Talk:Okunev culture

Confused dates

I have egalized the self-contradicting datings between the intro and the box.2A02:8108:9640:AC3:4CFB:57E4:D7B0:C665 (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Archaic Racial Pseudoscience Presented Without Criticism

There is an entire segment here revolving around classifying skull shapes as "Mongoloid" "Caucasoid" or "Americanoid"- outdated terms deriving from the pseudosciences of Racialism and Physiognomy. Considering these conceptions- presented in the article as fact- are neither supported by the subsequent palaeogenetic data nor based in anything approaching the scientific method, should the section be replaced with more data on genetic admixture and flow of the area, cultural influences et cetera? Toonelane (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Those terms are considered outdated only in the Western world, AFAIK (at least they continue to be actively used in non-Western publications). The much bigger problem with the article is the "Ethnolinguistic affiliation" section. I don't know anyone who consider the Proto-Uralic speakers to be steppe pastoralists, and the Y-haplogroup Q1a isn't associated with the Uralic peoples either. Finstergeist (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Posiive. Pure nonsense in the article.HJJHolm (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Continued: "According to recent studies, modern Native American Indians are genetically close to representatives of the Okunev culture" is nonsense because Okunev is Q1b while Amerinds are Q1a.HJJHolm (talk) 08:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

First, the very old Soviet encyclopedia is outdated and should not be cited regarding dates. second, the Svyatko (2009) paper appears completely confused because of self-contradicting dates. E.G., for the Afanasievo c. they give in centuries BC, for "Traditional/Past research": 25th-20th in Table 1 (limited to the Minusinsk Basin), in contrast to 37-25 BC in Tab. 14; and for "New 14C/curret research: 37th-25th in Fig 1, in contrast to the ca. "(2860)-2750-2470 BC" in the summed probability in Fig. 2 - at least this roughly agreeing with the 29th-25th in Tab. 14 (conclusion).HJJHolm (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Paleogenetics

Thanks for the deligent edits. However, to avoid double counts, it is absolutely neccessary to order the attestations after their ID which can easily be found in Carlos Quiles' tables, at least until 2018. Thanks.HJJHolm (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)