Menu
Research Publication

The genomic origins of the Bronze Age Tarim Basin mummies

Zhang F, Ning C, Scott A et al.

34707286 PubMed ID
34 Authors
2021 Nov Published
18 Samples
Scroll to explore
Chapter I

Publication Details

Comprehensive information about this research publication

Authors

ZF
Zhang F
NC
Ning C
SA
Scott A
FQ
Fu Q
BR
Bjørn R
LW
Li W
WD
Wei D
WW
Wang W
FL
Fan L
AI
Abuduresule I
HX
Hu X
RQ
Ruan Q
NA
Niyazi A
DG
Dong G
CP
Cao P
LF
Liu F
DQ
Dai Q
FX
Feng X
YR
Yang R
TZ
Tang Z
MP
Ma P
LC
Li C
GS
Gao S
XY
Xu Y
WS
Wu S
WS
Wen S
ZH
Zhu H
ZH
Zhou H
RM
Robbeets M
KV
Kumar V
KJ
Krause J
WC
Warinner C
JC
Jeong C
CY
Cui Y
Chapter II

Abstract

Summary of the research findings

The identity of the earliest inhabitants of Xinjiang, in the heart of Inner Asia, and the languages that they spoke have long been debated and remain contentious1. Here we present genomic data from 5 individuals dating to around 3000-2800 BC from the Dzungarian Basin and 13 individuals dating to around 2100-1700 BC from the Tarim Basin, representing the earliest yet discovered human remains from North and South Xinjiang, respectively. We find that the Early Bronze Age Dzungarian individuals exhibit a predominantly Afanasievo ancestry with an additional local contribution, and the Early-Middle Bronze Age Tarim individuals contain only a local ancestry. The Tarim individuals from the site of Xiaohe further exhibit strong evidence of milk proteins in their dental calculus, indicating a reliance on dairy pastoralism at the site since its founding. Our results do not support previous hypotheses for the origin of the Tarim mummies, who were argued to be Proto-Tocharian-speaking pastoralists descended from the Afanasievo1,2 or to have originated among the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex3 or Inner Asian Mountain Corridor cultures4. Instead, although Tocharian may have been plausibly introduced to the Dzungarian Basin by Afanasievo migrants during the Early Bronze Age, we find that the earliest Tarim Basin cultures appear to have arisen from a genetically isolated local population that adopted neighbouring pastoralist and agriculturalist practices, which allowed them to settle and thrive along the shifting riverine oases of the Taklamakan Desert.

Chapter III

Ancient DNA Samples

18 ancient DNA samples referenced in this publication

18 Samples
Sample ID Date/Era Country Locality Sex mtDNA Y-DNA
AYIM22BY 2844 BCE China Xinjiang. Ayituohan M U5a1a1 Q1b1
AYIM22BN 2850 BCE China Xinjiang. Ayituohan F T2d1a
G218M5-2 2910 BCE China Xinjiang. Nileke M H15b1 R1b1a1a2a2
G218M5-3N 3008 BCE China Xinjiang. Nileke M U5a'b Q1b1
GMGM1 2129 BCE China Xinjiang. Beifang F C4
11KBM1 1874 BCE China Xinjiang. Beifang M C4 R1
L5209 2050 BCE China Xinjiang. Xiaohe M C4 R1b1c
L5213 2050 BCE China Xinjiang. Xiaohe M R1b1 R1b1c
L4964 2050 BCE China Xinjiang. Xiaohe F C4
L6101 1767 BCE China Xinjiang. Xiaohe F C4
L6103 1785 BCE China Xinjiang. Xiaohe F C4
L6105 2050 BCE China Xinjiang. Xiaohe F C4
L6106 2050 BCE China Xinjiang. Xiaohe F C4
XHM100 1882 BCE China Xinjiang. Xiaohe F C4
XHM110 2050 BCE China Xinjiang. Xiaohe F C4
XHM135 1918 BCE China Xinjiang. Xiaohe F C4
XHM75 2050 BCE China Xinjiang. Xiaohe F C4
SSGM16 2864 BCE China Xinjiang. Songshugou F H2b
Chapter IV

Analysis

Comprehensive review of ancestry and genetic findings

Important Disclaimer: This review has been performed semi-automatically and is provided for informational purposes only. While we strive for accuracy, this analysis may contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations of the original research. DNA Genics disclaims all liability for any inaccuracies, errors, or consequences arising from the use of this information. Users should independently verify all information and consult original research publications before making any decisions based on this content. This analysis is not intended as a substitute for professional scientific review or medical advice.

Summary

Key Findings

Ancestry Insights

Traits Analysis

Historical Context

Scientific Assessment