The genomic origins of the Bronze Age Tarim Basin mummies

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.


You obviously missed my point. Once again, the authors in my opinion intentionally didn't mention that Proto-Indo-Europeans had 50% ANE. Furthermore, I didn't claim that ANE is particularly Northern European but that they do have considerable ANE (25%) ancestry that can't be ignored. Thus my issue is with how the researchers try to sell Tarim folks as autochthon "East Asians"/Chinese that have no connection to Europeans, whatsoever. So tell me, why do the authors operate this way if they have no agenda? Besides, I wrote this: "Nevertheless, contrary to what the authors claim, their findings didn't refute anything about the Tocharian origin hypotheses."

So, where did I exactly deny that Iranics lived in the Tarim Basim? Not me but the geneticists of this paper are saying that their findings “support no hypothesis involving substantial human migration from steppe or mountain agropastoralists for the origin of the Bronze Age Tarim mummies.”

“the material culture and genetic profile of the Tarim mummies from around 2100 bc onwards call into question simplistic assumptions about the link between genetics, culture and language”

“the greater IAMC, which spans the Hindu Kush to Altai mountains, may have alternatively functioned as a geographic arena through which cultural ideas, rather than populations, primarily moved”

I ask you politely to read my comments more carefully.
 
I am not familiar with physical anthropology but someone on AG wrote this:



Smart guy. Thanks for the heads up.

There are anthropologists and then there are anthropologists. Same goes for doctors, and lawyers as well. There are some in my profession whom I wouldn't trust to go argue a traffic ticket for me.
 
You obviously missed my point. Once again, the authors in my opinion intentionally didn't mention that Proto-Indo-Europeans had 50% ANE. Furthermore, I didn't claim that ANE is particularly Northern European but that they do have considerable ANE (25%) ancestry that can't be ignored. Thus my issue is with how the researchers try to sell Tarim folks as autochthon "East Asians"/Chinese that have no connection to Europeans, whatsoever. So tell me, why do the authors operate this way if they have no agenda? Besides, I wrote this: "Nevertheless, contrary to what the authors claim, their findings didn't refute anything about the Tocharian origin hypotheses."

So, where did I exactly deny that Iranics lived in the Tarim Basim? Not me but the geneticists of this paper are saying that their findings “support no hypothesis involving substantial human migration from steppe or mountain agropastoralists for the origin of the Bronze Age Tarim mummies.”


I ask you politely to read my comments more carefully.

These folks are one of the most authochthons folks in Asia their ancestors lived in these region since at least 15000BC they didn't live in Europe or have any European ancestry, period.If you check the PCA in this paper you would see that ANE is in between Europe and East Asia. Why should the others say that they are connected to Europeans? Because North Europeans have ANE ? What about Indians? Should the others also say that they related to Indians? Ridiculous.

I am going to bed. I have to get up early tomorrow. Have a nice night.
 
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.

Maybe I missed something, but who in this thread claimed that ANE is something particular North European?
 
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". Who the hell uses terms like that anymore? 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 they have a vision problem or they have 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, people can post all the cherry picked photos they want. The amusing thing is that the ones posted just look like East Asians with lighter hair. They don't look "CAUCASOID".Uighers

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


You automatically get hostile and accuse me of things without trying to understand where I'm coming from. In spite of knowing me long enough, you don't even bother to give me the benefit of doubt. Thanks, Angela. By the way, show me where I said that these Uyghurs or the posted mummies look "Northern European"! Anyway, I intentionally showed cherry-picked pics of light-haired Uyghurs to make a point and to demonstrate why this paper is political, not implying that the average Uyghur looks like that. For Chinese these Uyghurs look rather more European than East Asian, it doesn't matter that the bulk of them doesn't look like that. I try to explain the mindset. The same mindset who thinks that the Cheddar man is black because of his skin tone, thus closely related to Africans. Matter of fact, not a few of Uyghurs do have visible Caucasoid affinities. Plus there are to a degree, some varieties of terms of genetics and phenotypes among Uyghurs depending on the region they live in. And nope, with or without light pigmentation, Uyghurs have their own distinct physical appearance and usually look nothing like Han Chinese. You debate with so many folks that you can't distinguish between people who read studies with a critical mind or those who just impose their pet theories. On the contrary, these light-haired Uyghurs are paraded all over the Internet as "regular Chinese" to disprove the validity of physical anthropology. Besides, I don't get why you are upset that ANE people are being classified as Caucasoid, many Ethiopians and Somalis are also classified as Caucasoid. The ANE component is 85% Western Eurasian, thus not fully Western Eurasian but overwhelmingly.
 
Maybe I missed something, but who in this thread claimed that ANE is something particular North European?
When you write things that upsets people, they accuse of being a Nordicist, a racist or a loon from theapricity. They don't try to understand what you say nor do they look at the arguments.
 
Screen-Shot-2021-01-18-at-3.45.46-PM-768x506.png


uighurs-people.jpg


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.

for sure the Tarim Basin mummies didn't look like this
these are Uyghurs indeed, a Turkic tribe that conquered the Tarim Basin in the 9th century after being driven out of the steppe
 
Btw, I posted all the Tarim Basin female mummies I could find. They don't look like Northern Europeans.

Uhm...
I know at least two photos female mummies with blonde hair. On the web. You can find them on "mummipedia":

they are clearly similar to Northern Europeans of cromagnonoid type (Dalo-Falish, in early literature).
Several other photos can be found on printed books (as "In Search of the Immortals: Mummies, Death and the Afterlife")
 
Last edited:
However nobody seems able to explain to me how is it possibile to make compatible following two papers from chinese scientists:
* "Evidence that a West-East admixed populationlived in the Tarim Basin as early as the earlyBronze Age" (2010)
* "
The genomic origins of the Bronze Age Tarim Basin mummies" (2021)

These results are clearly incompatible.

Where is the truth in all of this?
 
Last edited:
When you write things that upsets people, they accuse of being a Nordicist, a racist or a loon from theapricity. They don't try to understand what you say nor do they look at the arguments.

it's some kind of woke argumentation, and it is not the first time it happens over here
but arguing against it is useless
 
However nobody seems able to explain to me how is it possibile to make compatible following two papers from chienese scientists:
* "Evidence that a West-East admixed populationlived in the Tarim Basin as early as the earlyBronze Age" (2010)
* "
The genomic origins of the Bronze Age Tarim Basin mummies" (2021)

These results are clearly incompatible.

Where is the truth in all of this?

the truth lies in the paper discussed in this thread
it explains a lot
the results are surprising, but it makes sense

also they state in the conclusion :

'the material culture and genetic profile of the Tarim mummies from around 2100 bc onwards call into question simplistic assumptions about the link between genetics, culture and language'

it is not the first time that anciant DNA proves archeology or linguists wrong
there is much more to discover with DNA
 
The 'east-asian' input is not disputable; my thoughts is that the most of the kind of 'east-asian' ancestry that had WHSG was not an too evolved kind of 'east-asian' on the phenotypes side if we refer to most of modern East-Asians, left aside some marginal pop's.
some features are ancient among Humans and some of them have been transmitted to "daughters" pop's whose global auDNA branched off at a high scale by time; We have Amerindians who show features far enough from the typical 'east-asian' package, compared to others "Asia sons", other Amerindian among these last ones.
This variance in phenotypes in more than an ancient pop stroke me; some dominance of a type appeared here and there, but minor types or specific traits seem having reappeared, as if people were always trying to "taste" uncommon types when these last ones became rather rare; not all cranial features are undergoing strong selection; sure, some features came through new crossings, not by force all of them; it seems to me some were conserved at low level. Just impressions, here I need documentation for WSHG as for Botai.
The two Tarim people I saw here are uneasy to evaluate by lack of angles, and lack of craniae radiographies; heterogenous physically at least; for ancient pop's the cheekbones breadth is not a criterium, it was so common, in Paleo-Meso Europe as well; their position at the antero-posterior level is more decisive, I think.
Nevertheless, some so called 'mongoloid' traits seem to appear, principally on the man, so not really "pure" West-Eurasian of modern times; I would be so happy if I could have more samples!
Just do remark I don't speak of pigmentation!
 
Uhm...
I know at least two photos female mummies with blonde hair. On the web. You can find them on "mummipedia":

they are clearly similar to Northern Europeans of cromagnonoid type (Dalo-Falish, in early literature).
Several other photos can be found on printed books (as "In Search of the Immortals: Mummies, Death and the Afterlife")

No offense, just:
- one cannot rely on pigmentation of mummies, at least on a superficial look -
- keep away these "dalo-falish" and some other too precise definitions of old anthropology; some can evok something to people, others are fuzzy and created by "scientists" who could create a type for everybody on this earth; ATW here I saw only two mummies; very few to judge, with only ONE angle.
 
Maybe I missed something, but who in this thread claimed that ANE is something particular North European?

I wrote this:

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. …


Yet I get a warning for things I never said. SMH
 
This variance in phenotypes in more than an ancient pop stroke me; some dominance of a type appeared here and there, but minor types or specific traits seem having reappeared, as if people were always trying to "taste" uncommon types when these last ones became rather rare; not all cranial features are undergoing strong selection; sure, some features came through new crossings, not by force all of them; it seems to me some were conserved at low level. Just impressions

that's why I avoid discussing phenotypes
no hard conclusions and to much room for bias
 
We may speak of every kind of topic without to suspect everytime a racist/supremacist is hidden in the skin of 50% of the forumers.
I suppose it's a reaction against someones who appears/appeared here. I prefer to give the "benefice of doubt" and to keep cool, even to practise humor when it's possible. This topics are so interesting!
 
I wrote this:




Yet I get a warning for things I never said. SMH

I don't think what you said is correct, it looks more like ANE originated in Siberia or maybe Central Asia.
But the way some react here is over the top.
 
that's why I avoid discussing phenotypes
no hard conclusions and to much room for bias

I understand but it's a pity!
Because phenotypes, left aside the ethnic or nationalistic aspect, are useful, not for global classification, but to show some pop's moves when their distributions change at high level in a relatively short time: it's a tool as others. Not a question of "I'm more Europoid or more Africanoid or more ... than you".
That said, yes, focalising too much on this aspect can confuse things.
 
I understand but it's a pity!
Because phenotypes, left aside the ethnic or nationalistic aspect, are useful, not for global classification, but to show some pop's moves when their distributions change at high level in a relatively short time: it's a tool as others. Not a question of "I'm more Europoid or more Africanoid or more ... than you".
That said, yes, focalising too much on this aspect can confuse things.

I know very little about the subject, but what I read is more confusing than illuminating.
Sometimes 2 populations like e.g. Negritos an pygmees are very similar phenotypes but without any genetic link.
It is supposed they both evolved in the same direction because both adapted to a similar habitat.
Others are a mystery, like the classification of the Jomon phenotype or the origin of sinodont and sundadont.
In a recent study it appeared that the Jomon are a genetically distinct and very old population, not a mixture of any 2 or more old populations known by any anciant DNA discovered uptill now.
So at least, that explains something.
I guess the origin of sinodont and sundadont will be explained when enough genetic material becomes available.
 

This thread has been viewed 43513 times.

Back
Top