The genomic origins of the Bronze Age Tarim Basin mummies

[Angela]

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/

I usually stick to older photos for any group, as they're likely to be less admixed

They have a relationship to Native Americans, and this Ainu woman certainly shows it.

Some of them look quite different, so there's definitely variation, and this variation wouldn't come from the Japanese.

Curly hair and a bit lighter than that of the Japanese, especially given that older photos "darken" people:

Variation in skin tone as well. Did the Japanese "lighten" them?

 

[Angela]

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

By the way, did she dye her hair?

No need to be snide, and stop pretending to be Italian. Change your flag to reflect reality.

Number one, hair oxidizes in death. The first color to show up in dark hair is red tones.

Second, take a look at the picture I posted of the Ainu, another population related to Amerindians. If that qualifies as red hair for you, problem solved. I'd buy they had that hair color. Flaming red, a la the Celtic Fringe or Scandinavia? Not unless you have a lot of other de-pigmentation snps, imo.

Questions all answered?

Why can't some of you people just admit you were wrong? I mean, I know, Eurogenes' list is getting longer and longer, and my paper is still clean, but that's the way it goes; I'm bound to be wrong about something big eventually.

You know what, believe what you want; you people do anyway.

And no, I didn't predict that the Tarim Basin Mummies would be a mixed ANE/East Asian people, but I did say that ANE skulls looked East Asian or East Asian admixed to me, and so did the Tarim mummies, and I'll stick with that.

 

[Just_a_Common_Guy]

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's what I feared: Nordicists now have a strong argument for continuing to link the origin of Indo-European languages to the Nordic race. According to their (false) logic: "the studied mummies were not Nordic, so it is natural that they were not Indo-European". :frown:

 

[jormung]

No need to be snide, and stop pretending to be Italian. Change your flag to reflect reality.

Mia cara Angela, sono italiano, non diciamo sciocchezze. Tu lo sei?
Non sono in grado di mostrare foto, perche' non ho ancora raggiunto i 20 post.

Mi sono limitato a fare un semplice battuta basata sul fatto che nelle vecchie foto i capelli della "principessa di Xiaohe" sono evidentemente rossi, mentre in quelle recenti No.
Non e' strano?

 

[real expert]

ANE populations were genetically a mix of mostly West-Eurasian/Caucasoid with minor East-Eurasian/Mongoloid affinity who most likely originated in Europe, but expanded from eastern Siberia. Therefore, ANE populations can also be referred to as being broadly Caucasoid. So, it makes sense that these Tarim mummies were classified as Caucasoid by anthropologists, although they surely had some East Asian/Mongoloid tendency. Besides, a user from AG noted that those Tarim mummies with Northern European phenotype were from later periods that were probably not tested by this study. Anyway, the authors are not stringent in their usage of the term"local". They consider Afanasievo who were from Southern Siberia as not "local", but the later Tarim mummies they view as "local". It seems as if the researchers translate the fact that the Afanasievo were "genetically indistinguishable" from the Yamnaya culture, into not being "local". Ancient North Eurasians are described as a lineage "which is deeply related to Paleolithic/Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in Europe," meaning that they diverged from Paleolithic Europeans a long time ago. The ANE population has also been described as having been "basal to modern-day Europeans" but not especially related to East Asians and is suggested to have perhaps originated in Europe. In contrast, the authors suggest in a misleading way that ANE was an “ancient autochthonous Asian genetic group"; implying that ANE were of “Asian” East Asian genetic ancestry proper. Furthermore, they assert that the Tarim mummies “belong to an isolated gene pool whose Asian origins can be traced to the early Holocene epoch” and that their “SO-CALLED Western physical features are probably due to their connection to the Pleistocene ANE gene pool.” What they don't tell is that ANE component is described as a lineage "which is deeply related to Paleolithic/Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in Europe". ANE population isn't especially related to East Asians who likely originated in Europe.


I'm afraid that this study will be misconstrued by some people who argue against the validity of physical anthropology. Now, these folks will have their gotcha moment. They’ll assert the Tarim mummies study has proven that "native Chinese" or "East Asians" can look "Caucasian" with blond hair, thus race is a social construct, and physical anthropology is white supremacy racist science. People either won't be aware or forget that ANE contributed to more modern Caucasian/European groups and that ANE population was not really Chinese or East Asian-like- genetically speaking. It will be ignored by some that ANE also did not contribute to East Asian populations either. Plus the local Tarim mummies are not particularly closely related to East Asians, too.

The researchers also mentioned in that paper that Native Americans and indigenous Siberians retain the highest known proportions of ANE, about 40%. At the same time, they completely omit the fact, that Northern Europeans have 20-35% ANE ancestry, and Proto-Indo-Europeans had 50%. To me, it's obvious that these geneticists interpreted the data in a way to obfuscate any evidence that shows any links between Tarim EMBA peoples who were around ~85% ANE with Europe and Northern Europeans. After so many genetic papers that were politicized by the involved researchers, I'm not really surprised.

 

[jormung]

No need to be snide, and stop pretending to be Italian. Change your flag to reflect reality.

Number one, hair oxidizes in death. The first color to show up in dark hair is red tones.

Second, take a look at the picture I posted of the Ainu, another population related to Amerindians. If that qualifies as red hair for you, problem solved. I'd buy they had that hair color. Flaming red, a la the Celtic Fringe or Scandinavia? Not unless you have a lot of other de-pigmentation snps, imo.

Questions all answered?

NO!

Number 1) hair of "princess" preserved their red color for 4000 years, and in the last one or two years thet changed color? And face features too? ....
Number 2) I DO NOT want speak about Ainu or other people in this Thread concerning Tarim mummies.

NUmber 3) we have two papers about genetis of tarim mummies which are INCOMPATBILE, Why?

 

[jormung]

ANE populations were genetically a mix of mostly West-Eurasian/Caucasoid with minor East-Eurasian/Mongoloid affinity who most likely originated in Europe, but expanded from eastern Siberia. Therefore, ANE populations can also be referred to as being broadly Caucasoid. So, it makes sense that these Tarim mummies were classified as Caucasoid by anthropologists, although they surely had some East Asian/Mongoloid tendency. Besides, a user from AG noted that those Tarim mummies with Northern European phenotype were from later periods that were probably not tested by this study. Anyway, the authors are not stringent in their usage of the term"local". They consider Afanasievo who were from Southern Siberia as not "local", but the later Tarim mummies they view as "local". It seems as if the researchers translate the fact that the Afanasievo were "genetically indistinguishable" from the Yamnaya culture, into not being "local". Ancient North Eurasians are described as a lineage "which is deeply related to Paleolithic/Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in Europe," meaning that they diverged from Paleolithic Europeans a long time ago. The ANE population has also been described as having been "basal to modern-day Europeans" but not especially related to East Asians and is suggested to have perhaps originated in Europe. In contrast, the authors suggest in a misleading way that ANE was an “ancient autochthonous Asian genetic group"; implying that ANE were of “Asian” East Asian genetic ancestry proper. Furthermore, they assert that the Tarim mummies “belong to an isolated gene pool whose Asian origins can be traced to the early Holocene epoch” and that their “SO-CALLED Western physical features are probably due to their connection to the Pleistocene ANE gene pool.” What they don't tell is that ANE component is described as a lineage "which is deeply related to Paleolithic/Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in Europe". ANE population isn't especially related to East Asians who likely originated in Europe.


I'm afraid that this study will be misconstrued by some people who argue against the validity of physical anthropology. Now, these folks will have their gotcha moment. They’ll assert the Tarim mummies study has proven that "native Chinese" or "East Asians" can look "Caucasian" with blond hair, thus race is a social construct, and physical anthropology is white supremacy racist science. People either won't be aware or forget that ANE contributed to more modern Caucasian/European groups and that ANE population was not really Chinese or East Asian-like- genetically speaking. It will be ignored by some that ANE also did not contribute to East Asian populations either. Plus the local Tarim mummies are not particularly closely related to East Asians, too.

The researchers also mentioned in that paper that Native Americans and indigenous Siberians retain the highest known proportions of ANE, about 40%. At the same time, they completely omit the fact, that Northern Europeans have 20-35% ANE ancestry, and Proto-Indo-Europeans had 50%. To me, it's obvious that these geneticists interpreted the data in a way to obfuscate any evidence that shows any links between Tarim EMBA peoples who were around ~85% ANE with Europe and Northern Europeans. After so many genetic papers that were politicized by the involved researchers, I'm not really surprised.

I fully agree with you.
I think that at the basis of this politicization there is the Uighur question.

 

[jormung]

On wikipedia, about Tarmi mummies you can read:

"Chinese historian Ji Xianlin says China "supported and admired" research by foreign experts into the mummies. "However, within China a small group of ethnic separatists have taken advantage of this opportunity to stir up trouble and are acting like buffoons. Some of them have even styled themselves the descendants of these ancient 'white people' with the aim of dividing the motherland. But these perverse acts will not succeed."

It is clear to me that genetics of tarim mummies could become a political problem.

 

[real expert]

That's what I feared: Nordicists now have a strong argument for continuing to link the origin of Indo-European languages to the Nordic race. According to their (false) logic: "the studied mummies were not Nordic, so it is natural that they were not Indo-European". :frown:

Nordicists get called out, and rightfully so. However, Chinese Nationalists, Indo-centrists create many problems for Western scientists that want to examine, test ancient DNA in their country in order to answer historical questions. Thus they are as bad as Nordicists, yet they are never under the same scrutiny as Nordicists are. Keep in mind, that China was hiding the Tarim mummies away from the world for a long time because they were shocked by their phenotype and possible foreign influence. The Tarim mummies posed a threat to the nationalistic and ‘autochthonist’ narrative of China. Plus, even after the Western scientists got access to these mummies it was difficult for them to examine them without Chinese authorities interfering. Anyway, what this Tarim mummies paper has proven is the fact that ANE-related/ANE-like people lived in certain areas of the Tarim Basin from ~2100 to ~1700 BC. Nevertheless, contrary to what the authors claim, their findings didn't refute anything about the Tocharian origin hypotheses.

 

[jormung]

Nordicists get called out, and rightfully so. However, Chinese Nationalists, Indo-centrists create many problems for Western scientists that want to examine, test ancient DNA in their country in order to answer historical questions. Thus they are as bad as Nordicists, yet they are never under the same scrutiny as Nordicists are. Keep in mind, that China was hiding the Tarim mummies away from the world for a long time because they were shocked by their phenotype and possible foreign influence. The Tarim mummies posed a threat to the nationalistic and ‘autochthonist’ narrative of China. Plus, even after the Western scientists got access to these mummies it was difficult for them to examine them without Chinese authorities interfering. Anyway, what this Tarim mummies paper has proven is the fact that ANE-related/ANE-like people lived in certain areas of the Tarim Basin from ~2100 to ~1700 BC. Nevertheless, contrary to what the authors claim, their findings didn't refute anything about the Tocharian origin hypotheses.

Again, I fully agree with you.

 

[real expert]

On wikipedia, about Tarmi mummies you can read:

"Chinese historian Ji Xianlin says China "supported and admired" research by foreign experts into the mummies. "However, within China a small group of ethnic separatists have taken advantage of this opportunity to stir up trouble and are acting like buffoons. Some of them have even styled themselves the descendants of these ancient 'white people' with the aim of dividing the motherland. But these perverse acts will not succeed."

It is clear to me that genetics of tarim mummies could become a political problem.

Of course since not the Han Chinese but the disliked and oppressed Uyghurs resembled the Tarim mummies. That was a blow for the pride of the Chinese who are all about not losing face.

Besides, A study from 2019 revealed a change in burial practices across the Tarim Basin from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age, with the newer burials being more closely aligned to those of the wider Andronovo culture.

 

[Anfänger]

Another thread politicized... thanks to real "expert"

 

[real expert]

Another thread politicized... thanks to real "expert"

Elobarate, and refute my criticism of this paper!

 

[bicicleur 2]

hap IJ = 'common west-European'
Dzudzuana = common west-European + basal eurasian
EHG = ANE admixed with Dzudzuana
CHG = Dzudzuana admixed with ANE
steppe = EHG + CHG
so steppe contains a lot of ANE

 

[Anfänger]

Besides, A study from 2019 revealed a change in burial practices across the Tarim Basin from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age, with the newer burials being more closely aligned to those of the wider Andronovo culture.

The Tarim basin was inhabited by Iranics coming from the west and south. You can see that in languages like Saka Khotanese. Uyghurs also carry a lot of BMAC ancestry so does the ancient Wusun people another hint that the Tarim basin was later inhabited by Iranics which do have steppe ancestry.





Side note: I am not going to discuss the politics with you (real expert) but ANE isn't something particular North European. Indians carry much more ANE than Northern Europeans so does some indigenous Siberians.

 

[Anfänger]

hap IJ = 'common west-European'
Dzudzuana = common west-European + basal eurasian
EHG = ANE admixed with Dzudzuana
CHG = Dzudzuana admixed with ANE
steppe = EHG + CHG
so steppe contains a lot of ANE

"Populations genetically similar to MA-1 or Yana were an important genetic contributor to Native Americans, Europeans, Central Asians, South Asians, and some East Asian groups, in order of significance.[7] Lazaridis et al. (2016:10) note "a cline of ANE ancestry across the east-west extent of Eurasia."[7] The ancient Bronze-age-steppe Yamnaya and Afanasevo cultures were found to have a noteworthy ANE component at ~50%"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancie...ally_derived_from_the_Ancient_North_Eurasians

 

[holderlin]

@Real Expert is right on.

No one is saying that ANE has zero East Asian so I don't know why we're staging this argument. But the 22% "East Asian" they do have is very ancient. It was admixed shortly after the populations split 40k years ago, so it's not the same as having recent East Asian admixture. They mixed at a time when the populations were far more similar to each other.

The fact is they're 3x more West Eurasian than East Eurasian and the skulls reflect this. This isn't some failure of physical anthropology. They have narrow pronounced noses and pronounced chins. So to compare them to modern East Asian phenotypes makes no sense and I don't know why people are compelled to do this. Considering these facts, and that they share 65% of traits with modern Khantys, it's not unreasonable to conclude that light hair was common in AG3 populations. This doesn't mean platinum blonde. It just means brown or lighter than black. Light hair is common among the Khanty who are far more closely related to Han than AG3

 

[Anfänger]

I am not familiar with physical anthropology but someone on AG wrote this:

I'm not too surprised.

Looking at the mummies from a physio-anthropological perspective, one of their most striking (and consistent; almost all of them share it) traits involve the possession of sharp/pencil-thin, lengthy noses.

I'm sure mummification plays a bit of a role here; but even then, no doubt that these people were extremely narrow-nosed.

Furthermore, their faces were quite long... yet only moderately broad (and often, actually narrow).

Also, the foreheads were quite small, and the browridges were somewhat smooth.

Now, if you've read the literature on Andronovo-Sintashta, you'll immediately realize that what I described above is very much uncharacteristic of the cranial material we have of those people.

The stereotypical Andronovons were characteristically broad-faced people, often of modest facial height. And the foreheads were by no means small.

Furthermore, their noses were very far from being paper-thin and long like these ANE-mummies. In fact, by West Eurasian standards, some Andronovo-Sintashta crania evince rather wide nasal aperture (definitely not all of them. But a good many. And even the thin-nosed ones aren't as thin-nosed as the ANE-mummies).

Finally, their browridges were often quite heavy.

Definitely not saying that "all" were like that... but many, many were.

Frankly, the only reason for thinking these mummies had anything to do with ancient Europe was the supposed fair pigmentation; craniofacial morphology-wise, I don't see any connection.

 

[Angela]

Another thread politicized... thanks to real "expert"

I knew it would happen; just a question of time. They went to get reinforcements.

Now, a population which spanned Northern Europe and Northern Asia, and was about 1/4 East Eurasian is a West Eurasian population and "Caucasoid". Furthermore, a population which got an additional whopping 28% East Asian is also Caucasoid. Last time I checked 28 and 22 equals 50% Are mulattos Caucasoid or European now too?

Also, anyone who thinks those mummies don't show anthropological signs of East Asian admixture needs glasses, either because of a vision problem or a bias problem. Damn right to view "anthropological" analyses with extreme caution if they could make such obvious errors.

Btw, I posted all the Tarim Basin female mummies I could find. They don't look like Northern Europeans.

As for the Uighers, posting cherry picked photos is not helpful. The amusing thing is that the ones posted just look like East Asians with lighter hair. They don't look "CAUCASOID".

In addition, most Uighers don't look like that. Lighter hair among them is a RARITY. Attempts to turn this into "theapricity" will fail. Fair warning.

I suppose that those same anthropologists who "identified" the Tarim Mummies as Caucasoids would say remains of people like this were also "Caucasoid".

Guess they didn't read the Sikorra et al paper, or perhaps they just prefer older, discredited papers.

Also guess they have no interest in "this" paper either.

The people from Dzungaria have ancestry which came from the western steppe. The Tarim Basin people sampled here do not. Period and end of story no matter who it upsets or doesn't upset.

Other than meaningless generalities and certitude about unsupported theories I don't see any proof proffered which would put that conclusion into doubt. Where is the statistical analysis which shows this is incorrect? Where is there any hint that an ANE population existed on the western steppe and moved east to the Tarim Basin? The question is rhetorical as there is none.

That ANE is present in populations further west on the steppe is a different issue. It exists in an admixed form, as this population in the east exists in an admixed form. It's just that the admixing populations are different. I don't see a problem here.

I also don't see any bias on the part of the authors. What, is having high percentages of ANE some sort of prize which the dastardly scientists are trying to deprive Northern Europeans of???

As often in this hobby, I just don't get it.

I used to think once the genetics papers came out that the various "ists" out there would have to accept reality, whatever it might turn out to be as to particular issues. I guess that was naïve of me.

 

[Angela]

That's what I feared: Nordicists now have a strong argument for continuing to link the origin of Indo-European languages to the Nordic race. According to their (false) logic: "the studied mummies were not Nordic, so it is natural that they were not Indo-European". :frown:

That's the East Asian skin lightening snp, not one of the West Eurasian/European ones, so that would be a miss.