Talk:Chandman culture

== Lee et al. 2023 ==

A study of the relationship between ethnicity and social status in the Xiongnu Empire suggested that the ancestry of high status individuals among the Xiongnu essentially derived from the Eastern Eurasian Slab Grave culture, while retainers of comparatively lower status had high genetic heterogeneity, representing influxes from the many parts of the Xiongnu Empire, and included Chandman-related individuals.

This is a conclusion that is broader than what the authors suggest. The citation quote says:

In this genome-wide archaeogenetic study, we find high genetic heterogeneity among late Xiongnu-era individuals at two cemeteries located along the far western frontier of the Xiongnu empire and describe patterns of genetic diversity related to social status. Overall, we find that genetic heterogeneity is highest among lower-status individuals. In particular, the satellite graves surrounding the elite square tombs at TAK show extreme levels of genetic heterogeneity, suggesting that these individuals, who were likely low-ranking retainers, were drawn from diverse parts of the empire. In contrast, the highest-status individuals at the two sites tended to have lower genetic diversity and a high proportion of ancestry deriving from EIA Slab Grave groups, suggesting that these groups may have disproportionately contributed to the ruling elite during the formation of the Xiongnu empire

All it says is that in the two late-Xiongnu cemeteries these authors studied, which are from the late Xiongnu era, there were retainers with high (in most samples 11 to 52%) Chandman iron-age ancestry. It also doesn't say that the Chandman ancestry observed is representative of an "influx" to the Xiongnu, but that it was part of the founding population of the Xiongnu. The best thing to do is just remove the study from the article rather than draw broad conclusions about the entire history of the Chandman culture within the Xiongnu that the authors didn't resch based on their two late Xiongnu cemeteries from the Western frontier. Hunan201p (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The authors of the study do of course generalize ("This suggests that elite status and power was disproportionately concentrated among individuals who traced their ancestry back to the preceding EIA Slab Grave groups.", "Such patterns of ancestry, stratified by indicators of status and power, provide clues as to the nature of the political formation of the Xiongnu and the relative power dynamics of the empire’s diverse political actors." etc.... [1]). The object of a sampling study is in general to make broader inferements about a population as a whole, with the necessary precautions, otherwise sampling studies would be pretty meaningless. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

"Providing clues" is far more ambiguous langauge than A study of the relationship between ethnicity and social status in the Xiongnu Empire suggested that the ancestry of high status individuals among the Xiongnu essentially derived from the Eastern Eurasian Slab Grave culture, while retainers of comparatively lower status had high genetic heterogeneity, representing influxes from the many parts of the Xiongnu Empire, and included Chandman-related individuals. The authors actually said Thus, the extreme genetic heterogeneity within satellite graves observed at TAK may be more typical of frontier contexts, but further research at core imperial cemeteries is needed to understand these dynamics. So far the broadest inferments in the Wiki are being made by पाटलिपुत्र. - Hunan201p (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

They say "This suggests..." which is exactly the term used in our sentence. When more and broader studies are made, and more certainty arises, we can of course tweak our vocabulary accordingly. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)