my take on this is. To begin with, when I expanded out the main article a few years ago into the various sub-articles on the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, I created this article we're looking at - the Archaeogenetics of the C-T. But I wasn't entirely happy about it. I felt that there was not really enough material available to really even have a separate article about this subject, but it was done as part of the overhaul in order to make some kind of order out of the whole general subject of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture material. Indeed, there were several of these sub-articles that I did not feel very good about, this one, the Symbols and proto-writing of the Cucuteni–Trypillian culture, and the Barter tokens of the Cucuteni–Trypillian culture. I have always felt that these articles needed a massive overhaul, and even the possibility of consideration of merging them into other pertinent articles in Wikipedia.

Additionally, I didn't really contribute a lot to the writing of this sub-article. I mostly cleaned up the grammar and spelling flaws from the original work that had been created by someone who spoke English as his second language and was doing the best he could with his limited mastery of the tongue, and then just dumped what had already been written in the sub-article and separated it away from the main article so it wouldn't detract from it. It's been festering in that state ever since, and like I say, I'm not happy about it. But I'm also not an expert in the field of archaeogenetics, and wouldn't know if it was sound or not, and I've always hoped that someone would come along and help improve it.

So, I would have no problem with actually completely merging the Archaeogenetics of the Cucuteni–Trypillian culture with another. What alarmed me, though, about this recent massive editing of the article was that it looked to me to be the act of someone who was trying to solve the problem by just hacking away huge chunks out of the article without bothering to discuss it with anyone, which in my mind is the behavior of a rogue editor.

I would welcome any improvement to this and the other two sub-articles mentioned above. But I would like to be part of the decision process - not just discover in my Watchlist one morning over coffee that someone has hacked one of my articles to pieces without bothering to even discuss it first, thank you. --Saukkomies ^talk 00:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Obviously when you read this Saukkomies, you may be alarmed to see you said "my article". That would be leaning towards page ownership, though I understand you are talking about it more as a child being watched under your care - "one of my boys" - rather than you own children :¬)

I reverted it to the last stable version when I saw that the editor had removed large chunks of the article and refs. The problem was that the new material appeared as if it should be added to that already there, rather than replace it.

1. IP editor summary "Removed content which does not touch upon the issue of Cucutenian archaeogenetics", after reading the previous version thoroughly, that summary appeared false.
2. IP editor summary "Material not related to the Archaeogenetics of the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture" was the revert of the revert, yet again the summary appeared incorrect. The material previously there covered general issues as well as specifics, from what I understood it was entirely related to the article subject.
3. IP editor did not discuss any of these changes when the edits were challenged and, as it is possibly a shared IP address, may not be aware of policy or how we do things.
4. Saukkomies had asked for a third opinion, as an interested party I felt that the new material was completely deleting the previous - something common when mutually exclusive theories clash. Without any other input it would have been difficult to validate any changes.

It seemed as if one editor was already trying to follow BRD and the other was reverting the revert. For these reasons I thought that it would be best to revert to the most stable and introduce both parties to BRD before it went off the rails. I then opened it up to discussion by posting on all the interested project pages. As such a large part of the text was being disputed, nearly the whole of the article, it seemed easier to follow BRD than try and watch all the edits and keep track of which were the right bits to keep or lose. How do you feel it should have been handled? Chaosdruid (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Like this as a starting point. Since the two sets of contested text seem to be talking about completely different things, there is no overlap. Now perhaps Saukkomies could explain why, when the only referenced material relating to the genetics of the specific culture mentions several haplogroups, but not E, he is defending the retention of a great chunk of text not mentioning that culture at all, and only referring to E haplogroups, and deleting the specific material? Johnbod (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder of this not being "my article", Chaosdruid. I was indeed alarmed when it was brought to my attention that I had actually written that in my post. And yes, you have the right of it - this article is on my Watchlist, and I care about it, and so I feel it is indeed something I have some emotional attachment to.

Johnbod: I want to clarify something here: I am not really defending any of the content in the article. What I was concerned about was how someone came out of the blue and whacked away almost the entire content of the article without first trying to discuss it in the article's talk page. In other words, I'm not concerned about content, but about protocol. --Saukkomies ^talk 14:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

What is the subject of the article?

Sorry, I am not an expert on this subject, so experts may easily answer my question. All the same, the article title refers to the "archaeogenetics of the Cucuteni-Trypillian" culture, but there is no information on the genetical features of the bearers of this ancient culture. It is also strange that the only map in the article (which demonstrates the Haplogroup E-M215 (Y-DNA) in Europe) is not clearly connected to its subject. Borsoka (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

As I outlined above in this discussion, this article is in desperate need of a massive overhaul. I created it when I split up the original overbloated article on the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, but I also am not an expert in archaeogenetics, and so I've been hoping someone who is might come and fix the dang thing. Perhaps that will happen now with this recent attention given it. I must say that even calling it "archaeogenetics" is something I am not an expert on, since I was using that term from when it was coined in the original article by someone who speaks Romanian as his main tongue, and I have the feeling that it might be completely the wrong term, but I do not know even that for sure. I noticed in other places in the original article that the words chosen by the Romanian who did most of the early writing used expressions and words that were basically either direct translations from Romanian into English (and which didn't really work too well), or used terms that were not used in English. This may be such a similar case. --Saukkomies ^talk 00:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Ughh... ok, so are you going to answer this man, or what? I've chosen to keep out of this silly tempest in a teapot that you've manufactured, but I just want to give you an advice (To Saukkomie? O Gods, the audacity!!!): get over yourself... Your reaction to this "archaeogenetic" imbroglio befit those of a malcontent 15yo girl... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.122.25.236 (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Please try and limit your comments to the edits and improvements to the article and it's content, not the editor. Wikipedia:No personal attacks Chaosdruid (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

If that last post was by the person who recently slashed almost all of the content from the article, then I must say that it was not I who brought on this situation; I am merely responding to what I deemed an attack from someone unwilling to work within the guidelines of proper editing. And again, by resorting to name calling and labelling, you pretty much have dug your own grave here in this debate. --Saukkomies ^talk 14:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Further edit: I believe I did "answer the man", anonymous poster. I responded by saying "I don't know." --Saukkomies ^talk 14:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear all, my understanding is that the part under the title "E1b1b1a2 (E-V13)" is not connected to the article. I suggest that it should be deleted. I emphasize that I am not an expert of the subject. Borsoka (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It appears well-referenced, and ought to be useful in a more appropriate article, if it was not already copied from one. Does anyone know where that might be? Johnbod (talk) 11:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe it was part of the original article when I picked it up to work on. --Saukkomies ^talk 21:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No it wasn't, but that doesn't answer the question anyway. added Aug 2010 Johnbod (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed text

The following text (unrelated to the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture) was removed from the article based on the discussion above. Since, this text may be useful for other articles, I copied it to this Talk page:

"==E1b1b1a2 (E-V13)== Geneticists agree that Europe is the most genetically homogeneous of all the continents. However, some patterns are discernable. An important issue regarding the genetic impact of neolithic technologies in Europe is the manner by which they were transferred into Europe. Primarily, this question pertains to whether farming was introduced by a significant migratory movement of farmers from the Near East (Cavalli-Sforza's biological demic diffusion model), or a mere "cultural diffusion", or some combination of the two. Secondarily, population geneticists have tried to clarify whether any detectable genetic signatures of Near Eastern origin correspond to the expansion routes postulated by the archaeological evidence. In 2000, Semino's study on Y DNA revealed the presence of haplotypes belonging to the large clade E1b1b1 (E-M35). These were predominantly found in the southern Balkans, southern Italy and parts of Iberia. Semino connected this pattern, along with J haplogroup subclades, to be the Y-DNA component of Cavalli-Sforza's Neolithic demic-diffusion of farmers from the Near East. Rosser et al. rather saw it as a (direct) 'North African component' in European genealogy, although they did not propose a timing and mechanism for to account for it The distribution and diversity of V13 are often thought to represent the introduction of early farming technologies, during the Neolithic expansion, into Europe by way of the Balkans.

The E-V13 clade is equivalent to the "alpha cluster" of E-M78 reported in Cruciani et al. (2004), and was first defined by the SNP V13 in Cruciani et al. (2006). Another SNP is known for this clade, V36, reported in Cruciani et al. (2007). All known positive tests for V13 are also positive for V36. So E-V13 is currently considered "phylogenetically equivalent" to E-V36.

Haplogroup E-V13 is the only lineage that reaches the highest frequencies out of Africa. In fact, it represents about 85% of the European E-M78 chromosomes with a clinal pattern of frequency distribution from the southern Balkan peninsula (19.6%) to western Europe (2.5%). The same haplogroup is also present at lower frequencies in Anatolia (3.8%), the Near East (2.0%), and the Caucasus (1.8%). In Africa, haplogroup E-V13 is rare, being observed only in northern Africa at a low frequency (0.9%).

— Cruciani et al. (2007)

The distribution of the V-13 sub-lineage of haplogroup E1b1b in Europe

Battaglia et al. (2008) proposed an earlier movement whereby the E-M78* lineage ancestral to all modern E-V13 men moved rapidly out of a Southern Egyptian homeland, and arrived in Europe with only Mesolithic technologies. They then suggest that the E-V13 sub-clade of E-M78 only expanded subsequently as native Balkan 'foragers-come-farmers' adopted Neolithic technologies from the Near East. They propose that the first major dispersal of E-V13 from the Balkans may have been in the direction of the Adriatic Sea with the Neolithic Impressed Ware culture often referred to as Impressa or Cardial. Peričic et al. (2005), rather propose that the main route of E-V13 spread was along the Vardar-Morava-Danube river 'highway' system.

In contrast to Battaglia, Cruciani et al. (2007) suggest (i) a different point of V-13 origin, and (ii) a later dispersal time. Cruciani argues that V-13 arose in western Asia, where it is found in low but significant frequencies, from whence it entered the Balkans sometime after 11 kYa. It later experienced a rapid dispersal which he dated to c. 5300 years ago in Europe, coinciding with the Balkan Bronze Age. Like Peričic et al. they consider that "the dispersion of the E-V13 and J-M12 haplogroups seems to have mainly followed the river waterways connecting the southern Balkans to north-central Europe".

Most likely, the demographic history of V13 is complex, as later population movements further amplified it's frequency in the Europe" Borsoka (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)