Talk:Tarim mummies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

[edit] Unneeded Polemic?

Excuse me, but I think I speak for a large fraction of this articles visitors. I came here because I was curious about the mummies themselves, how well preserved they are, how the mummification was accomplished, etc. This questions are pretty much being skipped in the article, which then derails into a lenghty description of an ongoing scientific debate, which is also ideologically charged (accusations of eurocentrism). Few people will find this debate interesting, and even fewer of them would consider Wikipedia the right place for it. Please don't feel offended, I'm just trying to give you a more objective, detached point of view on what the normal Wikipedia reader would like to know.

--84.176.111.49 16:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is TOTAL BIASED ONE SIDED CRAP... remove it please.

This article is completely biased and one sided. Instead of reporting simply on what the Tarim mummies are and some possible implications of their existance could be, it instead "debunks" theories that aren't even discussed at length in the books that it attacks. This is not an encyclopedia entry, but one person's blind and moronic attack on something that they obviously don't understand or have any background in.

Where's the problem? It isn't politically correct but it is true, what a surprise!

[edit] Cultural Exchange

And what kind of writing system do you suppose ancient nomads had? As far as I know, nomads typically don't have a written language system. And if any of the nomadic people located between the Caspian Sea and Xinjiang did not have a writing system pre-1000 BC, then I seriously doubt these Caucasians in the Tarim Basin did and most likely they didn't care for them.

Here we go again ,'white'aryans invade bringing civilisation bla ,bla ,bla.News Headlines "Indian Marries White Girl Produces Blond,or is it Brown or Mousey Haired offspring.However ,children are found to be Europoid,or is it Caucasoid ,Oh no they're Finnish."

It really goes both ways. Japan created the earliest polished stone tools in the world, by 30.000 BCE, and the earliest pottery by 10.000 BCE (see Japanese Paleolithic). China was ahead of the west by millenia in many technologies, which were later transmitted to the West (shipping as in Junk (sailing), paper making, gunpowder etc...). The domestication of the dog probably originated in China, as revealed by genetic analysis. And charriot and bronze-making were probably western invention somehow transmitted to China, in which these Tarim mummies are probably the missing link. PHG 21:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, what's up! The WW2 is gone for decades. Stop screaming aryan, nazi and stuff! Get real and handle the truth. However, white europeans will be extint in 200 hundred years... It's incredible how people always atack Europe and no European has the gutts to defend Her (Europa and her daughters). Have a good new year!

[edit] Where is the evidence

Looking at the mummies they could be Turkman,Pakistani, Iranian or Indians (not all Indians look like Gandi).What does the word europoid mean, are they slavs, finns. I`ve read Mallorys` book and he only describes one as blond ,then later describes it as brunnete.He also,in my opinion, uses the words Europoid ,caucasoid and caucasian as meaning the same ,or is he sitting on the fench. What evidence is there that there are Indo-European (2500 years is along time,are White/Black Ammerican descended from the Apache,they have both been found in the same area in the last 2500 years)).I think the Beauty of Kroran looks like by mum (yes she looks that bad),David looks like my dad (but fater).Oh yes ,Im not white ,I`m light reddish brown caucasoid ,except when I ended up in A&E,the doctors said I looked very pale,something to the lack of blood to the skin,thankfully I got my color (US spelling) back.Ur david looks very pale to me,lost some blood over the past 4000 years I expect,you`d expect he would be darker considering the time he has spent in the sun,must have got bleached by the sand blasting.Quick,hide the pictures its the Police.

Just to be factual, Mallory mentions several blond-haired mummies (p176-205). For example, "Baby blue", who was located nearby "Ur David" is said to be blond or light brown. I happen to have seen this baby-mummy in Tokyo last week (momentarily displayed at Silk Road exhibition at the Tokyo Edogawa Museum), and the hair is indeed plain yellow. Hair is remarkably stable in time and is considered an excellent marker for ancient forensic analysis. Together with the Tocharian languages, Chinese historical reports etc... that's quite a web of evidence which few people doubt today. PHG 22:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Except the Mummies were preserved in salt, or at least salty ground, which may have had a bleaching effect on the hair. Hair is not remarkably stable really. Tocharian is classed as related to Celtic on the basis of how they said "hundred". Birds and bats have wings. That does not make them related. There is evidence these Mummies are Europiod, but not European. Lao Wai 30 June 2005 17:53 (UTC)

All else aside, the status of Tocharian as an Indo-European language is not in any credible dispute. The lexical and grammatical relationship there is quite clear—more solid, perhaps, than Albanian.

Whether this is material to the question of the ethnic identity of the Tarim mummies or not, I just wanted to clear up the facts regarding Tocharian (which from my interpretation of Lao Wai's comment, appear to have been questioned). —Ryanaxp 16:28, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Why does one assume that the presence of "europeans?" gave civilisation to whoever,they could have just been economic migrants;the largest civilisation in ancient times just happened to be over the mountains eg the indus valley ,and don`t forget the BMAC.Does one assume that the chinese,africans,south asian in britain/ammerica gave english to the local population, if 4000 years from now we found negroid skulls in London .The age of these skulls would coincide with a massive production of english writing ,massive industrial and economic growth.It is also possible the the middle east had more `blondes` than it does now, since the arab invasion probably effected local appearance.Why do we assume all blondes came from europe.The Irish and Basques are paleolithic europeans, yet most have dark hair.

Here is a picture of a kalash girl who live Pakistan [1]. The Kalash are unique in that the male genes are no different from other pakistanis,but they female dna consists almost completly of haplogroup J.J originates from the middle east and is wide spread in europe(supposed have spread with farming).

Just as a side note, the Kalash usually claim themselves to be descendants of Alexander the Great in the East.PHG 22:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah,and the Pastun think they are one of the lost tribes of Israel;and I`m from Mars .[2].We all like to associate with the last great tribe eg english with anglo-saxons,welsh with celts,europeans with aryans and any other historical figures.

The presence of Jewish people in Central Asia from the 1st millenium BCE is actually quite documented, and is usually associated with Persian expansion. The connection of the Kalash to Alexander the Great settlers is also quite generally supported. As for your affiliation to Mars, well, if you say so... PHG 22:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

European Genes are a subset of those found in Central Asia and Middle East,hence the first blondes would have originated from these areas with positve selection in europe increasing the frequency of blonds.

--The presence of certain Europid features in modern Middle Eastern and Central Asian populations is due to the fact that at numerous points in history, Europids populated those regions, thus genetic assimilation occurred at various times during invasions and migrations. European genes are not a subset of any modern ME/CA peoples, as it is actually the other way around.

Europeans are a subset of west/central asian and ME see Indo-aryan invasion theory for refs.Yes there has been recent european contribution eg Romans,slavs ,female slave trade,but that can not be said to apply to these mummies unless we have more evidence.

It is no surprise that in a province next to Afghanistan and Pakistan you find people who look like Afghans and Pakistanis. There is a distinction between people who are Europoid, as these Mummies are, and European. Who cares what contributions Europeans have made to the gene pool of central asia? Lao Wai 30 June 2005 17:53 (UTC)

"neolithic clothing techniques." This is news to me,should it not be Iron age clothing.I don't think clothing from the european neolithic has survived,I could be wrong.

I hope they publish the genetics tests on these mummies soon.I'll be a monkey's uncle and eat my hat (pointed or otherwise)if they find Haplogroup I or AMH.(Just in case,where's that alka seltzer)

Two of the last three images are of the same female.Most of these images date from 1000bce-500bce(Mallory).

[edit] They could be finns (Or from Bengal)

I've read a number of papers on the genetics of the Uralic finnish groups.They suggest that these groups originate from the Volga basin and spread after the end of the last Ice Age.However this is the same area from where some have argued that the Indo-European languages originate (Kurgan).Hence could these mummies be Finno-Uralic not Indo-European and pre- kurgans are originally FU(Finno-Uralic) not IE.There has always been the problem of find steppe culture as far south into bactria and India (the Indo-Iranian problem);Mallory books states that not only are these Proto-europids present in the tarim but so are Indo-afghan types dated 1800bce.Could these Indo-Afhgan types be Indo-Iranian spreading from west asia Iran (Or even India),displacing FU forcing them further north.FU are spread west to east across the same range as supposed early IE steppe cultures,but today are displaced further north.Archaeogenetics of Finno-Ugric speaking populations [3]

A craniometric investigation of the Bronze Age settlement of Xinjiang American Journal of Physical Anthropology (Early View)

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

Brian E. Hemphill, J.P. Mallory

Numerous Bronze Age cemeteries in the oases surrounding the Täklamakan Desert of the Tarim Basin in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, western China, have yielded both mummified and skeletal human remains. A dearth of local antecedents, coupled with woolen textiles and the apparent Western physical appearance of the population, raised questions as to where these people came from. Two hypotheses have been offered by archaeologists to account for the origins of Bronze Age populations of the Tarim Basin. These are the steppe hypothesis and the Bactrian oasis hypothesis. Eight craniometric variables from 25 Aeneolithic and Bronze Age samples, comprising 1,353 adults from the Tarim Basin, the Russo-Kazakh steppe, southern China, Central Asia, Iran, and the Indus Valley, are compared to test which, if either, of these hypotheses are supported by the pattern of phenetic affinities possessed by Bronze Age inhabitants of the Tarim Basin. Craniometric differences between samples are compared with Mahalanobis generalized distance (d2), and patterns of phenetic affinity are assessed with two types of cluster analysis (the weighted pair average linkage method and the neighbor-joining method), multidimensional scaling, and principal coordinates analysis. Results obtained by this analysis provide little support for either the steppe hypothesis or the Bactrian oasis hypothesis. Rather, the pattern of phenetic affinities manifested by Bronze Age inhabitants of the Tarim Basin suggests the presence of a population of unknown origin within the Tarim Basin during the early Bronze Age. After 1200 B.C., this population experienced significant gene flow from highland populations of the Pamirs and Ferghana Valley. These highland populations may include those who later became known as the Saka and who may have served as middlemen facilitating contacts between East (Tarim Basin, China) and West (Bactria, Uzbekistan) along what later became known as the Great Silk Road.

...

It appears that neither Han Chinese nor steppe populations played any detectable role in the initial establishment or subsequent interregional biological interactions of Bronze Age Tarim Basin populations.

...

This research confirms that populations from the urban centers of the Oxus civilization of Bactria played a role in the population history of the Bronze Age inhabitants of the Tarim Basin. Yet these Bactrian populations were not the direct, early colonizers envisioned by advocates of the Bactrian oasis hypothesis (Barber, [1999]). None of the analyses document the immediate and profoundly close affinities between colonizers and the colonized expected if the Tarim Basin experienced substantial direct settlement by Bactrian agriculturalists.

...

This study confirms the assertion of Han ([1998]) that the occupants of Alwighul and Krorän are not derived from proto-European steppe populations, but share closest affinities with Eastern Mediterranean populations. Further, the results demonstrate that such Eastern Mediterraneans may also be found at the urban centers of the Oxus civilization located in the north Bactrian oasis to the west. Affinities are especially close between Krorän, the latest of the Xinjiang samples, and Sapalli, the earliest of the Bactrian samples, while Alwighul and later samples from Bactria exhibit more distant phenetic affinities. This pattern may reflect a possible major shift in interregional contacts in Central Asia in the early centuries of the second millennium B.C.

....

Eastern Meditteranean or Mesopotamia is unlikely ... they are wearing plaid woollen twill, dyed in bright tartans, which has simply never been found associated with any of these groups.

[edit] Recent Edits

Ack! I should probably have read over the discussion page before doing my edits - it seems this isn't a really friendly place to do edits. Nonetheless, both Washington times and Al Jazeera reported on the results of the DNA test/Genetic mapping study proving them to be of Europoid origin. I contributed these edits for three reasons, they are interesting, they are recent and they confirm an earlier theory suggested on textile arguments and superficial observations that there was a link between Central Asia and Europe. --LinuxDude 19:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC) So why do Uygurs claim genetic link with the mummies. And what do you understand from a Caucasian i am an abkhaz (north caucasian, have light skin , dark hair ,dolikosephal skull but the nearest relatives of us (circassians and chechens) have a brakisephal skull (?Turkic) light skin light hair) none of caucasian people speak indo-european (but ossets from central asia) even not close to come from same ancestor Turkish(couple of simmilar basic words like water,big,me) or even negroid semitic languages are closer to indo european than caucasian languages. So is there any caucasian in west Europe...NO so what are you searching for in Tarim Basin, Some bloodthirst roman or german barbarian or perhaps achileus himself dont be fools the only white nation inhabitted there are Turks and they have no connection to arians after Andronovo times

Nobody is searching for anything. This article deals with what has been found, whether it hurts your national/racial/ethnic pride or not. 204.83.191.12 20:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dating

The authors of this article were too enthusiastic about pinpointing connections of the mummies to various ethnic groups. Could they state clearly to which period the mummies date? Do they predate or postdate the burials at Pazyryk? Thanks, Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ephedra

Re the "Ephedra" claim - as presented by Rosof (1997), this obviously refers to Ephedra distachya, but I would not take this at face value. There are at least 3 Chinese species (called ma huang) of the genus, and to say "oh, there's some Ephedra in a bag, they must be "Indo-Aryan"!" is... well, whatever it is, it's not science. So is there any attempt to find out what species it was? If so, it should be linked. If not, it should be remarked. The stuff grows all over the semiarid areas of the N Hemisphere, with the species being only distinct in minute detail (which shouldn't have interested nomads, because it just works regardless of what species it is), and basically everywhere where it grows people use it as a natural amphetamine. That it was used in Zoroastrian ritual is also entirely conjectural and there are much better candidates for soma, such as fly agaric or Datura metel. Dysmorodrepanis 13:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indo-Europeans?

Where is the evidence that these are mummies of indo-european people ? Do mummies talk ? Are there any scriptures made by these people so their language can be connected to IE-languages ? IE in this article is used like it is somekind of race, which it's not. Whitout a solid proof of indo-europeanism of these mummies I think the article should be removed or atleast heavily edited.

[edit] "Caucasoid genes"

"Some tests[1] have found the mummies to contain Caucasoid genes" - there is no such thing as a "Caucasoid gene". There are alleles predominantly found in W European populations, and there may be some alleles which hitherto have not been found elsewhere (but this is always preliminary).
What the article seems to mean is that a mtDNA haplotype typical of W Eurasia was found. Corr accordingly, but needs further clarification. Dysmorodrepanis 03:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nordic mummies ?

Tarim basin lies below see levels.If Asian skin color is due to selection,partly due to the fact that asia is higher above sea level than europe and hence is closer to the sun,then could these mummies still be blonde, blued eyed but not form Europe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.85.12.211 (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] NOVA Documentary

The current article is not about mummies but about their racial identity. If such is the intention of its authors, I suggest renaming it Tarim mummies controversy. I removed a lengthy philippic against some obscure documentary:

The documentary treats present-day local Uyghurs as primitives whose history and cultural changes are immaterial: Only their origins matter. Apparently knowing nothing about their culture, the filmmakers and researchers visit a poor Uyghur home only to compare their way of life with that of the mummies from thousands of years before. To persuade us that the Uyghurs are descended from the Tokharians, they are described as if they have preserved their sheep breeds, craft technologies and dietary habits for 2,000 years, never mentioning that Islamic cultural influences have been strong here for nearly a millenium. The film denies modern Uyghurs membership in the present, suggesting instead that their way of life harbors "living relics, fragments of an ancient time preserved like the mummies themselves." Such talk reflects 19th century ideologies of cultural evolution, in which past agricultural civilizations became objects of fascination, while the impoverished farmers of the present were condemned as backwards relics.^[1]

It further concludes that modern Tarim villagers are the remnants of mummies who breached China's fabled isolation 1,000 years earlier than previously thought. But fragmentary evidence from archaeological discoveries, paintings, and manuscripts thousands of years and many miles apart can provide no such "startling conclusion." And China's "fabled isolation" is exactly that ––– a fable. The belief in an isolated China and the idea that a European ethnic group could migrate to the Tarim without extensive cultural and genetic exchange along the way are both rooted in European myths about racial distinctiveness. Add to this the idea that contact between Chinese and Europeans 3000 years ago represents encounters between "two of the greatest civilizations on earth," and racial mythologies are clearly overshadowing fact.^[1] --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I had no idea what did you meant by politics, this current article is about tarim mummies and their related topics not just racial identity, and for your infomation this documentary had also aired in discovery channel before, and even I myself had watched it, so its not obscure. Tarim mummies controversy suggest is good, but I suppose, we needs a much lengthy section for that, you might also wanna added another piece of controversy over there.Eiorgiomugini 17:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you start an article about the documentary (if it is notable as you claim) and move your text there. If you don't agree to such solution, I will seek mediation. Not that I were particularly interested in the article, I just consider expressing one's own views, without any sources to back them up, a gross violation of WP:NOR. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right that it might be undue to point out every factors, but you can't simply removed them all. By simply stated distorted, reader won't knows what's going on. And those are not without any sources, its all sourced for your informations. I had no violation of anythings. I still had no idea what did you meant by politics, if there's no excuses for your politics reason maybe you should changed the section title that we're discussing at. Eiorgiomugini 17:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I consider it unseemly that the article says next to nothing about the mummies (even the dating is obfuscated), yet it concentrates in such detail on their presumed racial identity. This is WP:UNDUE at its worst. Perhaps we should start the page Tarim mummies controversies or Racial identity of Tarim mummies and its criticism, or something along these lines? --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Your consideration would not be taken as a reason, the date is not obfuscated, and is roughly between 2nd and 1st millennium BC, what's wrong with that? The Tarim mummies controversies seemed O.K to me, but "Racial identity of Tarim mummies and its criticism" doesn't seemed to be what Light trying to said at all. For an article we needs a much lengthy section for that. Eiorgiomugini 17:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for more specific citations for verification

Citations like "a study by Jilin University" or "Mair etc al, 2006" are not specific enough to verify. JFD 15:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indeed, and Ephedra reloaded

A crucial issue is the Ephedra bit. I have outcommented it and it needs to be clarified before it's made visible again, because the Libby Rosof (1997) section is hair-raising nonsense to a trained biologist like me. Namely,

“The ephedra indicates that some of these people were almost certainly speaking an Iranian language,” [Mair] said."

While I am equivocal about Mair's claim, the statement as given patently does not allow such a conclusion. A person who was buried with a bag of Ephedra might have spoken Ancient Greek, a Semitic language, an East Asian language, any Indoeuropean language, an Uralic language or even an Uto-Aztecan(!) language (if the plant was Ephedra nevadensis), and this list is probably incomplete.

I'm not suggesting that any of the above possibilities is correct or incorrect (except the Uto-Aztecan one... ;D ). But from a scientific standpoint, the identification to genus Ephedra is insufficient. As the psychoactive species of Ephedra occur in circumscribed regions however and almost everywhere in semiarid continental Asia at least one of these species is found, an identification of the Ephedra to a particular species would certainly constrain the possibilities where the stuff had originated a fair bit: since the "potent" species of Ephedra are effectively identical from the user's point of view, it is not expected that one species would be traded into another species' range. Rather, the local crop would be used.

(Actually, I expect the plants to be one of the Chinese species (má huáng, e.g. Ephedra sinica), which would prove nothing. If it were a SW Asian species... But I seriously doubt they had the stuff imported across the Alpide belt when there was a ready supply of má huáng around. It is also problematic that Ephedra distachya, the Zoroastrian ephedra, grows widespread in Central Asia. So even if it were that species a connection beyond that region cannot be proven.) Dysmorodrepanis 15:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

In the section titled "Genetic links," I suspect that the following unsourced quote --

About the controversy Mair has stated that:

The new finds are also forcing a reexamination of old Chinese books that describe historical or legendary figures of great height, with deep-set blue or green eyes, long noses, full beards, and red or blond hair. Scholars have traditionally scoffed at these accounts, but it now seems that they may be accurate.[cite this quote]

-- is from:

Mair, Victor H., "Mummies of the Tarim Basin," Archaeology, 48 (2): 28-35 (March/April 1995).

I think those were ancestors of Turks , when Turks move west they can easily seems like european , such as Finns Maygars and Anatolian Turks , when they move east their apperance becomes easily Chinese and mongolians . If anyone making research about those red / blond haired but east faced people you have to consider this. Also you have to consider some of Chinise historical sources claiming Kırgiz people are red haired and green eyed ,, you can easily find similar people even today especially in Russia Tataristan blond but east faced people . Here everything targetting us Turkic tribes ,, Huns, Maygars, Slavized Bulgars , Finns , Cauvasian Turks , Tatars , Turkistan Turks , Uyghur Turks & Anatolian Turks ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.96.233.68 (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know which "old Chinese books" Mair is referring to? Hanfresco (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name the studies

No study referenced to as indicating European origins for the Tarim mummies was named. Only the name of one of the authors, or the University to which at least one of them belonged, were exposed. We need verifiable references on what the studies supposedly found and say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.70.111.138 (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

	Tarim mummies is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang, Tibet and Central Asian portions of Iran and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the Project's importance scale.

	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.