The genomic origins of the Bronze Age Tarim Basin mummies

Another provocation...
An old photo of "Xiaohe princess":
mumprincess.jpg

View attachment 13001
A recent photo of same (?) mummy.
tumblr_oesj4jUKiX1qd4nroo4_1280.jpg

View attachment 13002
Seriously, are these the same mummy?
 
For those who missed it:

Kristiina
NOVEMBER 1, 2021 AT 2:26 AM
If you want to compare the SNP data with the SNP data from the whitest ancient population sampled to date, have a look at the phenotype data in the Excel file “Data S2” of the following paper:
The Arrival of Siberian Ancestry Connecting the Eastern Baltic to Uralic Speakers further East
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982219304245#app2

Data S2. Phenotype Prediction Results, Related to Table 1.
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0960982219304245-mmc5.xlsx

As to the old finding of R1a in this group of people, I can't believe I'm quoting him, but..

Davidski said...It's no longer certain if any of the mummies belonged to R1a(xZ93), because those results were based on old PCR tests.
 
Another provocation...
An old photo of "Xiaohe princess":
mumprincess.jpg

View attachment 13001
A recent photo of same (?) mummy.
tumblr_oesj4jUKiX1qd4nroo4_1280.jpg

View attachment 13002
Seriously, are these the same mummy?

Of course it's the same mummy; it's just the lighting is different. In indoor lighting my hair looks chestnut brown, or castagne, as we say in Italy. Outside in the bright sunshine all sorts of red lights show up. I didn't dye my hair in between.

No need to create conspiracy theories out of thin air.

Since Kristina went to the trouble of answering your question about pigmentation look at the phenotype predictions for, in her words, the "whitest" ancient population found to date, which resulted from putting all the snps through a calculator. 20% of the samples had brown to blonde to red hair, NOT all of them, and these were people who carried blue eye genes. Remember, once again, pigmentation is cumulative. These people had the combination for it to show up, but even then it was present in only 20%.

Now I'm out of things to say about this topic. Everyone can believe whatever they want to believe.
 
I totally agree that they weren´t Nordics ;)

First of all they do not match well with today's Europeans in physical traits:

Khanty 73%
Northern South Asian 71%
East Asian 69%
European 68%
Middle East 67%

Yamnaya for example matches much better:

Middle East 80% Northern South Asian 80%
United Kingdom 77% Khanty 77%
Estonian 76% Netherlands 76%
Danish 75% European 75% Ashkenazi Jewish 75% Swede 75%
Bedouin 74% Palestine 74%

Yamnaya clusters with Cimmerians, Scythian and Kashkarchi, is between Finns and Tatars in terms of the PCA.

Tarim Mummies stands alone in PCA, but near Mal Ta Buret, Kennewick Man and Nogay. Nearest “Western” Population is Balkars.

But it depends on which calculator is used. Maybe somebody other can make PCA with Tarim Mummies.

Eurogenes K36 Tarim Individual

23.00 South_Central_Asian
20.12 Eastern_Euro
9.62 North_Caucasian
9.21 Amerindian
8.60 Fennoscandian
7.62 Volga-Ural
5.54 North_Atlantic
5.45 North_Sea
0.01 South_Asian

Yamnaya

19.34 North_Caucasian
18.39 South_Central_Asian
17.31 North_Sea
15.31 Fennoscandian
12.70 Eastern_Euro
7.09 East_Central_Euro
5.31 North_Atlantic
2.72 Amerindian
1.82 Volga_Ural
0.01 Central_Euro

They look like two populations from the same core in therms of ancestry, but that moved into different directions and evolved different traits.
 
For those who missed it:

Kristiina
NOVEMBER 1, 2021 AT 2:26 AM
If you want to compare the SNP data with the SNP data from the whitest ancient population sampled to date, have a look at the phenotype data in the Excel file “Data S2” of the following paper:
The Arrival of Siberian Ancestry Connecting the Eastern Baltic to Uralic Speakers further East
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982219304245#app2

Data S2. Phenotype Prediction Results, Related to Table 1.
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0960982219304245-mmc5.xlsx

As to the old finding of R1a in this group of people, I can't believe I'm quoting him, but..

Davidski said...It's no longer certain if any of the mummies belonged to R1a(xZ93), because those results were based on old PCR tests.
|


Ok, maybe no R1a, so maybe no indo-aryan tarim mummy.
But what about R1b? For example, at Xiaohe at least two mummies where R1b, and I want to stress that R1b is often related to kentum speakers, i.e. tocharian in this case ...
Therefore, tocharians are not yet ruled out.
 
Of course it's the same mummy; it's just the lighting is different. In indoor lighting my hair looks chestnut brown, or castagne, as we say in Italy. Outside in the bright sunshine all sorts of red lights show up. I didn't dye my hair in between.

No need to create conspiracy theories out of thin air.

Hair color is clearly not compatible, but even if we pretend that the difference is given by lights, IMHO at more careful analysis face features are not identical: nose, chin, cheekbones, eye sockets, skin defects...


About pigmentation of europeans (and related mentioned paper "The Arrival of Siberian Ancestry Connecting the Eastern Baltic to Uralic Speakers further East"), I think it shouldn't be discussed in this thread, which has to concern Tarim mummies.
 
The problem of loanwords from indoeuropean to old chinese is very old and it is discussed in any good book about lndoeuropean linguistics.
But we can find the discussion in several papers, for example in "Tocharian Loan Words in Old Chinese: Chariots, Chariot Gear, and Town Building", by Alexander Lubolsky, or
"Indo-European Vocabulary in Old Chinese A New Thesis on the Emergence of Chinese Language and Civilization in the Late Neolithic Age" by Tsung-tung Chang
* dog, hound (ie: *kun-k, old ch: *huan(g),*khuen )
* goose (ie: *ghans, old ch:*gans)
* pork (ie: *pork, old ch:* pog)
* horse (ie: *mork, old ch:*mog )
* cow (ie: *gwhou , old ch: *gou )
and several other as milk, chariot, ....

That is why I think WSHG/CHG people like EHG/CHG people would speak PIE. Seima turbino and karasuk culture arrived at China Bronze. I think they brought alti concept of sky god like zeus:

Deus or Zeus > ancient chinese Tees > modern chinese Di( lord, son of sky or heaven)< altai petroglyph

chinese character of sky (tian) at
Shang/Zhou:
%E5%A4%A9-bronze-shang.svg


circle B:
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQbkyaCYaerrMgWRH3K7N6x8ePnMqUdU2i9kw&usqp=CAU

"Unlike the Yangshao and Hemudu people, who came from southern China, the Huang Di nation came from west of China, from the western part of the Eurasian continent. They conquered the native people of the Yellow River and the Yangtze River, who possessed a developed agricultural culture. By combining their own imported cultural factors with those of the native culture, the Huang Di people gradually developed a splendid new civilization in the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties. They superseded the original native people to take the leading role on the stage of Chinese history. That the Huang Di nation was a branch of the archaic Indo-European people is one of the most remarkable facts thus far known to human history. But a large number of Indo-European words in Old Chinese language clearly attest to this fact. The relics left by the Huang
Di people are related to the Longshan Culture in the archaeological chronicle, and the civilization of the Xia, Shang, Zhou, and Qin秦 dynasties were its successors.27 Evidence for this claim comes from two sources: the first uses the evidence of ancient documents to show that the Zhou people, and thus the Yellow Emperor’s nation, were originally a nomadic people, and the second is to reveal that there were a large number of Indo-European words in the Zhou language, using the evidence of historical linguistics. The third is the similarity in religion between the Huang Di people and Proto-Indo-European. As to the last point, please refer to the author’s paper “Old Chinese ‘帝*tees’ and Proto-Indo-European ‘*deus’: Similarity in Religious Ideas and a Common Source in Linguistics” (Zhou 2005)."
 
on a side note :

Check CHG and Iran neolithic.
CHG has AG3-like admix, Iran neolithic not.

Actually it looks like Iran Neolithic has a pinch of AG3, whereas CHG has substantial AG3 and Anatolian Neolithic. Anatolian Neolithic and Dzudzuana are very similar which is consistent with CHG being generated through some form of AG3/Dzudzuana mixing. But how did Iranian Neolithic emerge? Could it have been AG3 mixing with more pure Basal Eurasian further South?
 
It's funny how freakishly narrow the noses look. Almost like they're trolling people who want them to be Mongloid.
 
Actually it looks like Iran Neolithic has a pinch of AG3, whereas CHG has substantial AG3 and Anatolian Neolithic. Anatolian Neolithic and Dzudzuana are very similar which is consistent with CHG being generated through some form of AG3/Dzudzuana mixing. But how did Iranian Neolithic emerge? Could it have been AG3 mixing with more pure Basal Eurasian further South?

I guess that CHG and Iran Neolithic were the same before mixing with AG3, which I think happened after 17 ka, when R1a and R1b-L754 arrived in Europe, north of the Caspian Sea, which was much bigger at that time.
The CHG lived south of the Caucasus, and R1b-V1636 arrived north of the Caucasus, maybe 15 ka. They mixed. The R1b-V1636 north of the Caucusus, in the Wang paper allready had steppe DNA.
The Iran neolithic origin is in the domestication of the wild boar, bezoar, moeflon and auroch, which is supposed to have happened further south, in the eastern Taurus Mts around 12 ka.
That is my best guess, untill more data becomes available.

P.S. : I made a mistake in my former post. EHG is ANE admixed with WHG, not with CHG.
 
It's funny how freakishly narrow the noses look. Almost like they're trolling people who want them to be Mongloid.

72 % ANE + 28 % EBA Bajkal
Late Bajkal HG were probably mongoloid, but EBA Bajkal not? Rather ANE + West Liao River EN?
 
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

Maybe I 'll take the risk to dive in the scrimmage. Later!
Just concerning autosomes, are you sure typical EHG had not-negligible 'basal eurasian'? Not only the Dzudzuana WHGlike part? Or I missed something (possible, I crossread so often!).
Thanks beforehand for answer.
 
Maybe I 'll take the risk to dive in the scrimmage. Later!
Just concerning autosomes, are you sure typical EHG had not-negligible 'basal eurasian'? Not only the Dzudzuana WHGlike part? Or I missed something (possible, I crossread so often!).
Thanks beforehand for answer.

Hello Moesan, I made a mistake here.
It should be : EHG = ANE admixed with WHG, not Dzudzuana.
So, indeed not much Basal Eurasian in EHG.
 
Let's suppose to accept the controversial results of the paper (2021) which claims "pure ANE" ancestry (whatever that means) for ALL the earliest Tarim mummies (I think it is laughable, because of the sure presence of kentum, and very probably also satem, speakers at that time in the area, anyway...)
If we consider the old proposal for indoeuropean "urheimat", we can focus on the proposal by Jain.
attachment.php

As we can observe such hypotetical urheimat has an overlap with ANE areal. So, considering tocharians and anatholians were the first branch to detach from indoeuropean core, we can infer that presumibly these languages were spoken by "pure ANE" people.
And then my conclusions:

The earliest "pure ANE" people of Tarim Basin ARE the Tocharians, or what is the same: the proto-indoeuropeans.
 
Deep eye sockets; high-bridged, narrow, and convex noses; strong chins; general "bony" relief with prominent cheek bones (but not the "swung forward" kind you see in East Asians). One is uber-dolichocephalic. I'm guessing they were rangy but strong in build. No external eye folds (so not Nordic); no "Asian" folds either that I can see.

Definitely some sort of Iranic influence. I'm guessing a mix of "Irano-Afghans" (in the old anthro parlance) and a more broad-headed and probably lighter northern type (ANE?)

They don't seem like much of a mystery to me. They are so different from modern people because they are so "simple." We are all much more mixed today. The only mystery is what the ANE component actually was/is.

I think if we went back far enough in time, we would be surprised at how quasi-East Asian all Eurasians--even western Europeans--were. The constant influx of Meds just diluted everything on the western side.
 
Deep eye sockets; high-bridged, narrow, and convex noses; strong chins; general "bony" relief with prominent cheek bones (but not the "swung forward" kind you see in East Asians). One is uber-dolichocephalic. I'm guessing they were rangy but strong in build. No external eye folds (so not Nordic); no "Asian" folds either that I can see.

Definitely some sort of Iranic influence. I'm guessing a mix of "Irano-Afghans" (in the old anthro parlance) and a more broad-headed and probably lighter northern type (ANE?)

They don't seem like much of a mystery to me. They are so different from modern people because they are so "simple." We are all much more mixed today. The only mystery is what the ANE component actually was/is.

I think if we went back far enough in time, we would be surprised at how quasi-East Asian all Eurasians--even western Europeans--were. The constant influx of Meds just diluted everything on the western side.

I think we could define them depigmented cromagnoids.
 
Let's suppose to accept the controversial results of the paper (2021) which claims "pure ANE" ancestry (whatever that means) for ALL the earliest Tarim mummies (I think it is laughable, because of the sure presence of kentum, and very probably also satem, speakers at that time in the area, anyway...)
If we consider the old proposal for indoeuropean "urheimat", we can focus on the proposal by Jain.
attachment.php

As we can observe such hypotetical urheimat has an overlap with ANE areal. So, considering tocharians and anatholians were the first branch to detach from indoeuropean core, we can infer that presumibly these languages were spoken by "pure ANE" people.
And then my conclusions:

The earliest "pure ANE" people of Tarim Basin ARE the Tocharians, or what is the same: the proto-indoeuropeans.

Try to get it right, would you? The paper emphatically DOES NOT SAY the Tarim basin people were "pure" ANE. They were 28% East Asian.

.
 
Try to get it right, would you? The paper emphatically DOES NOT SAY the Tarim basin people were "pure" ANE. They were 28% East Asian.

.

I am sorry, I'll try to explain myself better.
I think that people in that area (ANE) always had a contribution from Baykal area (northeast eurasians). I think it was unavoidable.
So "pure ANE" in this context must be understood as "free from (recent) western genetic contributions".

But in conclusion, we can not discard the possibility that such people was nothing else that the protoindoeuropeans (yes, with northeast asian contributions)
The first branch to detach, toward South and China was the tocharians (please remember the problem of loanwoards towards Old Chinese during Bronze Age).
And another branche migrated toward west, the anatholians (and maybe some probably inodoeuropean people that settled in Mesopothamia, as the Gutians).
And after this phase, all the other branches (remaining kentum branches, and then satem), in different directions.
 
I myself am not too convinced by this proposal...
But what I am proposing has the purpose to show that conclusions of controversial paper of 2021 are too hasty, because they exclude other possible models of indoeuropean expansion.
 

This thread has been viewed 44057 times.

Back
Top