a view to the north

8/9/2019 A View to the North

1/12

South Asian Archaeology 2007

Proceedings of the 19th International Conference of theEuropean Association of South Asian Archaeology

Ravenna, Italy, 2–6 July 2007

Volume I

Prehistoric Periods

Edited by

Dennys Frenez

Maurizio Tosi

BAR International Series 24542013


2/12

Published by

Archaeopress

Publishers of Brish Archaeological Reports

Gordon House

276 Banbury Road

Oxford OX2 [email protected]

www.archaeopress.com

BAR S2454

South Asian Archaeology 2007. Proceedings of the 19th Internaonal Conference of the European

Associaon of South Asian Archaeology Ravenna, Italy, 2 – 6 July 2007. Volume I: Prehistoric Periods

© Archaeopress and the individual authors 2013

ISBN 978 1 4073 1062 6

Printed in England by Informaon Press, Oxford

All BAR tles are available from:

Hadrian Books Ltd

122 Banbury Road

Oxford

OX2 7BP

England

www.hadrianbooks.co.uk

The current BAR catalogue with details of all tles in print, prices and means of payment is available free

from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com


3/12

117

A VIEW TO THE NORTH: BIOLOGICAL INTERACTIONS ACROSS THE INTER -MONTANE

BORDERLANDS DURING THE LAST TWO MILLENNIA BC

Brian E. Hemphill

Schoolchildren in the United States are taught that initial

contacts between East and West occurred in the 13th

century AD with the famous travels of Marco Polo to the

court of Kublai Khan (Komroff, 1930). By contrast,

popular perception in the East holds that contacts stem

from the travels of Zhan Qian to the West in 132 BC (Di

Cosmo, 1996). Recent archaeological discoveries in

Central Asia suggest that even this date is far too recent(Barber, 1999: 207-208). In the 1970s, silk was

discovered accompanying a burial at Sapalli tepe in

Uzbekistan, and Askarov (1973: 133-134) interpreted this

finding as proof of contact between East and West asearly as the 2nd

millennium BC. Later that decade,

discovery of woolen textiles as well as evidence of thecultivation of wheat and barley at Qäwrighul in Xinjiang

provided additional evidence of early contact between

East and West (Mallory and Mair, 2000: 136-140).

Qäwrighul represents just one example of Late

Bronze/Early Iron Age sites that have been discovered in

a series of oases along the periphery of the Taklamakän

Desert (An Zhimin, 1992). This study focuses on the sites

of Krorän, Qäwrighul and Alwighul, but of special

importance is the site of Yanbulaq, located at the eastern

periphery of the Tarim Basin. Excavation of these sitesyielded not only woolen textiles, but also wheeled

vehicles and metal objects, none of which appears to have

any local antecedents (Kuzmina, 1998). Perhaps of

greatest interest was the discovery of a series of

unintentionally mummified individuals. These

discoveries led many, such as Mair (1995: 289) to query;who were these people, and where did they come from?

The best-known explanation has been offered by Mallory

and Mair (2000), who assert the Late Bronze/Early Iron

Age populations of the Tarim Basin were colonists from

the Russo-Kazakh steppe who came to this unoccupied

region. Their model calls for two waves of immigration;

an early immigration of Afanasievo peoples, followed bya later immigration of Andronovo populations. Mallory

and Mair offer myriad evidence in support of their model

including linguistic evidence for the presence of an

undifferentiated Indo-European language known as

Tocharian, the presence of bronze objects bearing close

similarities to those found on the Russo-Kazakh steppe,

and iconography that depicts individuals of distinctly

non-East Asian appearance.

The most extensive attempts to identify the biologicalorigins of the Bronze Age Tarim Basin skeletal remains

(crania) have been by Han Kangxin. In 1998, Han offered

what may be referred to as the ‘tripartite model’. Hanasserts that initial peopling of the Tarim Basin may be

attributed to immigration of pastoralist populations from

the Russo-Kazakh steppe, but unlike Mallory and Mair,

he (1998: 565-568) claims that colonization from the

Russo-Kazakh steppe generally co-occurred with a

movement of East Asian populations into the eastern part

of the Tarim Basin. Han suggests that peopling of the

Tarim Basin ended around 500 BC with a later migration

of a ‘Pamir -Ferghana type’ population from the west.

Hence, Tarim Basin populations feature early

contributions from ‘Europoid’ populations from theRusso-Kazakh steppe and ‘Mongoloid’ populations from

East Asia, coupled with a later contribution from

populations of the Pamir-Ferghana region.

Of crucial importance to Han’s tripartite model are

human remains from Yanbulaq. According to Han (1990,1998: 561), it is here that evidence of initial contact

between the peoples of East and West may be found, for

his analysis of 29 relatively complete crania from this site

led him to identify eight as ‘Europoid’ and the remaining

21 as ‘Mongoloid’.

The purpose of this study is to test Han’s tripartite model

for Tarim Basin population origins by testing two

assertions fundamental to this model. First, there is

evidence of two biologically very different populations

(‘races’) at Yanbulaq. Second, these remains fromYanbulaq provide evidence of early contact between

populations of East and West. That is, given the

attributions made by Han (1990), one set is affiliated with

‘Europoids’ from the Russo-Kazakh steppe while the

other shares closest affinities with ‘Mongoloids’ from

East Asia.

Materials and Methods

The basis for assessing biological affinities of the crania

recovered from Yanbulaq is eight cranial measurements,

two of the vault and six of the face, taken in accordance

with the standards established by Martin (1928). Thoughfar from ideal, this battery represents the best

compromise between two opposing factors: the number

of measurements forming the basis of comparison, and

the number of individuals represented by a complete set

of data. With this battery of eight measurements, 23 of

the 29 Yanbulaq crania (16 ‘Mongoloid’, 7 ‘Europoid’)

were retained for multivariate comparison.

The Yanbulaq cranial series is compared to 29 other

cranial series comprising a total dataset of 1505individuals (845 males, 660 females) ranging in antiquity

from the Neolithic to modern (see Hemphill and Mallory

2004: Table 1). The dataset encompasses nine samplesfrom the Russo-Kazakh steppe, eight eastern Central

Asian (Xinjiang, China) and East Asian samples, seven

samples from western Central Asia (Turkmenistan,


4/12

Brian E. Hemphill

118

Uzbekistan), three samples from the Iranian Plateau

(Iran), and three samples from the greater Indus Valley

(Pakistan) (see Hemphill and Mallory, 2004: Figure 1).

Different statistical approaches are used to address the

two assertions fundamental to Han’s tripartite model. The

assertion that two very different biological populationsare present at Yanbulaq (Han, 1998: 561) is tested by size

adjusting each individual. This is accomplished by

dividing each measurement by the geometric mean of all

eight measurements by individual (Jungers et al., 1995).This removes the effect of differential size between

individual crania, which is especially important when

both males and females are compared, so that biological

differences due to geographic origin are not conflated by

sex dimorphism. Once adjusted for overall size, crania

are submitted to Ward’s (1963) hierarchical cluster

analysis to assess the patterning of intersample

similarities. Han’s second assertion that the remains

recovered from Yanbulaq provide evidence of contact between East and West is tested by quantifying pairwise

differences between samples with Mahalanobis

generalized distance. Patterning of inter-sample affinities

is simplified with two different multivariate techniques:

neighbor joining cluster analysis (Saitou and Nei, 1987)

and principal coordinates analysis (Hair et al., 1971). In

the latter analysis results are ordinated in three-

dimensional space, and a minimum spanning tree (Sneath

and Sokal, 1973) is imposed to ease interpretation ofintersample associations.

Results

Expectations of Han’s model are straightforward. First, if two biologically very different populations were present

at Yanbulaq, hierarchical cluster analysis should provide

a profound separation between ‘Europoid’ and

‘Mongoloid’ individuals. Second, if ‘Europoids’ and‘Mongoloids’ were present at Yanbulaq, ‘Europoids’

from Yanbulaq (YANE) should be identified as most

similar to ‘Europoids’ from the Russo-Kazakh steppe and

‘Mongoloids’ from Yanbulaq (YANM) should be

identified as most similar to ‘Mongoloids’ from East

Asia. Individuals from Yanbulaq should exhibit no

affinities to individuals from western Central Asia, the

Iranian Plateau or the Indus Valley since Han’s modeldoes not call for people inhabiting these regions to have

played any role in the formation of the population at

Yanbulaq.

Two Biologically Distinct Populations at Yanbulaq?

Each individual cranium was coded by sex, specimen

number, and ‘race’ identification made by Han (1990).

The dendrogram obtained from hierarchical cluster

analysis of size-standardized individual crania recovered

from Yanbulaq is provided in Figure 1. The results show

no systemic separation between those crania identified by

Han (1990) as ‘Europoid’ and those identified as‘Mongoloid’. Instead, the seven ‘Europoid’ crania are

distributed across five of the six clusters. Likewise there

is no separation between male and female crania. Such

results not only fail to identify the presence of two

biologically distinct populations at Yanbulaq, they also

confirm that the effects of sex dimorphism are effectively

controlled for by this method of size standardization.

East Meets West at Yanbulaq?

Contrary to the expectations of Han’s model, a neighbor -

joining analysis among males (Fig. 2a) reveals that

‘Europoid’ males from Yanbulaq share closest affinities

to ‘Mongoloid’ males from this same site, followed bysecondary affinities to males from other Tarim Basin

Bronze Age sites. Han’s (1998: 561) assertion that the

‘Mongoloids’ from Yanbulaq may be identified as related

to Khams Tibetans also appears unsupported, for of all

‘Mongoloid’ samples included in this compar ison, the

inhabitants of Yanbulaq are most dissimilar to Tibetans.

There also appears no basis to identify the inhabitants of

Yabulaq as ‘Europoids’, for none of the ‘Europoid’ males

from the Russo-Kazakh steppe or males associated with‘steppe-influenced’ archaeological cultures (KOK, TMM;

see Alekshin, 1986; Masson, 1992) exhibit any affinity to

the alleged ‘Europoid’ males from Yanbulaq. Rather,

apart from other Bronze Age samples from the Tarim

Basin, males from Yanbulaq share closest affinities to

males from the greater Indus Valley.

Principal coordinates analysis yields similar results (Fig.

2b). ‘Europoid’ and ‘Mongoloid’ males from Yanbulaqshare closest affinities to one another and to males from

Qäwrighul, the earliest of the Tarim Basin sites. None of

the Tarim Basin sites include males with affinities to East

Asian males. Rather, males from later Tarim Basin sites,such as Alwighul and Krorän, show closest affinities to

western Central Asian males from Sapalli tepe and

Djarkutan. Likewise, none of the males from Yanbulaq,

including those identified by Han as ‘Europoids’, exhibit

affinities to males from the Russo-Kazakh steppe. Again,

secondary affinities of Yanbulaq males, and males from

Qäwrighul, occur with males from the greater Indus

Valley.

Although Han (1990) classified all of the nearly complete

female crania recovered from Yanbulaq as ‘Mongoloid’,

neighbor-joining cluster analysis (Fig. 3a) reveals these

females share no affinities to other females from theTarim Basin or to modern East Asian females. Yanbulaq

females also exhibit no affinities to ‘Europoid’ females of

the Russo-Kazakh steppe or to females associated with

‘steppe-influenced’ artifacts. Instead, females from

Yanbulaq share nearly equal affinities to females of

western Central Asia, the greater Indus Valley, and theIranian Plateau. This pattern is confirmed by principal

coordinates analysis (Fig. 3b).

Discussion

Five significant findings may be identified from these

results. First, hierarchical cluster analysis fails to identifythe presence of two biologically very different

populations at Yanbulaq. Second, there is no evidence

that significant gene flow from Russo-Kazakh steppe


5/12

A V IEW TO THE N ORTH : B IOLOGICAL I NTERACTIONS ACROSS THE I NTER- MONTANE BORDERLANDS DURING THE L AST T WO M ILLENNIA BC

119

populations led to the establishment of the population atYanbulaq, or any of the Tarim Basin populations testedhere. Third, there is also no evidence that East Asian

populations, including Tibetans, played any significant

role in the establishment of the population at Yanbulaq.

Fourth, both neighbor-joining cluster analysis and

principal coordinates analysis indicate that Yanbulaqmales share closest affinities to males from the Indus

Valley. Fifth, in contrast to males, females from

Yanbulaq appear to have shared equally close affinities to

females from western Central Asia, the Iranian Plateau

and the greater Indus Valley.

Why is there no evidence of two ‘races’ at Yanbulaq?

The dual race assertion was advanced by Han with little

ancillary support. The strongest support comes from

inhumation context. Three inhumation patterns wereidentified at Yanbulaq and designated as types I, II and

III. Mallory and Mair (2000: 141) note that Han foundtype I tombs were exclusively Mongoloid while type II

and III tombs show the presence of Caucasoids. The

chronology of the tomb types is unclear, but one type II

tomb has been identified as stratigraphically later than atype I tomb. Mallory and Mair (2000:141-2) seize upon

this difference to claim, “if the distinctions are

chronological … then we may be witnessing the

movement of Caucasoid populations into a territory in

which Mongoloid populations had already established

themselves from the east”. However, Chen and Hiebert

(1995: 262) observe that, in addition to the more than 100

bronze artifacts associated with these tombs, a few iron

objects were also recovered and all derived from type Itombs. Using the same logic as Mallory and Mair, this

finding could be interpreted as evidence for an earlier

‘Caucasoid’ presence at Yanbulaq followed by a

subsequent ‘Mongoloid’ presence.

As provocative as such findings seem the association

between tomb type, ‘race’, and chronology is ambiguous,

for two important points are unresolved. First, how many burials in type I tombs were recovered but not subjected

to Han’s craniometric analysis because of incompleteness

and hence not assigned to a ‘racial type’? Second,

although it is clear that individuals identified by Han as

‘Caucasoid’ were found in type II and III tombs, did thesetombs also include individuals might have been identified

as ‘Mongoloids’ had they been more com pletely

preserved?

Chen and Hiebert (1995:262) assert that the while the

typology of the tombs appears clear, the artifact

assemblages associated with each are similar. From this

they suggest variation in tomb type reflects factors other

than chronology and they offer social or economic status

as possible influences. Discarding a chronological

distinction between tomb types, Mallory and Mair (2000:

142) postulate an alternative scenario with “Mongoloids

burying their dead with many grave goods in largerchambers while Caucasoids adopted single-grave burial

in less elaborate tombs”. Yet, not knowing the degree of

exclusivity of Han’s racial types to tomb types seriously

weakens the association between tomb type and racialtype and makes a distinction based on relative status

and/or wealth far more convincing.

Turning to a more fundamental issue, modern biology is

predicated on the population concept, which emphasizes

that variation among individuals of the same speciesexists within any population (Futuyma, 1997). In the ‘bad

old days’ of physical anthropology, some workers (cf. Hooton, 1938) attempted to identify racial types that

possessed certain ‘hallmark’ traits. Such efforts failed

miserably. Unfortunately, Han’s (1990, 1998)

identification of ‘Europoids’ and ‘Mongoloids’ atYanbulaq is grounded in this same typological thinking

that has proven to be of so little utility elsewhere.

Why is there no evidence for gene flow, let alone outrightcolonization, from the Russo-Kazakh steppe?

The battery of artefactual, linguistic and iconographicevidence marshaled in support of steppe influences is

impressive (Mallory and Mair, 2000), but movement of

artifacts and language distributions do not necessarily

equate to an actual movement of people. As noted byLamberg-Karlovsky (2002: 63), “ethnicity and language

are not easily linked with an archaeological signature”.

The same may also be said for genetic affinity; that is,

ethnicity and language are also not easily linked to a

genetic signature.

An array of recent genetic studies among living Central

and South Asians reveals just how tenuous the

relationship is between ethnicity, language and geneticaffinity. A comparison of genetic distances obtained from

Y-chromosome variations and geographic distances by

Zerjal and coworkers (2002: 474) found cases where

there was a great deal of heterogeneity among

populations who share either geographic proximity or

linguistic similarity as well as cases of genetic similarity

among populations who either speak very different

languages or who occupy widely separated regions.Similar results were found south of the Hindu Kush by

Qamar and coworkers (2002: 1112). These researchers

found that, apart from the Hazara who were identified as

quite distinct, all other groups exhibited a general

similarity to one another, despite the inclusion of a population that speaks a linguistic isolate (the Burushos),

one that speaks a Dravidian language (the Brahui) and

one that speaks a Sino-Tibetan language (the Balti).

Iconographic and linguistic evidence for the presence of

Tocharian-speakers within the Tarim Basin postdates the

initial peopling of the Tarim Basin by many centuries

(Mallory and Mair, 2000: 122). Hence, absence of

evidence for gene flow or even outright colonization of

the Tarim Basin from the Russo-Kazakh steppe may

simply be a consequence of a settlement pattern in which

the most valued localities were already occupied by

sedentary agriculturalists, who practiced a farming andherding economy similar to that found in western Central

Asia, when steppe pastoralist populations first appeared

in this region of eastern Central Asia (Barber, 1999: 150;


6/12

Brian E. Hemphill

120

Chen and Hiebert, 1995: 257). Indeed, it is intriguing that

prized settlement locations mirror those preferred in

Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan (Chen and Hiebert, 1995:

262). Mair (1995: 299) posits that the inclusion of small,

finely-woven baskets, which often contain grains of

wheat not only serves to link the earliest burials to later

burials but also reveals that agriculture was an importantaspect of their lives. Further, he asserts the early

inhabitants of the Tarim Basin enjoyed a peaceful and

egalitarian lifeway, for their graves show little evidence

of weaponry and none for social stratification (Mair,1995: 301-302). These are dramatic differences from

graves from the Russo-Kazakh steppe and in greater

accordance with graves associated with the Bactria-

Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) to the west

(Askarov, 1973; Askarov and Abdullaev, 1983) or those

of the greater Indus Valley to the south (Allchin and

Allchin, 1982; Dani, 1967).

Why is there no evidence for gene flow or colonization of Mongoloid populations into the Tarim Basin?

Han (1998: 561) claimed that two races were present at

Yanbulaq and that those identified as ‘Mongoloid’ shared

especially close affinities to Khams Tibetans. Yet,

regardless of statistical approach used or which sex forms

the basis of comparison, none of the inhabitants of

Yanbulaq exhibit any affinity to Han Chinese, Nepalese,

or Tibetans. There are at least two possible reasons toaccount for such results. First, it may be that substantial

immigration of East Asians into the Tarim Basin simply

occurred after the first half of the first millennium AD,

the period represented by the latest of the samplesincluded in this analysis. Although Han (1998:568)

admits the timing of initial appearance of ‘Mongoloids’

in the Tarim Basin is unclear, he nevertheless claims that

they appeared around 1350 BC, or a bit earlier, and

mainly in the eastern portion of the basin, such as at

Yanbulaq.

Other researchers are less sanguine about an early

appearance of East Asian populations. Mair (1995: 292-

294) envisions a three-part scheme for the peopling of the

Tarim Basin during the Bronze Age. He posits that the

third and final population movement involved

‘Mongoloid’ peoples from the East who entered theregion even later than the second movement, an entry of

‘Caucasoid’ peoples from the west and southwest

sometime after 500 BC. Mai-cun (1992) notes that while

there is clear evidence for contacts between the Tarim

Basin and points east during the Shang dynasty, this

contact was exclusively from west-to-east. Mei-cunasserts that this is poignantly attested by small finds

recovered from the tomb of Fu Hao at An-yang in 1976.

Over 1600 small finds were recovered and of these more

than 750 were jade carvings. All of these jade objects

were made from Khotan jade from the area of Mount

Kunlunshan. By contrast, archaeological investigations in

the Tarim Basin consistently demonstrate that objectscommonly associated with Han populations of China,

such as silk fabrics and lacquer wares, do not appear until

a millennium later, during the 7th

to 3rd

centuries BC

(Mei-cun, 1992: 93). Drawing on historical documents,

Barber (1999: 19) calls for an even later date (120 BC)

for initial substantial movement of Han Chinese, citing

efforts to open up regular trade with populations located

even further west.

A second potential reason this research failed to identifythe presence of ‘Mongoloids’ at Yanbulaq is because

Khams Tibetans, identified by Han as the purported

source for the ‘Mongoloids’ at Yanbulaq, may be

profoundly different cranially from the other Mongoloidsamples included in this analysis. Many years ago,

Morant (1924: 2) provided an analysis of Khams Tibetan

crania curated at the British Museum. Morant found these

crania to be distinct from all neighboring Asiatic peoples,

including western and central Tibetans. Nevertheless, he

also found evidence for admixture with southern Chinese

and with other Tibetans, such that these two populations

exhibited closest affinities to Khams Tibetans (Morant,

1924: 5). However, in a surprising comment Morant(1924: 40) noted, “it is probable that the Khams Tibetans

have intermingled to a certain degree with the Chinese

and Tibetans of the A type [western and central

Tibetans], but they have preserved predominantly the

characteristics of an entirely different stock which

resembles the Moriori [aboriginal inhabitants of the

Chatham Islands east of New Zealand believed to be

related to the Maori] as much as any of the Asiatic races”.

Though such affinities appear initially improbable, it may be they represent very ancient connections that date to the

initial dispersal of modern Homo sapiens throughoutCentral and Southeast Asia (cf. Passarino et al., 1996).

Such a possibility requires further examination.

How can it be that males from Yanbulaq exhibit affinitiesto males from the Indus Valley?

It should be remembered that the Great Silk R oad wasn’t

a single track running from East to West, but a

comprehensive network with branches to Siberia in the

north and to the Indian subcontinent in the south

(Kuzmina, 1998: 63-64; Mallory and Mair, 2000: 51-52).

Indeed, as pointed out by Chen and Hiebert (1995: 248-

249) not only is the Tarim Basin linked by wide passes to

eastern Kazakhstan to the northwest and to the Altai

region of southern Siberia to the north, but wide passesalso link the Tarim Basin to the Ferghana Valley to the

west and to the Indus Valley of Pakistan via the

Karakoram Pass to the south. Since this network of inter-

regional trade and communication existed during the first

half of the first millennium AD, it may be that these

connections were of even greater antiquity.Mair (1995: 296-299) claims the Bronze Age inhabitants

of the Tarim Basin are likely ancestors to the Tocharian

speakers, whose presence was first detected through

decipherment of manuscripts dating to the sixth to eighth

centuries AD. Tocharian monks are depicted in Buddhist

cave sites near Kucha and Mair emphasizes that they are

portrayed as possessing such non-East Asian physicalfeatures as fair hair, lightly pigmented eyes and narrow

noses. A characterization of these monks is given by

Mallory and Mair (2000: 248-249) in a subsection


7/12


121

entitled ‘Knights with Long Swords’, and although theyare careful to note the non-European aspects of these

portrayals in both cases, clearly the implication of this

iconographic evidence is clear-gene flow, if not outright

colonization, from Russo-Kazakh steppe populations.

In a similar vein, Barber (1999: 72) asserts that asubstantial number of Uyghurs present today throughout

Xinjiang also possess these features, which she attributes

to “a legacy of old intermarriages with the ancient early

arrivals from the west”. In an attempt to reinforce her

claim, Barber (1999: 94) draws attention to Stein’s

identification of the mummy found 15 miles from LoulanStation as being of the Homo alpinus type. However, itshould be noted this alleged racial type was not

associated with Russo-Kazakh steppe populations, but

with the present population of the Tarim Basin and with

the highland populations of the Pamirs to the west and theHindu Kush to the southwest (Stein, 1933:155).

A second aspect of Tocharian iconography also raises

questions about possible connections between the Tarim

Basin and populations located south of the Hindu Kush.

Mair (1995: 299) notes, that in addition to possessingnon-East Asian physical features, the Buddhist monks

depicted in the cave sites near Kucha are dressed in silks

and they bear an Indian religious mark (a tilaka) on theirforeheads. It has always been assumed that the silks worn

by such monks in post-Han times was of Chinese origin,

but discovery of silk in pre-Han period contexts outside

China raises the question of whether alternative sources

of wild silk may have been developed and used before

silkworms were domesticated in China (Good, 1995:959). Good (nd) asserts there are several economically

viable wild species of silkworm, some of which are not

indigenous to China, but may be found in South Asia, the

eastern Mediterranean, and even Mongolia. In Central

Asia, pre-Han silk has been found at Niya, Lop Nor and

Loulan in the Tarim Basin, at Ukok in the Altai, and at

Pazyryk in southern Siberia (Good, 1995: 960). Hence, to

unquestioningly assume that such silk is of Chineseorigin is premature.

Good (1995: 960-961) points out a crucial difference in

the processing of Chinese and non-Chinese silk. Chinese

silk from domesticated Bombyx mori cocoons is processed by degumming the silk by boiling the cocoon

before the moth emerges. This permits the cocoon to be

unraveled in one continuous filament and hence, no

spinning is required. However, the silkworm dies. On the

other hand, mukta silks were developed in India to avoid

religious taboos against the destruction of life in order to

produce ungummed silk. As Buddhists, it is highly

unlikely the Tocharian monks wore robes of degummed

silk obtained through a process that sacrificed the lives of

the silkworms. Rather, it is more likely they wore robes

made from mukta silks of possible South Asian origin.

Discovery of pre-Han silk at Sapalli tepe (Askarov, 1973)

and its recent discovery at Harappa (Good, nd) raises the possibility that at least some, if not all, of the pre-Han

silk found in Central Asia may have originated in South

Asia.

Years ago, Stacul (1992) discovered a series of artifactsin northern Pakistan he interpreted as evidence of

reciprocal contacts across the Karakoram and Hindu

Kush Mountains between the inhabitants of western

China, western Central Asia and northern Pakistan. Stacul

assigned these finds to Swat Periods III and IV, which

based on their stratigraphic position and associatedradiocarbon dates, derive from the first half of the second

millennium BC. Similarly, Barber (1999: 66) notes that

Good determined the presence of cashmere in the dress

worn by a mummy recovered from the Tarim Basin. The

presence of cashmere indicates that local groups either

kept or had access to goats from the south, from Kashmirin northern Pakistan and northwestern India. Together,

these finds suggest contacts between the Indus Valley,

Central Asia and western China may have occurred

earlier than the first millennium BC and may have

continued throughout the period encompassed by theTarim Basin cranial series analyzed in the current study.

How can it be that Yanbulaq females have equidistantaffinities to females from Central Asia, the Iranian

Plateau, and the Indus Valley?

Recent studies of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA: Comas

et al., 1998) and Y-chromosome (Pérez-Lezaun et al.,

1999; Zerjal et al., 2002) variation reveal that living

Central Asians are extremely heterogeneous and yield an

interesting pattern. When affinities through the male line

are assessed from Y-chromosome variations, Central

Asian populations are marked by high degree of structure,

in which nearly 24% of all variation occurs between

populations. By contrast, when affinities are tracedthrough the female line from mtDNA virtually all

differences occur within populations, while there is little

to no differences across populations (Yao et al., 2000).

Comas and coworkers (1998) investigated differences in

mtDNA among Kazakhs, Kirgiz and Uyghurs. They

found linguistic affiliation did not contribute to genetic

variation. A subsequent investigation of Y-chromosomeshort tandem repeats in these same individuals by Pérez-

Lezaun and coworkers (1999: 215) yielded evidence of

differential mobility by sex across linguistic boundaries.

Specifically, they found that 16% of Y-chromosome

haplotype diversity could be attributed to language groupdifferences, while differences in mtDNA proved

negligible (-0.5%). As such, it appears that among

modern Central Asians - at least among Kazakhs, Kirgiz

and Uyghurs - female migration may overcome linguistic

barriers with greater facility than male migration. Yao

and coworkers (2000: 177) analyzed mtDNA diversity

among populations of Xinjiang, Qinghai and Yunnan

provinces. Like Comas and coworkers (1998), they also

found few differences across samples. Based on the

results of the study by Pérez-Lezaun and coworkers

(1999), Yao and coworkers attributed the lack of

differentiation to high rates of female migration.

Thus, those ethnic groups of living Central Asians that

have been genetically tested share a common pattern.

Data collected within villages that encompass a


8/12

Brian E. Hemphill

122

substantial number of individuals from a single ethnic

group exhibit considerable variation in mtDNA, but

intervillage comparisons show little variation. The

opposite pattern is found for the Y chromosome. That is,

among males there is little intravillage variation in the Y-

chromosome, but profound intervillage differences. Since

mtDNA is inherited exclusively through one’s mother,while the Y chromosome is inherited from one’s father,

such disparate patterning is the logical outcome of a

marital system in which women move out of their father’s

village upon marriage to the village of their new husband,while males remain in the villages of their fathers, their

paternal uncles and grandfathers (Seielstad et al., 1998).

It may be that the social system found today in Central

Asia (Pérez-Lezaun et al., 1999: 215), in which females

serve as a sort of social mortar connecting together

isolated groups of related males, was also present some

four millennia in the past. If so, this would explain why

females from Central Asia in general, and females from

Yanbulaq in particular, exhibit equidistant affinities tofemales from an array of adjacent regions while their

male counterparts do not.

Bibliographical References

Alekshin V. A. (1986) ‘The Origin of Neolithic-Bronze

Archeological Cultures of Central Asia (Based onBurial Customs Evidence)’. Information Bulletinof the International Association for the Study ofthe Cultures of Central Asia 11: 90-97.

Allchin, B. and Allchin R. (1982) The Rise of Civilizationin Indian and Pakistan, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

An Zhimin (1992) ‘Bronze Age Communities in Eastern

Parts of Central Asia’. In Dani, A. H. and Masson,

V. M (eds) History of Civilizations of Central Asia, volume I , UNESCO, Paris: 319-336.

Askarov, A. A. (1973) Sapallitepa, FEN, Tashkent.

Askarov, A. A. and Abdullaev, B. N. (1983) Dzharkutan,Fen, Tashkent.

Barber, E. W. (1999) The Mummies of Ürümchi, W.W. Norton, New York.

Chen, K. and Hiebert, F. T. (1995). ‘The Late Prehistory

of Xinjiang in Relation to its Neighbors’. Journalof World Prehistory, 9 (2): 243-300.

Comas, D., Clafell F., Mateu E. (and 9 others) (1998)

‘Trading Genes along the Silk Road: mtDNA

Sequences and the Origin of Central Asian

populations’. American Journal Human Genetics,63: 1824-1838.

Dani, A. H. (1967) ‘Timargarha and the Gandharan

Grave Culture’. Ancient Pakistan, 3: 1-407.

Di Cosmo, N. (1996) ‘Ancient Xinjiang between Central

Asia and China: The Nomadic Factor’.

Anthropology and Archaeology of Eurasia, 34(4): 87-101.

Futuyma, D. J. (1997). Evolutionary Biology. 3rd Edition,Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.

Good, I. (in press) ‘When East Met West: Interpretive

Problems in Assessing East-West Contact and

Exchange in Antiquity’. In Betts, A. and Kidd, F.

(eds) V th ICAANE Congress Proceedings, Ancient

Near Eastern Monograph Series, Peeters,Louvain.

Good, I. (1995) ‘On the Question of Silk in pre-Han

Eurasia’. Antiquity, 69: 959-968.

Hair, J. F., Anderson R. E., Tatham R. L. andGrablowsky B. J. (1971) Multivariate Data

Analysis, PPC Books, Tulsa.

Han, K. (1990) ‘The Study of Racial Elements of Bones

from the Yanbulaq Site of Qumul, Xinjiang’.

Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 5: 371-390.

Han, K. (1998) ‘The Physical Anthropology of the

Ancient Populations of the Tarim Basin and

Surrounding Areas’. In Mair V.H. (ed) The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern Central Asia. Volume 2, University ofPennsylvania Museum Publications, Philadelphia:

558-570.

Hemphill, B. E. and Mallory J. P. (2004) ‘Horse -

Mounted Invaders from the Russo-Kazakh Steppe

or Agricultural Colonists from Western Central

Asia? A Craniometric Investigation of the Bronze

Age Settlement of Xinjiang’. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 124 (3): 199-222.

Hooton, E. A. (1938) Up from the Ape, Macmillan, New

York.Jungers, W. L., Falsetti A. B. and Wall C. E. (1995)

‘Shape, Relative Size, and Size-adjustments in

Morphometrics’. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 21: 137-161.

Komroff, M. 1930. Introduction, pp. v-xxxii in: TheTravels of Marco Polo, Komroff M, ed., Boni andLiveright, New York.

Kuzmina, E. E. (1998) ‘Cultural Connections of the

Tarim Basin People and Pastoralists of the AsianSteppes in the Bronze Age’. In Mair, V.H. (ed)

The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Peoples of

Eastern Central Asia, Volume 1, University ofPennsylvania Museum Publications, Philadelphia:63-93.

Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. (2002) ‘Archaeology andLanguage: The Indo-Aryans’. Current

Anthropology, 43 (1): 63-88.

Mair, V. H. (1995) ‘Prehistoric Caucasoid Corpses of the

Tarim Basin’. Journal of Indo-European Studies,23(3-4): 281-307.

Mallory, J. P. and Mair V. H. (2000) The Tarim Mummies, Thames and Hudson, London.

Martin, R. (1928) Lehrbuch der Anthropologie. Zweiter

Band: Kraniologie, Osteologie, Gustav FischerVerlag, Jena.


9/12


123

Masson. V. M. (1992) ‘The Decline of the Bronze AgeCivilization and Movements of the Tribes’. In

Dani, A. H. and Masson, V. M. (eds) History ofCivilizations of Central Asia, Volume I ,UNESCO, Paris: 337-356.

Mei-cun, L. (1992) ‘Tocharian People: Silk Road

Pioneers’. In Tadao, U. and Toh, S. (eds)Significance of Silk Roads in the History of

Human Civilizations, Senri Ethnological Studies No. 32, National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka:

91-96.

Passarino, G., Semino O., Bernini L. F. and Santachiara-

Benerecetti A. S. (1996) ‘Pre-Caucasoid andCaucasoid Genetic Features of the Indian

Population, Revealed by mtDNA

Polymorphisms’. American Journal of HumanGenetics, 59: 927-934.

Pérez-Lezaun A., Calafell F., Comas D. (and 9 others).

(1999) ‘Sex-specific Migration Patterns in CentralAsian Populations, Revealed by Analysis of Y-

chromosome Short Tandem Repeats and

mtDNA’. American Journal of Human Genetics,65: 208-219.

Qamar, R., Ayub Q., Mohyuddin A. (and 6 others) (2002)

‘Y-chromosomal DNA Variation in Pakistan’.

American Journal of Human Genetics, 70: 1107-1124.

Saitou, N. and Nei M. (1987) ‘The Neighbor -Joining

Method: A New Method for Reconstructing

Phylogenetic Trees’. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 4: 406-425.

Seielstad, M., Minch E. and Cavalli-Sforza L. L. (1998)

‘Genetic Evidence for a Higher Female Migration

Rate in Humans’. Nature Genetics, 20: 278-280.

Sneath, P. H. A. and Sokal R. R. (1973) NumericalTaxonomy. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco.

Stacul, G. (1992) ‘Further Evidence for the ‘Inner Asia

Complex’ from Swat’. In Possehl, G. (ed) South Asian Archaeology Studies, Science Publishers, New York: 111-122.

Stein, M. A. (1933) On Central Asian Tracks. Macmillan,London.

Ward, J. H. (1963) ‘Hierarchical Grouping to Optimizean Objective Function’. Journal of the AmericanStatistical Association, 58: 236-244.

Yao, Y.-G., Lü X.-M., Luo H.-R., Li W.-H. and Zhang

Y.-P. (2000) ‘Gene Admixture in the Silk Road

Region of China: Evidence from mtDNA and

Melanocortin 1 Receptor Polymorphism’. Genesand Genetic Systems, 75: 173-178.

Zerjal, T., Wells R. S., Yuldasheva N. and Ruzibakiev R.

(2002) ‘A Genetic Landscape Reshaped by

Recent Events: Y-chromosomal Insights intoCentral Asia’. American Journal of HumanGenetics, 71: 466-482


10/12

Brian E. Hemphill

124

Fig. 1 – Hierarchical cluster analysis of individual crania recovered from Yanbulaq with Ward’s method (1963). Branch points are Euclideandistances. Individual crania are coded by sex, specimen number, and “race” identification according to Han (1990). Example: F 21M=

Female, Specimen Number 21, identified by Han (1990) as “Mongoloid.”


11/12


12/12

Brian E. Hemphill

126

a)

b)

Fig. 3 – Patterning of intersample affinities and differences among females obtained from the diagonal matrix of pairwise Mahalanobisgeneralized distances. (a) neighbor-joining cluster analysis, (b) principal coordinates analysis. Sample abbreviations same as in Figure 2,

except YAN= Yanbulaq (“Mongoloids” only).

a view to the north

Documents