Talk:Ordos culture

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mongols Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mongols, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mongol culture, history, language, and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MongolsWikipedia:WikiProject MongolsTemplate:WikiProject MongolsMongols articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Central Asia Mid‑importance Ordos culture is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. China Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Ordos culture appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 June 2007. The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the Ordos culture includes some of the easternmost Scythians, who were settled for several centuries in an area about 300 kilometers from modern Beijing in China? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/June.

I had moved this page here, Ordos refers to a Mongol people appeared in the 15th century that had occupied that area. The Ordos people shown no hits at Google Book Search as well[1]. I also removed the infobox, since it pretty much useless, not much a useful way of summarising information that we can get for this article. Eiorgiomugini 17:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does "Those features generally declayed in further south" mean?

PHG 20:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Does this mean they had "straight hair"? or does it mean they did something to "straighten their hair"?Jakob37 02:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is discussed on User talk:Nlu, among other pages. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following passage would seem to be impossible:

"They were in contact and often at war with the pre-Han and Han populations of the period. Their former territory is now located just south of the Great Wall of China, and on the south bank of the northernmost hook of the Yellow river."

The great wall ran along the Ordos/Loess border, far south of the "Northernmost hook" of the Huanghe. Also, which hook? Elijahmeeks 01:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similar artifacts were also discovered across East Asia, including Korea, suggesting this wasn't Chinese culture. --Korsentry 06:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

> "According to Lebedynsky, they are thought to be the easternmost people of Scythian affinity to have settled here, just to the east of the better-known Yuezhi, although he provides no facts in support."

> 13. ""The Mongoloid types of the Transbaikal area and Central and Eastern Mongolia are strongly contrasted with the Europoid type displayed at the same time by the Scythian nomads occupying Western Mongolia and their predecessors of the Bronze age". "Les Saces", Lebedinsky, p125"

For genetic evidences of Europoid population of south siberia/west mongolia :

http://www.springerlink.com/content/4462755368m322k8/

Concerning Scythians and earlier Europoid population in central Asia, there is also this :

"Unravelling migrations in the steppe: mitochondrial DNA sequences from ancient central Asians"

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1691686

Besides, here are also tracks of europid populations in Xinjiang (Tarim mummies, earliest in 1,800 BC) - some were identified as Sakas (a second wave after the first settlers))) and in Linzi (Shandong province) about 500 BC (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/17/9/1396).

zhou (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ordos was a anciet white people/cromagnoid in the anciet east asia; in korea, japan, south russia, west mongolia, west baikal, etc..mongoloids assimilated the ordos no decorrer do tempo.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.192.82 (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article essentially covers three separate subjects, namely the

I'd be happy with that. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• OrdosAncientCeremonialBronzeFinialWithStandingHorse.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The study says:

"We therefore considered an alternative model in which we treat them as a mix of Yamnaya and the Han (Supplementary Table 25). This model fits all of the Iron Age Scythian groups, consistent with these groups having ancestry related to East Asians not found in the other populations. Alternatively, the Iron Age Scythian groups can also be modelled as a mix of Yamnaya and the north Siberian Nganasan (Supplementary Note 2, Supplementary Table 26)."

As such, writing "but all ultimately derived from a common Yamnaya-related ancestry from the area of the European steppes" is

If you want to discuss and edit seriously, you should register.

1) You started by writing "Scythian material culture originally originated [sic] among local East Asian people, and was transmitted to Central Asia and eastern Europe by westward movements of East Asian-related tribes" [2], which is a complete distortion of the facts and the sources. You can be banned for this.

2) Now, scaling back from these nonsensical claims, you visibly attempt to give equal weight to Yamnaya and Asia by calling them both "components": "a Yamnaya-related ancestry component from the area of the European steppes, and an East Asian-related component" [3]. But the source clearly uses the expression "Yamnaya ancestry", and uses "component" for East-Asian additions only. It is also clear from the research that these component additions occurred rather late, during the Iron Age, and that the substratum is Yamnaya, hence my wording "all ultimately derived from a common Yamnaya-related ancestry", to which was added an Asian component. Please read the source: "All Iron Age individuals investigated in this study show genomic evidence for Caucasus hunter-gatherer and Eastern European hunter-gatherer ancestry. This is consistent with the idea that the blend of EHG and Caucasian elements in carriers of the Yamnaya culture was formed on the European steppe and exported into Central Asia and Siberia" [4]. The study you found is informative, but you have to present it accurately, otherwise you will keep being reverted. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 12:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the first version was rather misleading, but that was more because of my English skills rather than intention, as the paper said it originated from East-Eurasian and spreaded westward. But I agree that it can be phrased better. However I seriously doubt that your current wording is neutral, as the source (see quote) above, clearly mentions Yamnaya-related ancestry and a East Asian component samplified by either Han or Nganasans. You simply deleted that and removed the inline citation. This is not constructive! I propose to make a rewording:

"Recent archeological and genetic data confirmed that Western and Eastern Scythians of the 1st millenium BC originated independently, but both formed from the combination of

Nganasans. According to the authors the East Asian

-related component among the Scythians most closely corresponding to the modern North Siberian Nganasan people of the lower Yenesei."

So we mention all the information of the study/citations without personal information/views. This is according to

WP:NPOV. As such I hope we find a good agreement. And btw. thank you for all your recent additions regarding the material culture and the pictures, this are very good changes.2001:4BC9:922:7BB8:DC7:3861:2109:183C (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I must add that the removal of an inline citation without explanation is rather unconstructive.2001:4BC9:922:7BB8:DC7:3861:2109:183C (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. Your text is:

Western and Eastern Scythians of the 1st millenium BC originated independently, but both formed from the combination of Yamnaya-related ancestry, which spreaded eastwards from the area of the European steppes, and an East Asian-related component samplified by Han Chinese or Nganasans.

It's better, but:

"samplified by Han Chinese or Nganasans" should be abandonned. It only refers to a genometric technique, and is very arcane and misleading. Also, the East Asian element (different from "North Siberian" Nganasans in the admixture study Figure 7) only appears at extremely low levels in Western Scythians, and at low levels in the East (Figure 7, East Asian -in yellow- appears at arround 2-3% in the west, compared to maybe around 10% in the East), so it is totally disproportionate to give such prominence to the Han Chinese component in a summary. It is only a small component which is useful for the analysis of gene flow, but is only very marginal in terms of total admixture. Only the Nganasans-type component is significant (even major) in term of total admixture, but only for Eastern Scythians. You explain the Nganasan component in the following sentence, so that's OK.

पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 06:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with your suggestion, so we will use this wording:

"Recent archeological and genetic data confirmed that Western and Eastern Scythians of the 1st millenium BC originated independently, but both formed from the combination of

Yamnaya-related ancestry, which spreaded eastwards from the area of the European steppes, and an East Asian

-related component, which most closely corresponds to the modern North Siberian Nganasan people of the lower Yenesei, to varying degrees, but generally higher among Eastern Scythians."

I think this summarize the results the best.2001:4BC9:920:9BB0:C1EA:D7D4:2BC5:C6FF (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, getting there User:2001:4BC9. Only the "formed from" seems misleading now, especially for West Scythians, as the Asian component is a result of later Iron Age gene flow accross the steps, per the study. I suggest:

"Recent archeological and genetic data suggests that the Western and Eastern Scythians of the 1st millenium BC originated independently, but both combine

Yenisey River, to varying degrees, but generally higher among Eastern Scythians." पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Agree, this is probably better.2001:4BC9:920:9BB0:C1EA:D7D4:2BC5:C6FF (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]