The genomic origins of the Bronze Age Tarim Basin mummies

I never understood how people with so much East Eurasian ancestry were supposed to look so Western European. To my eyes their faces actually looked more East Asian than anything else, given their cheekbones and eyes, and even the noses looked pretty flat to me. It sometimes seemed to me that the only reason for thinking them western looking was the hair, and I was never convinced that was the result of genes rather than the process of mummification.

Maybe I'm wrong though. Anyway, I found the phenotypic information in page J of Supplementary Table I. They don't seem particularly high in derived alleles for de-pigmentation, but maybe I'm reading it incorrectly.

I agree. Even more evident for the first pic (a man, I suppose); the woman has something we can find partly among 'nordic' types, she shows some features common among some western Europe UpperPaleo and Mesolithic people; archaic common features not yet well "forked".ATW it isn't surprising to find some not branched off features among people rich in ANE. We see nevertheless that even among a relatively small and inbreeding pop we find somehow diverging features. The man seems a bit more "east-asiatic"like.
 
I add we have to be cautious concerning some statements, even the ones which come supposedly from "authorised sources". Helas...
 
When I check the phenotype tab (J.) of the supplementary information, I see that all Tarim Basin samples probably carry EDAR except one (GMGM1) which cannot be determined, while only the Afanasievo-related AYIM22BN sample does not:
View attachment 12989

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Yes you are right.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]ERR6454735 rs3827760 GG[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]ERR6454736 rs3827760 AA[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]ERR6454742 rs3827760 GG[/FONT]
 
Trait comparison to living populations based on SNPs:

Khanty 73%
Northern South Asian 71%
East Asian 69%
European 68%
Middle East 67%
Swede 65% All Africans 65%
Estonian 61%
Native American 59%
Dravidian 58%
Adygei 55%
Turkish 54%
Russian 40%
 
Trait comparison to living populations based on SNPs:

Khanty 73%
Northern South Asian 71%
East Asian 69%
European 68%
Middle East 67%
Swede 65% All Africans 65%
Estonian 61%
Native American 59%
Dravidian 58%
Adygei 55%
Turkish 54%
Russian 40%

How can they be 65% for both African and Swedish? Doesn't that make this comparison meaningless?
 
How can they be 65% for both African and Swedish? Doesn't that make this comparison meaningless?
I explained it in another thread.

The most alleles for phenotype traits are shared by not only one, but many populations. For example the alleles for brown eyes are almost the same in Africans, Middle East and East Asians or Southern Europeans. That will give samples a higher similarity score if they have for example brown eyes SNPs.
Dark eyes are the so called “wild type” the oldest known version of this trait and most wide spread in populations.

So you might think that Swedes and Africans look very different from your ordinary perspective, but they share specific traits that they also share with the Tarim Mummies. But both did not score a high percentage in comparison to them.

People are often blinded by their eyes of one or a few traits. Many people would argue, that Negritos or Aborigines look like Africans. But there is not genetic support for this in traits. The people see black skin, big nose and curly hair and think “Ah they must be related, they look the same!” but they are not. Because they only share some traits that people notice, but have very different facial bone physiology, different teeth and ear physiology. Ear physiology for example is build on SNPs that differ often much between populations, much more then eye or hair color, but get almost unnoticed by peoples eyes.
Arabs for example are much closer in genetic traits for physiology to Africans then Negritos and Aborigines, but most people would disagree.

So making a comparison of SNPs that is based on the eye of people, would make no sense, because it would be completely unscientific and cannot reflect evolutionary connections that are not only based on skin, eye, hair color or an epicanthic fold, like many people believe.

The human mind and eye is not build to make a mathematical comparison of human traits, but build to recognize ordinary similarity or difference very fast, but this is not scientific, this is made to survive in social situations.
It is also based on learning in very early childhood. A good example of this is the “All Asians look the same” Phenomenon.

This has also got strange ways in social justice movements where Abrorigines are described as black, or somebody with a brown skin called a POC, the Idea of a white Race and so on.
 
I think it is simplistic to claim ANE is West Eurasian, since I found and find Sikorra et al persuasive in concluding that the "Ancient North Eurasians can be modelled as early West Eurasian with an approximately 22% contribution from early East Asians."

That would explain the East Asian features found by Russian anthropologists in their skulls, which I also found persuasive.

The Tarim Basin people have an additional 28% East Asian, which again makes sense looking at Chart J in the Supplement, which says they have skin lightening snps on OCA2, and carry the snps for EDAR. That hardly qualifies them for the label "West Eurasian".

That all explains why, at least to my eyes, the mummy of the man definitely, and to some extent the mummy of the woman look so East Asian in terms of features.

As to pigmentation, other than OCA2, looking at which snps on Page J were under selection for light hair, we have one snip. So, at least as far as this group of samples are concerned, only one "might" have had lighter hair. That's if you believe one such snp in combination with some skin lightening effect on OCA2 could give this result.

Anyway, the important take-away, moving from this eternal fascination with coloring, these people were not descendants of Indo-Europeans from the west, so they were not "Tocharians". The Tarim people are a relict population. The people at the Dzungaria site are another story, although I'm beginning to be persuaded that even they are not the Tocharians.
 
Uneasy to say: the angle of the face on the pic doesn't help too much. Thanks nevertheless.
I lack a reliable set of WSHG and Botai people to emit some thought about ties and differences.
It would seem that ANE rich WSHG had very light 'east-asian'like input for the phenotypical (look) aspect.

You remember this skull which seems to be similar to WSHG skull:

Neolithic west siberia (Ob-irtysh river) skull:


Graphical-facial-reconstruction-of-a-man-from-the-Neolithic-cemetery-of-Zhelezinka-by.ppm



https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Graphical-facial-reconstruction-of-a-man-from-the-Neolithic-cemetery-of-Zhelezinka-by_fig1_336560655
 
In this article "these-red-haired-chinese-mummies-come-from-all-over-eurasia-dna-reveals" on forbes (sorry I am not able to post links)
I read:


"Considering the presence of haplogroups H and K in the Xiaohe people and the geographical distribution of shared sequences, we conclude that the west Eurasian component observed in the Xiaohe people originated from western Europe, and maternal ancestry of the Xiaohe people might have close relationships with western Europeans," Li and colleagues note"


See also "Evidence that a West-East admixed population lived in the Tarim Basin as early as the early Bronze Age" on Bmc Biology


I am not able to understand how it can be made compatible with abovementioned paper which denies western genetic links...
 
Morever, I have seen several images of so called "Princess of Xiaohe".
Old photos (several years ago) seems not to represent the same mummy of most recent photos (some dayes ago)...

Several differences seem to be present in the nose, hair color, eye orbits, chin ...
Unfortunately I am newbie and I cannot post link or images...
 
In this paper "Evidence that a West-East admixed populationlived in the Tarim Basin as early as the earlyBronze Age" (2010), you can read :

Y chromosome haplogroup profiling and distributionFifteen individuals’ AMG amplicons were obtained fromthe 20 Xiaohe individuals (whose mtDNA was successfully amplified), among which seven individuals wereidentified as male and eight as female. The Y chromosome haplogroup of the seven males were all assignedto haplogroup R1a1a through screening the Y-SNPs atM89, M9, M45, M173 and M198 successively. Haplogroup R1a1a is widely distributed in Eurasia: it ismainly found in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, SouthAsia, Siberia, ancient Siberia, but rare in East Asia[22-24]"

And:

"Besides the East Eurasian lineage, two West EurasianmtDNA haplogroups H and K were found among theXiaohe people. H lineage is the most common mtDNAhaplogroup in West Eurasia [20], but haplogroup Hwith a 16260T was shared by only nine modern peoplein Genbank, including one Italian, one German, oneHungarian, one Portuguese, one Icelander and four English people. Haplogroup K, a western Eurasian-specifichaplogroup, is mainly distributed in Europe, centralAsia, and Iran [20,21]. However, haplogroup K with16134T, found in the Xiaohe people, has not beenfound in modern people to our knowledge.Among the Xiaohe people, three sequences with theunique HVRI motif 16189-16192-16311 formed a subcluster (Figure 2) and were not shared by modern people. They are identified as macrohaplogroup R throughsequencing the PCR amplicons at np10400 andnp12705 in the coding region. The np12308, np14766,np10031, np4917, np3970, and 9 bp deletion, whichare the diagnostic sites for the main subhaplogroups ofR, were further examined [15]. The results showedthat they are related neither to the West Eurasianhaplogroups UK, TJ, HV, R11 and R1, nor to the EastEurasian haplogroups B and F. So we designatedthem as haplogroup R* temporarily. Another sequencewith motif 16223-16304, shared by some people fromEast Asia, India, and Europe, was assigned tohaplogroup M*."

and conclusions:

"ConclusionsOur results demonstrated that the Xiaohe people wasan admixture from populations originating from boththe West and the East, implying that the Tarim Basinhad been occupied by an admixed population since theearly Bronze Age. Considering the unique genetic haplotypes and particular archaeological culture, theadmixed population might have had relationship withpopulations settled South Siberia during the BronzeAge. To our knowledge, this is the earliest genetic evidence of an admixed population settled in the TarimBasin"
 
Sorry, duplicate.
 
In this paper "Evidence that a West-East admixed populationlived in the Tarim Basin as early as the earlyBronze Age" (2010), you can read :

Y chromosome haplogroup profiling and distributionFifteen individuals’ AMG amplicons were obtained fromthe 20 Xiaohe individuals (whose mtDNA was successfully amplified), among which seven individuals wereidentified as male and eight as female. The Y chromosome haplogroup of the seven males were all assignedto haplogroup R1a1a through screening the Y-SNPs atM89, M9, M45, M173 and M198 successively. Haplogroup R1a1a is widely distributed in Eurasia: it ismainly found in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, SouthAsia, Siberia, ancient Siberia, but rare in East Asia[22-24]".
That is why
This is absolutely crazy.
 
I think it is simplistic to claim ANE is West Eurasian, since I found and find Sikorra et al persuasive in concluding that the "Ancient North Eurasians can be modelled as early West Eurasian with an approximately 22% contribution from early East Asians."

That would explain the East Asian features found by Russian anthropologists in their skulls, which I also found persuasive.

The Tarim Basin people have an additional 28% East Asian, which again makes sense looking at Chart J in the Supplement, which says they have skin lightening snps on OCA2, and carry the snps for EDAR. That hardly qualifies them for the label "West Eurasian".

That all explains why, at least to my eyes, the mummy of the man definitely, and to some extent the mummy of the woman look so East Asian in terms of features.

As to pigmentation, other than OCA2, looking at which snps on Page J were under selection for light hair, we have one snip*. So, at least as far as this group of samples are concerned, only one "might" have had lighter hair. That's if you believe one such snp in combination with some skin lightening effect on OCA2 could give this result.

Anyway, the important take-away, moving from this eternal fascination with coloring, these people were not descendants of Indo-Europeans from the west, so they were not "Tocharians". The Tarim people are a relict population. The people at the Dzungaria site are another story, although I'm beginning to be persuaded that even they are not the Tocharians.

* rs12821256

No one asked me, but I'll chime in anyway. :)

This is labelled the "Sleeping Beauty of Loulan". These could absolutely be the remains of an East Asian or American Indian woman to my eyes. The only difference is that the former don't have her more prominent nose.

CHSwwklsObqkiwcT1tK5Xv8LGPZB_paISXB4MNRuhYE.jpg


Beauty-of-Loulan.jpg


bae-suzy-architecture-101_0.jpg


Gong Li
Gong+Li+14.jpg



f6d30c1d244b9aa186bccb66ea4b8253.jpg


ae9f292fed728c8987d7849891d7639f.jpg


Since the Algonquins carry mtDna X2 I thought it would be interesting to look at them.
maliseetwoman.jpg



This Tarim mummy looks less East Asian to me, but it's still there.

1_A_Tarim_munny_buried_at_the_.jpg
 
I think this is a similar case to Ainu people who are segregated since Paleo age:


Here some rather unmixed Ainu in modern days:






(An Ainu warrior with an axe in traditional Ainu clothing)
https://weirdnews.info/2020/05/24/what-race-are-the-ainu-people-of-japan/
 
No one asked me, but I'll chime in anyway. :)

This Tarim mummy looks less East Asian to me, but it's still there.

IMHO, in old photos this mummy (the "princess of Xiaohe") showed red hair.

By the way, did she dye her hair?
 

This thread has been viewed 44043 times.

Back
Top