Talk:Caucasus hunter-gatherer

Chronology

" The light skin pigmentation characteristic of modern Europeans is estimated to have spread across Europe in a "selective sweep" during the Mesolithic (19,000 to 11,000 years ago). The associated TYRP1 alleles, SLC24A5 and SLC45A2, emerge around 19,000 years ago – during the LGM and most likely in the Caucasus.[19] The HERC2 variation for blue eyes first appears around 13,000 to 14,000 years ago in Italy and the Caucasus.[1]".

And...

"The HERC2 variation for blue eyes first appears around 13,000 to 14,000 years ago in Italy and the Caucasus.[1]"

SLC24A5 wasn't widespread across Europe as recent as 7,000 years ago, or even later. Also, the blue eye variation comes from the much earlier Western Hunter Gatherers, who were of the Black phenotype and had been living across Europe for tens of thousands of years before the Early European Farmers and the Yamnaya/Caucasus Hunter Gatherers. More here: CARTA: Ancient DNA and Human Evolution – Johannes Krause: Ancient European Population History. (20:00) Prof. Wauter Krause in 2016: "Light skin that we have so typically in Europe today is in low frequency even in Early Farmers [Neolithic, 5500 BC in Italy], but only starts to spread in the Bronze Age [2500-2300 BC]."

Also, the Yamnaya were a mix of Eastern Hunter Gatherers who were about 70-80% Western Hunter Gatherers, and Caucasus Hunter Gatherers, making the Yamnaya about 50% Western Hunter Gatherer and 50% Caucasus Hunter Gatherer. See Figure 1 B, (NATURE) Upper Palaeolithic genomes reveal deep roots of modern Eurasians.

The Early European Farmers who arrived before the Yamnaya, came from Turkey and were about 70% Anatolian Hunter Gatherers and 30% Western Hunter Gatherers. And that's before they left the Caucasus and Anatolia, for the expanses of Europe that had already been populated with Western Hunter Gatherers for tens of thousands of years earlier.

I would say it is easy to underestimate the influence of the Western Hunter Gatherers on Europe and today's population.

"The associated TYRP1 alleles, SLC24A5 and SLC45A2, emerge around 19,000 years ago – during the LGM and most likely in the Caucasus.[18][19]"

Here is what happened: the ancestral allele for gene pigmentation means skin pigments black. Derived alleles knock out specific functions and cause non-pigmentation. Derived alleles for SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 already existed among the earliest Out Of Africa Western Hunter Gatherers, however, they existed at a very low frequency. This stayed the same for the next 40,000 years. It is the high frequency that came in with the migratory waves from Anatolia (Early European Farmers, SLC24A5) and Russia/Caucasus (Yamna, Bronze Age, SLC45A2) that eventually resulted in the over 90% frequency of both. (See Krause.)

For instance Kostenki14 2 out of 113 had derived allele SLC45A2, 1 out of 6 had SLC24A5. Extended Data Table 5, (NATURE, 2016) The genetic history of Ice Age Europe. The prevalence of both at over 90% is new.

83.84.100.133 (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Content concerns - February 2020

Wow. Another fantastic Wikipedia article created by obviously well-informed, well-educated people with degrees in the field they're writing about. Just out of curiosity, are there any textbooks which discuss "Caucasian Hunter-Gatherers", or is this a term the Wikipedia community has simply made-up. You don't need to answer that question. I already know the answer. The majority of this article relies upon a one-page BBC news article written by a reporter who clearly didn't understand the implications of the data with which he was presented. This is the primary source for this article? -some reporters one-page interpretation of a peer-reviewed paper? Seriously? Because that reporter clearly knew what he was talking about, right? And blogs? REALLY? Wikipedia is citing random peoples' blogs now? Because that's definitely a reliable source. Oh, and the answer to the question I posed earlier, is, "no, the term 'Caucasian Hunter-Gatherers' is not in any textbook, because the Wikipedia community did just make the term up". How do I know this? Well, I have a Bachelor of Science in anthropology, minors in Archaeology and GIS, I've been around the world on archaeology digs, contributed to peer-reviewed papers, taught classes, and I'm currently working on my Masters. AND . . . I had never heard of the term "Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer" before, until reading it on Wikipedia 2 minutes ago. Congratulations Wikipedia. I've spent the last decade and a half of my life focused exclusively on anthropology and archaeology, and you managed to stump me yet again. Good job Wikipedia. Wikipedia is now creating its own original content based on blogs and random reporters' 1 page summaries of peer-reviewed papers. But teacher, why aren't we allowed to use Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:F99A:C427:DADA:EDCF (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, I just located the paper this entire Wikipedia article is based upon.

1. Don't cite the 1 page BBC News summary of the peer-reviewed paper. Just cite the paper.
2. "Caucasian Hunter-Gatherers" is a term originated by the authors of that paper. Outside of that paper, the term doesn't exist. This is not an established idea. The purpose of peer-reviewed work is for the data to gain a wide viewership among the membership of that field, so that a consensus can be made regarding the interpretation of the data presented. The authors of that paper decided, "for the sake of creating a focal, memorable reference, we'll call this group . . ." THE AUTHORS OF THIS PAPER ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE CALLING THIS GROUP BY THAT NAME. The fact that this group of authors created a name for something they've hypothesized and submitted for peer-review does not make it established fact. The authors of this paper created a hypothesis, collected data they believe supports their hypothesis, organized it into a paper they believe draws a correlation between their hypothesis and a conclusion, and submitted it for review among other established professionals in their field. THE NAME IS A NAME MADE-UP SIMPLY AS A REFERENCE POINT WITHIN THE PAPER. There is no widely established agreement or corroboration within the field that there's group which will be widely referred to as "Caucasian Hunter-Gatherers", meaning this work hasn't gone beyond the hypothetical stage yet.
3. "Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer (CHG) is the name of an anatomically modern human genetic lineage . ." - NO, IT'S NOT. ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING? Not only did the authors of this Wikipedia article misunderstand how the peer-review system functions, but they clearly don't understand how genetics functions and the meaning of the term "genetic lineage".
4. This article is just nonsense and should be scrapped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:F99A:C427:DADA:EDCF (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Just wanna say, all caps and bragging about your degree are .... not convincing. Textbooks are WP:TERTIARY, so, actually, we do not like to rely on them. What we are interested in here is WP:SECONDARY sources, which, besides the BBC article (I mean, I'd preferred secondaries from science journals), are what we should be looking at.--Calthinus (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Citations to blogs... should be removed however.--Calthinus (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Upon inspection it appears that Eurogenes is just being used as a place of public access to Lazaridis' paper -- which is fine from our perspective since it is actually Lazaridis' paper we are interested in. --Calthinus (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Right, except I don't need to be "convincing" because you can verify every single point I made in under 2 minutes, right? Simply find the term "Caucasian Hunter-Gatherers" in a source which doesn't directly reference the same paper cited in this article. Right? You clearly missed the point I made. EVERY SECONDARY SOURCE simply reverts back to the same paper. This term has been used in a total of 2 papers, and all the secondary sources either cite those 2 papers, or simply cite one another. What's the purpose of including a secondary source which simply cites your own primary source? You may as well just write your own paper about the primary source, and then just cite yourself. Crxp, you can around any obstacle that way. "Well, as I cited myself in the paper I wrote about this other paper." Great, you're interested in secondary sources. But don't use secondary sources which simply cite your primary source. Thats just using redundant information in an attempt to fatten-up the reference section.

Regarding I have a Bachelor of Science in anthropology, minors in Archaeology and GIS, I've been around the world on archaeology digs, contributed to peer-reviewed papers, taught classes, and I'm currently working on my Masters. AND . . . I had never heard of the term "Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer" before, until reading it on Wikipedia 2 minutes ago. - clearly your studies so far weren't about this topic. But I'm glad Wikipedia serves it's function: making scholarly knowledge widely available to a broader audience and enlighten them. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM, WP:AGF, WP:TEXTWALL

You absolute freaking nitwit. Literslly, every single reply you've left, would beinterpreted by evey single professionsal inn the field as, "wow, what a complete twit. Is this guy 12 years old?" And by the way genius, when you say "clearly your studies . . " which degree field do you think this topic falls within? I'm an anthropologist who's spent 18 months out of the last 15 years traveling the world, supervising archaeology digs sponsored by universities. My "studies" weren't about this topic? Do you have a high school diploma? I know this topic so thoroughly that I can guarantee this "topic" doesn't exist. It's nonsense. It's idiocy. Want proof? GO TO GOOGLE SCHOLAR AND FIND A SINGLE PEER-REVIEWED PAPER WITH THIS TERM IN THE TITLE. CITE THIS TERM IN ANY TEXTBOOK. OTHER THAN THE 2 ORIGINAL PAPERS CITED IN THIS WIKI ARTICLE, FIND THE TERM "CAUCASIAN HUNTER-GATHERER" ANYWHERE OTHER THAN INCIDENTALLY (WHERE 'WESTERN' AND 'HUNTER-GATHERER' HAPPEN TO BE JUXTAPOSED) Can't do it, can ya? How do I know? I did all those things. My education is lacking because I'm not familiar with a term the Wiki community read about in a peer-reviewed paper and decided, "know what, let's make this a thing". That makes my education lacking? My man, you'd get laughed out of a classroom. This topic isn't just nonsense, it literally doesn't exist. The fact that you think my expertise in this field is lacking based upon the fact that you've made something up only demonstrates that your degree is pre-school graduation. AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOODNESS, CAN YOU SPEAK LIKE A NORMAL, RATIONAL ADULT. "Clearly your studies . ." Know how I know you don't have a degree? No one with a degree has ever referred to someone else's degree field as "clearly your studies". And I don't have "my studies". ANTHROPOLOGY IS THE STUDY OF HUMANKIND. ARCHAEOLOGY IS THE STUDY OF MAN'S PHYSICAL CULTURE. ARCHAEOLOGY IS ONE OF THE 4 BRANCHES OF ANTHROPOLOGY. My studies? What freaking planet do you live on? You think "my studies" are lacking because I've never heard of this nonsense before? NO ONE HAS EVER HEARD OF THIS NONSENSE BEFORE. The fact that it was submitted in a peer-reviewed paper 5 years ago means NOTHING. HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PAPERS GET SUBMITTED FOR PEER REVIEW E V E R Y Y E A R. I've contributed to numerous papers. Half the time, I wasn't actually present as the data was being collected. When you go to "Jones et. al", know how many of those listed contributors actually too part in the data collection? Out of the 20 or so names listed, 5 of them actually collected the data. The rest are just people who got paid to sign their name. How do I know this? I've signed my name as a contributor to tons of crxp I had no part in, but read over once, said "yeah, that sounds pretty legit", and deposited the check. It doesn't mean anything. It's something you addend to your CV. Adding "I can do 100 jumping jacks" means just as much. Seriously my man, I didn't think you were a genius to begin with, but if you had any understanding of the peer-review process, you'd know you're naive as all get-out. After the first 3 to 5 listed authors of any peer-reviewed paper, ignore the rest of the names. They didn't participate in the data collection. They're beta contributors getting paid to add their names for the sake of credibility. The fact that I had to explain this to you demonstrates that you clearly don't work in this field (or any other academic field). The fact that this research team created this term as a qualifier in a peer-reviewed paper and you think it's somehow meaningful in the anthropology/archaeology community, SAYS WAY MORE ABOUT YOUR EDUCATION THAN IT DOES MINE. THE REASON THIS TERM ISN'T IN ANY TEXTBOOKS AND DOESN'T APPEAR IN THE TITLE OF A SINGLE PEER-REVIEWED PAPER AVAILABLE ON GOOGLE SCHOLAR ISN'T BECAUSE THE REST OF US ARE IGNORANT, IT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE DELUSIONAL. ASIDE FROM 2 PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS AND THIS WIKI ARTICLE, THIS TERM IS NON-EXISTENT (NOT BECAUSE YOU DOUBT MY EXPERTISE IN THE FIELD, BUT BECAUSE YOU CAN EASILY VERIFY FOR YOURSELF THAT NO ONE IN THE ACADEMIC/SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY HAS EVER HEARD OF THIS TERM). THIS TERM WAS INVENTED BY THE AUTHORS OF THE 2 PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLES CITED IN THIS WIKI ARTICLE, AND HAS NO RELEVANCE IN ANTHROPOLOGY OR ARCHAEOLOGY OUTSIDE OF THOSE 2 PAPERS Obviously the point I was making was that if this information was widely accepted within the anthropology and paleoarchaeology communities, it would be in textbooks. Do you think that deliberately missing the point I was making makes you seem intelligent? Do you think pretending to be unintelligent wins debates? OBVIOUSLY, Wikipedia does not require information to be in textbooks. Are you really trying to say that's the point you thought I was making? Or do you think the point I was making was that if this information was widely accepted, it would probably be in textbooks and included in students' curriculum? Are you simply pretending to be unintelligent, or did you really need me to explain this point to you? And genius, when someone cites their academic credentials, they're not "bragging". When I cited my credentials, I was stating that I know this field a thousand times better than you do, and I can tell you, as someone who is a virtual expert compared to you, you're talking nonsense, and I can demonstrate where and how. Genius, see how these comments are unsigned and anonymous? To "brag" to someone, you kind of have to have something to gain from it, right? I'm not bragging you shining star of brilliance, I'm telling you that I know this field a million times better than you do, your logic and reasoning is so far beyond flawed that you can't find a single academic source to agree with you beyond the source you originally cited, and you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. "Clearly your studies . . ." As far as you're concerned, I wrote the freaking book on paleoarchaeology. Know how I know thatyou don't have a degree in anything? No one a post-secondary degree (or even a bachelors of . . . anything) has ever uttered the phrase "clearly your studies". Are you in high school? No educated person on the planet has ever said to another educated person "clearly your studies . . " Is this seriously how you think adults speak? "Clearly your studies"? Are you serious? Did you get this from a Charlie Brown Christmas special? THERE'S NO "CLEARLY YOUR STUDIES". THIS IS WELL ESTABLISHED IN ANTHROPOLOGY/ARCHAEOLOGY. You'll never find a reputable anthropologist/archaeologist to support your idea. IT DOESN'T EXIST. GO TO GOOGLE SCHOLAR AND SEARCH FOR "CAUCASIAN HUNTER-GATHERER". HOW MANY RESULTS CAME BACK WITH THAT TERM IN THE TITLE? NOT A SINGLE ONE, RIGHT? Why do you think this is? (It's because no one has even conducted a study of "Caucasian Hunter-Gatherers"). If anyone had ever prepared a study of this concept and submitted it for peer-review, do you think they might have included the name of the idea in the title of the paper? And yet, of the literally millions of academic papers submitted for peer-review and available on Google Scholar, NOT A SINGLE ONE HAS THIS TERM IN THE TITLE. Seriously, I'm sorry, but do you all think you sound like the rational perspective in this argument? It blows me away that someone can sit here and tell you that I'm as close as you're ever going to come to an expert in this field, I can point-out the flagrant flaws in your logic and verification methodology, and I can demonstrate to you in a way that you can easily verify on your own (simply go to Google Scholar and see how many peer-reviewed papers you can find with "Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer" in the title), and yet, no matter how rationally and logically I try to explain the ridiculousness of this Wiki article, rather than simply doing the research yourselves, you're going to attack me. Pretty sure I know who all of you voted for in the last election. You're talking gibberish. You're talking nonsense. And you're too unintelligent to know it. THIS ENTIRE ARTICLE RELIES ON 4 SOURCES, AND 3 OF THE 4 SOURCES REVERT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCE. Are you intellectually disabled? I've spent 15 years plus my college career working in this field. Prior to reading about it on Wikipedia a few hours ago, I HAD NEVER HEARD THIS TERM BEFORE. I guarantee, it's not because my education is lacking. It's because yet again, people with the intellectual capacity of my cat are creating Wikipedia articles based upon scientific data they don't have the education or intellect to understand. I guarantee I am better versed in this field than you and all of your inbred descendants could ever hope to be. "clearly your studies . . "? IT'S NOT "MY STUDIES". I HAVE A DEGREE IN THIS FIELD, HAVE WORKED IN THIS FIELD FOR 15 YEARS, AND AM WORKING A MASTERS. ARE YOU 12? Seriously, are you an adult? When in your life have you ever spoken to another adult and addressed their degree as "your studies"? Seriously, are you developmentally slower? When people point-out clear flaws in your logic and say they know your logic is flawed, it's not because they're bragging. It's because they're demonstrating that they know what they're talking about when you clearly don't. The singular reason I am not familiar with this term, is because IT DOESN'T EXIST within the scientific or academic fields of anthropology or archaeology. WHEN I LIST MY CREDENTIALS, I'M NOT BRAGGING (if you thought that's what I was doing, it's only more evidence that perhaps your reasoning ability is not what you believe it to be) I'M SAYING THAT IF THIS TERM WAS WIDELY ACCEPTED IN THESE FIELDS, I'D KNOW, BECAUSE THIS IS MY DEGREE FIELD, AND THE FIELD I'VE BEEN WORKING IN FOR 15 YEARS. GET IT? Holy goodness. Know what the Dunning-Kruger Effect is? I bet you don't, but you're going to claim you do regardless. You found a term that was used in 2 peer-reviewed papers. When I cited the fact that the term is NOT IN ANY TEXYBOOKS, I wasn't suggesting that a term has to be in a textbook to make it eligible for Wikipedia. CLEARLY, I WAS SHOWING THAT THIS IS NOT A WIDELY ACKNOWLEDGED TERM IN THESE FIELDS, EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT INCLUDED IN ANY TEXTBOOKS IN THESE FIELDS. Are you all deliberately being unintelligent? TO SUMMARIZE: WHAT YOU THINK OF ME IS IRRELEVANT, SO DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME. THIS TERM IS NOT IN ANY TEXTBOOK ON THE PLANET, NOT IN THE TITLE OF ANY PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS OUT OF THE MILLIONS OF PAPERS AVAILABLE ON GOOGLE SCHOLAR, AND HAS ONLY BEEN CITED CORRECTLY TWICE IN THIS ENTIRE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. I KNOW THIS FIELD BETTER THAN ALL OF YOU COMBINED, AND YOU'VE CREATED A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE THAT'S GIBBERISH, AND YOU KNOW IT, AND YOU'RE LYING THROUGH YOUR TEETH IF CLAIM OTHERWISE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:F99A:C427:DADA:EDCF (talk) 07:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@IP: To all this nagging and bragging a short answer: if you want to say that "WP is crap", that's fine and we'll take it as the bottomline of your rant. If you care about content quality in WP, then go ahead and participate; if you want to participate, act collegially and don't shout and collectively insult the editors that happen to read your rant. If the page has the above-mentioned issues, we'll take care of it in due time. –Austronesier (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Right, but genius, saying that I know what I'm talking about, isn't bragging. It's supporting my assertion. And how you are going to fix it? You've made-up a topic that doesn't exist. How are you going to fix it? This term isn't in the title of a single peer-reviewed paper (again, you can verify that on Google Scholar). It's not in any textbooks. No one working in the fields of anthropology or archaeology has heard of this term which you've elaborately defined, other than the authors of the 2 papers you cited in which the term is actually used. Wikipedia has invented a topic which doesn't exist outside of Wikipedia and 2 peer-reviewed papers out of millions. How are you going to fix it? All the links to all the other pages you all have created citing all these terms that you've taken directly from those 2 papers, which aren't used anywhere else in these fields, how are you going to fix that? You all have created dozens of paged claiming it's valid anthropological and archaeological information, when it's very obviously not. How are you going to fix all of that? Some student is going to discuss these topics you've created in a paper for his class, and his instructor is going to leave a note on the paper saying, "WTF are you talking about". None of these terms you're all elaborately defining is in the title of a single peer-reviewed paper, meaning no one's ever conducted research in these topics. These terms aren't in textbooks. No one who works in these fields has ever heard of these terms. Know what "junk-science" is? You're creating it. How are you going to fix it? I'm genuinely interested, how are you going to fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:35DA:CF93:BD2A:F686 (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Per Austronesier, and to the IP editor, we welcome participation in Wikipedia, but please could you bear in mind that Wikipedia is a collegiate effort, and with no fixed deadlines. An editor removed your first comments here because of the way they were phrased. I put them back because I believe you have raised valid points, but I would ask you to have a read of this link: WP:AGF before commenting again. It is essential that we understand that everyone here is attempting to make the pages better. We understand, also, that pages can contain errors and they often do. The purpose of these talk pages is to establish a consensus view of what is correct, and you won't build a consensus for your view by ranting at everyone else. I have hidden your latest comment from view and another editor may choose to delete it. I won't reinstate it if they do, because nothing there helps us understand your concerns with the page -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's my concern with this page: it's deliberately spreading disinformation about a subject I've dedicated a combined total of almost 2 decades toward. There are literally 2 peer-reviewed papers which actually use this terminology. Otherwise, it doesn't exist. Based-upon those 2 papers, these people have created an elaborate network where each page does nothing but correspond with the linked pages, all supported by the same 2 articles. These terms aren't in the titles of a single peer-reviewed paper. They not in textbooks. They're unknown among actual anthropologists. There are literally dozens of Wikipedia articles citing these 2 lone papers, and other than those 2 papers, these terms don't exist. Here's the problem: the people creating all these pages are either the authors of those 2 papers, or they're students working beneath the authors of those papaers. They're doing this in an attempt to add validity/credibility to those 2 papers. These people are using Wikipedia to further their own personal interest. As I said before, go to Google Scholar and see how many peer-reviewed articles you can find with "Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer" in the title. Know how many? ZERO, because this term doesn't exist in academia. It's something the authors of 2 peer-reviewed papers made-up, and now there are dozens of Wikipedia articles about it. They're using Wikipedia to serve their own personal interests while spreading disinformation to students who, unfortunately, often use Wikipedia as a starting point. There are going to be numerous college students out there who use this information in their work, and they're going to have to have their instructors sit them down and explain how the peer-review process works and why you should never trust Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:35DA:CF93:BD2A:F686 (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Makes me wonder what you actually did those two decades. The origins of CGH in the steppe-populations is a hot issue at the moment. James Mallory (archaeologist), The Impact of Genetics Research on Archaeology and Linguistics in Eurasia, Russian Journal of Genetics volume 55, pages 1472–1487(2019):

Just as the genetic evidence for a steppe homeland appeared to weaken a popular theory (among archaeologists more than linguists) that the Indo-European languages spread from an Anatolian homeland with the spread of farming and the AF genetic signature, a new complication arose: the steppe signal that is found from Ireland to the Yenisei comprises an admixture of EHG and CHG. Such an admixture would appear to involve two deep sources that should have developed separately over the course of thousands of years; in short, there is no reason to believe that the two components spoke closely related languages or even belonged to the same language families. Such a model suggested that Proto-Indo-European may have originated out of the merger of two very different language families, a theory that had once had been suggested by several linguists but had never attained anything remotely resembling consensus [62]. If one does not accept an “admixture language” then the natural question remains: did Proto-Indo-European evolve out of language spoken by EHG or out of language spoken by CHG? So genetics has pushed the current homeland debate into several camps: those who seek the homeland either in the southern Caucasus or Iran (CHG) and those who locate it in the steppelands north of the Caucasus and Caspian Sea (EHG).

Kristian Kristiansen (archaeologist), proposes that the Maykop served as an intermediary. See Kristiansen, Kristian (2020), "The Archaeology of Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Anatolian: Locating the Split", in Serangeli; Olander (eds.), Dispersals and Diversification: Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives on the Early-Stages of Indo-European, BRILL:

The characteristic “steppe” profile is a mixture of EHG and CHG/Iranian ancestry. The Caucasus genetic profile lasted from the Eneolithic until the Late Bronze Age,and is shared by groups belonging to both Maykop and Kura-Axes cultures. Interestingly, they also harbor Iranian Chalcolithic ancestry, which would seem to correspond to the cultural interaction zone leading to the formation of the Maykop culture at the transition between the 5th and 4th millennium BC. Also, the appearance of the “steppe” ancestry could be identified already during the Eneolithic in the Samara steppe.

David Anthony (archaeologist), proposes a CHG-migration from south of the Caspian sea to the steppes. See Anthony, DW (2019), "Archaeology, Genetics, and Language in the Steppes: A Comment on Bomhard", Journal of Indo-European Studies: 1–23:

EHG averaged about 50% of the ancestry of the Yamnaya populations. The other half of Yamnaya genetic ancestry was Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer (CHG). The CHG mating network occupied the Caucasus Mountains, parts of eastern Anatolia, and the western Iranian plateau. How and when a CHG population entered the steppes and came to contribute half of Yamnaya genetic ancestry is an open question, and crucial for Bomhard’s hypothesis [...] The variety of CHG that constituted more than half of Yamnaya ancestry could have been the Mesolithic/Early Neolithic variety, like Hotu Cave or Kotias Cave, not yet admixed with Anatolian Farmer ancestry. If the CHG element in Yamnaya came from a non-admixed CHG population of this kind, they could have walked into the steppes from northwestern Iran/Azerbaijan at any time before about 5000 BC—before admixture with Anatolian Farmers began.

Now, if you don't have any meaningfull contribution to make, please stay away. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Are you smoking something? The Mallory paper includes a legend because he doesn't expect people to know what those terms mean. The Kristianson paper NEVER USES THE TERM "CAUCASIAN HUNTER-GATHERER" once, in the entire paper, and again, in that paper, THEY VERY CLEARLY DEFINE WHAT THE ABBREVIATIONS MEAN BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXPECT OTHER PROFESSIONALS IN THE FIELD TO BE FAMILIAR WITH THOSE ABBREVATIONS. And the Anthony paper doesn't use the term "caucasian hunter gatherer" anywhere either. Seriously, are you smoking something? Your argument is to post links to 3 papers, 2 of which never use the term "Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer", and then argue that in papers where the authors had to explain the abbreviations because no one would have know what they were talking about if they didn't provide the explanation? YOU THINK THIS IS A VALID POINT? In only 1 of those papers was the term "caucasian hunter-gatherer used", and all of the authors had to include explanations of the abbreviations because they're aware that no one currently uses those abbreviations. How do you think this supports your premise? SERIOUSLY, I'm dying to know, what was the point you thought you were making? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:35DA:CF93:BD2A:F686 (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

By the way, EVERY SINGLE-PEER REVIEWED PAPER CREATES ITS OWN ABBREVIATIONS SO THAT IT'S NOT WASTING ENDLESS TEXT SIMPLY REITERATING THE SAME TERMINOLOGY. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THOSE ABBREVIATIONS ARE WIDELY USED. It means the authors created the term "Eastern Hunter Gatherers" for their paper, knew 99% of the professionals reading their paper wouldn't know what EHG meant, so they explained to their readership that EHG is an abbreviation for Eastern Hunter-Gatherers. THE FACT THAT THEY HAD TO EXPLAIN WHAT THE ABBREVIATION MEANS, SHOULD MAKE IT VERY OBVIOUS TO YOU THAT THESE ARE IN NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM TERMS WIDELY USED IN ANTHROPOLOGY OR ARCHAEOLOGY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:35DA:CF93:BD2A:F686 (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Holy smoke. Also, the Kristianson paper you excerpted, CITES THE ANTHONY PAPER YOU EXCERPTED. It's building on the work of Anthony et. al. And yet, those 2 papers somehow managed to use the exact same terminology. I'm dumbfounded. I just can't imagine how this could be. I guess you must be right. Boy, you sure is smarter than I is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:35DA:CF93:BD2A:F686 (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

|}

@IP: First, you claim the concept "HAS NO RELEVANCE IN ANTHROPOLOGY OR ARCHAEOLOGY", but when Joshua Jonathan shows you that it is cited in other peer-reviewed publications, does that diminish its relevance? Some more then: doi:10.1038/s41467-018-08220-8, doi:10.1126/science.aar7711. –Austronesier (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:TEXTWALL, WP:NOTHERE

He didn't show anything. How do you all not get this? It's not cited in other peer-reviewed papers. Did you read my comment? The term is only on one of the papers he excerpted, ONE, AND IT'S THE SAME ANTHONY PAPER I MENTIONED BEFORE. Joshua whoever didn't demonstrate anything. In the 3 papers he excerpted, one of the papers simply cites the other paper, and they all had to explain the concepts they discussed because no anthropologist or archaeologist would had any idea what a "Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer" is. Have you read the papers? They have to explain what the terms and the abbreviations mean because otherwise anyone reading the paper would say, "I've never heard of that before and they didn't explain it, so I guess I'm done". And up til now, you've still only cited 2 peer-reviewed papers. Citing a paper that simply references something you've already cited in another paper is not how citation works. THE FACT THAT THAT TERMINOLOGY HAS BEEN USED IN 2 PEER REVIEWED PAPERS MEANS NOTHING. There are millions of peer-reviewed papers in archaeology and anthropology. Having the same terminology show-up twice in half a decade means nothing. Joshua whoever didn't demonstrate anything. He excerpted 3 of the papers already listed in the reference section, and none of those papers supported his premise. This is like having a debate with 6 year-olds. How do you not see the flagrant flaws in your logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:35DA:CF93:BD2A:F686 (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC) Oh my God, I can't do this anymore. Did you look at the citation for "EHG" in the link you just posted? IT REFERS BACK TO THE SAME ANTHONY PAPER (Anthony is cited 7 different times in that paper, right?). Seriously? what the hxll is wrong with you all? I can't do this anymore. This has to be one of the least educated groups of people I've ever interacted with. You guys win. Put whatever you want on Wikipedia. Every single article or paper you can find which simply refers back to the same 2 Anthony and Mallory papers- stock-up on 'em geniuses. Go to town. You found a concept discussed in 2 peer-reviewed papers, and then 10 things that simply refer back to those same 2 papers, and now you're off and away. Debating a group of people who have no expertise in this field, no understanding of the peer-review process, proper citation, or anything academic in general. The Dunning-Kruger Effect at its finest. Good luck, and remember boys, keep citing sources which simply refer back to those papers, and eventually, you'll be able to begin simply citing one another. Eventually, maybe Wikipedia can simply your citation exercises. Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:35DA:CF93:BD2A:F686 (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Renaming, and a possibly confusing redirect

Thank you to Joshua Jonathan for correcting the name of this article to Caucasus hunter-gatherer, which is the correct term according to multiple articles on JSTOR and others. There is still a confusing aspect to the name of this article, as there is a redirect page, Caucasus hunter-gatherers (plural) that redirects to the list-like article Prehistoric Caucasus. Shouldn't the plural Caucasus hunter-gatherers redirect to this article Caucasus hunter-gatherer (non plural)? Netherzone (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Netherzone: Done. This page also was a redirect to Prehistoric Caucasus before, but then was split into a full article. The plural redirect was not changed. This always happens when people create redirects to sections of other pages without leaving a comment line at the target. I have also added an alternative name with source. The citations in the article are still defective and messy, including wrong attributions. I'll try to clean them up first before we proceed with more material. –Austronesier (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Austronesier for the quick response and fix. Netherzone (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, when you say there are "multiple" papers on JSTOR relating to "caucasus hunter gatherer", "caucasus hunter gatherers", "caucasian hunter gatherer/gatherer(s)", or any variations thereof, you mean 3, right? Searching all of those terms, and any variations thereof on JSTOR, returns a total of 3 peer-reviewed papers with any of those terms included, and 2 of them cite one another. When you say, "according to multiple articles on JSTOR", by "multiple", you mean a total of 3, right?

On Google Scholar, you get 82 different results! Fantastic! Unless you remove results which simply cite Anthony, Mallory, and Jones, and then you remove papers which simply happen to have those three terms in tandem with one another, but which are not referencing a specific term called "Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers", and then you've got . . . 0 total results.

So, by "multiple results on JSTOR", you are, technically, correct.

Maternal admixture

The lead says "Eastern Hunter-Gatherers are believed to have received some maternal admixture from CHGs." Which source for "maternal"? And "some"? The article also says "Yamna samples had up to 43% of CHG ancestry." EHG is to be undrstood as different from Yamna? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The content in question was inserted by a new editor. I partially reverted their changes but left their addition regarding the maternal admixture since it is verified on this article. "Some" is also an appropriate word and is consistent with David Anthony's new work as well as mtDNA and Y-DNA findings in relevant archaeological cultures. Feel free to copyedit it if you think that the current wording is not accurate. Puduḫepa 08:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)