The Tarim mummies were not a people or a tradition, but a natural phenomenon.

 NOTE: There will be several images of mummies and dead faces posted here, so if that isn't your cup of tea be aware.

Sorry but not sorry for the snarky 'well ackshually' title gents, but this is a common mistake I see people make. I'll elaborate further below. If by now you haven't heard of the exciting news of the Tarim Mummies, please check out the article right now!

The genomic origins of the Bronze Age Tarim Basin mummies (Click here to read)

Abstract:

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.

If you are a bit more in the know however, you might've heard of this as early as August of this year, like I did. And if so this news isn't all that surprising right now, but when you first heard it it was probably incredibly surprising. It sure was for me!

 I did expect that prior to Indo-European migration to Xinjiang, there would have been populations similar to those in South Siberia and Central Asia (Botai, Kelteminar, Bolshemys etc) inhabiting this region  based on the archaeological records as well as genomic ancestry of the Shirenzigou samples and the maternal haplogroup C4 which has been uncovered in the Tarim and was also found in those populations. 

Wooden anthropomorphic statues from Xiaohe

What I did not expect however, was how genetically isolated these earlier inhabitants were, and the fact that the famous mummies such as the beauty of Loulan and the Xiaohe Princess belonged to these populations.

Crazy right? Especially if you have been keeping up with this for a minute, as an article from 2010 claimed that all the paternal haplogroups were R1a-M198, making them good candidates to be lineages dispersed by early Indo-European peoples. But there might be some issues with that. 

Before the article was published I was kind of able to figure out that the samples labeled as XH and GMG were from Xiaohe and Gumugou respectively, and that some of the Xiaohe samples overlapped with samples from an earlier study from 2021. Thus I was able to figure out the layers which they were attributed to. I also figured that the Dzungaria_EBA samples were probably just Afanasievo given their location and timeframe, and I was correct regarding that.

The supposed R1a samples came from the oldest layers at Xiaohe, yet these newly published samples from Xiaohe also came from the same layers and one younger, neither showing any signs of Western Steppe Herder ancestry. Their only y-dna haplogroup was R1b-PH155. I think that these R1a calls might be incorrect, or alternatively that the samples were attributed to the incorrect layer but I find that a little less likely. 

After the shocking dust settled, it actually dawned onto me how this made things a whole lot clearer. From an archaeological perspective, an Afanasievo > Chemurchek or Abashevo>Sintashta>Andronovo derived origin for these peoples were somewhat strange anyways as there was a very different material culture. But shifts in material cultures are quite common-place so this in itself can be explained away.

One big mystery is why these sites did not contain ceramic pottery, but had these intricate weaved baskets instead. Meanwhile both the Afanasievo and Andronovo had ceramic pottery, as did the Central Asian and Siberian native populations, for thousands of years at that point.These populations were the EHG, EHG/CHG and/or East Asian admixed distant relatives of these Tarim_EMBA populations. Yet there was no pottery at Xiaohe and Gumugou?

The genetic isolated profile might be a clue in this regard. Poterry spread through Siberia during the 6th and 5th millenium b.c, and if these populations separated from their relatives prior to this, they might have missed the mark in regards to this new pottery techniques rapidly spreading through northern Eurasia. Archaeological evidence seems to suggest habitation of the Tarim Basin during that period by foragers, and these may have been the ancestors of the Tarim_EMBA populations as the TMRCA of R1b-PH155 matches up very well with these dates.

Xiaohe weaved basket (reconstruction)

Another clue is that there are no real weapons or warrior-esque burials in these sites. Meanwhile these are regularly featured in Afanasievo, Chemurchek and Andronovo sites (and are a big element of Indo-European cultures as a whole), as well across the south Siberian populations with the Seima-Turbino phenomenon. Yet it isn't present amongst the early Tarim cultures.

These two archaeological discrepancies are very easily explained by the genetic ancestry of the populations, which were not genetically derived from Indo-European speaking peoples.

I have to say that I wasn't impressed with their conclusions for the Siberian and Central Asian populations derived from Neolithic West-Siberian related peoples. It seems the authors are unaware of the existence of EHG/CHG related populations such as those uncovered at Progress and Vonyuchka. Or that these populations migrated to the North Caspian region. And that populations such as Steppe Maykop and Kumsay_EBA more or less seem halfway inbetween WSHG and Progress/Vonyuchka (50/50). Thus whenever there is a steppe-like signal required, it gets attributed to either Yamnaya or Dzungaria_EBA.

But this isn't all that surprising after their "amazing" conclusions that the Shirenzigou samples were Afanasievo-derived, although these proposals are a bit more accurate than what was proposed in 2019. There is a lot of overlapping ancestries involved here and when details are overlooked you can have some incorrect assesments.

The Dzungaria_EBA samples, basically just Xinjiang Afanasievo, are quite interesting in my opinion. In the archaeological supplementary it is noted that at one of these sites they uncovered more than a 117 skeletons. They tested a total of 6 samples from 3 sites however.

All in all a very interesting article, with fascinating data. I just wished they also included later samples in their genome-wide analysis, because we know they exist!

So why the title?

I've seen tons of people make statements about "The Tarim Mummies", as they were a set population. They are not. These mummies are a natural phenomenon due to the unique climatic conditions of the Taklamakan desert, which allows for the exceptional preservation of organic materials that we all know of. If I were to die in the desert I could eventually end up as one. Even worse are the inferences made regarding Tocharian speakers, as if we have any evidence that these early mummies were of Tocharian speakers. Or any of the mummies for that matter.

Some of these Tarim mummies date to as early as 1800 b.c, others date to the 4th century A.D, a timespan of two millennia. Several of the famous ones such as Cherchen man and his two wives, or the Subeshi witches are not from the bronze age, but the iron age.

In this study, they have looked at the 1800-1500 b.c mummies of the Xiaohe, Gumugou and Beifang Mudi / Ayala Mazar, the latter name meaning cemetery of women referring to it's high share of female burials, which are grouped in together as part of the same material culture based on the similar traditions, items, clothing, and physical characteristics of the populations.

Speaking of physical characteristics, I'm mostly writing about this ancient DNA article as an excuse to post mummies anyways so here you go:

Mummies from the Beifang Mudi/Ayala Mazar site

The beauty of Loulan

The Xiaohe princess and other mummies from the Xiaohe cemetery

In the iron age, these material cultures ceased to exist and you had other ones, which also had their fair share of mummies. One  particularcluster are the sites of Yanghai, Subeixi and Aidinghu which are considered to be of shared tradition as well. Given their presence in the Turfan oasis during the early iron age they might be prime candidates for early Tocharian speakers in my opinion, but it remains to be seen if they were.

The mummy of the 40-year-old horse rider from the Yanghai cemetery, Turfan Oasis (M21)

The 'Shaman' from the Yanghai cemetery, Turfan Oasis (M80)

Reconstruction of the Yanghai shaman grave

The Yanghai site was recently featured in a wonderful documentary by Survive The Jive about the usage of Cannabis amongst ancient Indo-Europeans. Great video you should watch it if you haven't:

Ancient Cannabis Cult / History documentary

The famous Cherchen man or Ur-David, from the early iron age Zaghunluq/Zahonluke cemetery in the southeastern part of the Tarim Basin and it is in the region where 'Tocharian C' presumably was spoken during the iron age. Does that mean that Cherchen man was a Tocharian speaker in life? Perhaps, but we cannot know for sure. In my opinion these are the most stunning finds of the Tarim Basin, and the ones which really set of that whole mystery for me. The symbols, clothing, tattoos and hairstyles culminate in a very aesthetically pleasing package. 

Cherchen man and the two Cherchen women

Another one of my archaeological favorites is The Yingpan man. This mummy is from the third or fourth century A.D, found upstream of the Konque river to the west of Xiaohe, and might have been a Sogdian merchant. Based on his very lavish and expensive materials from distant regions you can assume he was a very wealthy man. His caftan has graeco-roman designs on it and the materials probably hailed fom the west. Lots of gold on his clothing, including the shoes. Tall man as well with a height above 190 cm. The Sogdian P.I.M.P of the Silk Road ( I will make a post about that as well).

I think this is a good amount of mummies for now. I can post more eventually however. I'll be dropping more of my musings and findings regarding the samples in here. 

The oldest known iron smiths of Europe - New evidence for meteoric iron objects belonging the Yamnaya culture

A while ago I stumbled upon a Russian scientific article by N.L Morgunova, M. A. Kulkova and A. M. Kulkov which discussed new findings related to the Yamnaya culture. The researchers analyzed some earlier discovered metal artefacts from the Boldyrevo I Kurgan in the Orenburg region of Russia, and the results confirmed the long-held suspicions of archaeologists that these objects were made of meteoric iron. If the name of that burial sounds familiar it might be because one of the more famous reconstructions of a Yamnaya male was based on the same individual buried in this grave:

1: Map of Yamnaya burials with iron artefacts 2: The Boldyrevo kurgan 3: The burial and skeleton

This grave was roughly dated to 2873-2471 b.c, making these finds the oldest examples of meteoric iron found in both Europe and Asia, only beaten in antiquity by meteoric iron objects from Egypt which date to about 3200 b.c. 

In total there were six iron objects found in the Boldyrevo I grave. One of these artefacts was an iron knife, with a blade of roughly 14 centimeters long, another was an adze and another was a chisel-like object. The other three objects were not able to be properly identified.

1-3 - adze-plane; 4-7 - chisel; 8-10 - knife

The article also mentions how these artefacts were purposely laid around a disc painted with ochre and ferrous powder, which may have acted as a solar symbol. Apparently the grave was also underneath a false burial chamber, probably to hide the burial from gravedigging bandits and/or archaeologists. There may have been some mummification involved and the positioning of the body as well as bird-wing like designs painted on the body into seem to suggest that the burial represented something akin to movement to the other world or a state of flight. One of a kind, as the authors put it.

Pretty cool huh?  What I find more interesting though is that these metal objects were not an isolated incident. The article mentions that in addition to the Boldyrevo I grave,  the Utevka I and Tamar-Utkul VII burials  of the Yamnaya culture were sites reported to have meteoric iron objects as well, although these weren't included in their study. All of these were large burials with prestigious grave goods, and are thus connected to the elites of these societies.

In Ludmila Koryakova's 'The Urals and Western Siberia in the Bronze and Iron Ages'  it is mentioned that there potentially are more than 64 iron objects shared between the Yamnaya, Catacomb and Afanasievo cultures.

According to David W. Anthony in 'The Horse, The Wheel and Language' there was an particular iron dagger attributed to the Catacomb culture, uncovered at a site in eastern Ukraine. But unlike these meteoric iron objects, this one was a bit different:

"A Catacomb-period grave at Gerasimovka on the Donets, probably dated around 2500 BCE, contained a knife with a handle made of arsenical bronze and a blade made of iron. The iron did not contain magnetite or nickel, as would be expected in meteoric iron, so it is thought to have been forged. Iron objects were rare, but they were part of the experiments conducted by steppe metalsmiths during the Early and Middle Bronze Ages, long before iron began to be used in Hittite Anatolia or the Near East."

If this is true, that would be interesting because I know that the Kaman-Kalehöyük site in Anatolia around 2200-1900 b.c also had early signs of iron smelting. The oldest known evidence for steel also comes from this site. The Hittites were of course famous for their early development of iron smelting, and this site has been linked to early Hittites. 

Some of the samples from this sites showed up with a degree of ancestry hailing from the Pontic-Caspian steppes from what I have seen. But you do not have to take my word for it. You can read more about the steppe ancestry in this post from the blog Eurogenes:

Hittite era Anatolians in qpAdm

Given the 2500 b.c date and the lack of evidence for iron smelting technology in the steppe archaeological record for more than a thousand years I have some skepticism. I'll have to check out the original article from which David W. Anthony derived those conclusions. If my skepticism is unwarranted, I think an area to explore would be contacts between the Indo-European people of the European steppes, and the Indo-European peoples of Anatolia.

From a linguistic point of view though, the general position is that there isn't a Proto-Indo-European term for iron specifically, although several Indo-European languages have words with a similar origin or semantic meaning, often related to either the colour red, or blood. Although I came across an article by Krzystof  Witczak which stated this:

It is universally believed that Indo-European possessed no word for ‘iron’ (Gamkrelidze, Ivanov 1984: 710; Mallory, Adams 1997: 313-314). Below, I would like to discuss the problem afresh in order to establish whether this opinion is correct or not. If a cognate term for ‘iron / steel’ is attested in Old Iranian and Old Persian (really in Pahlavi and Classical Persian), then we must take into account the possibility that iron (especially meteoritic iron) was known in the late Indo-Iranian age. It seems possible to adduce further linguistic facts and words which may go back to the late Indo-European epoch. Needless to say, the terms for ‘iron’ and especially for ‘steel’ frequently belong to the so-called “Wanderwörter”, for which reason I shall enhance this study with some additional notes on the origin and etymology of the bundle of words in question.

Which given these findings might have some truth behind it. In the article the author further elaborates on these connections so be sure to check it out.

In my opinion this is a very interesting find, one which generates more questions than it solved! I wonder if these meteorites landed late enough for the people of the Yamnaya culture to be aware of it's extra-terrestrial origins, falling from the domain of the sky father onto the domain of the earth mother. Would make for a great period-piece no? The riddle of steel iron...

Sources:

• Н. Л. Моргунова, М. А. Кулькова, А. М. Кульков -МЕТЕОРИТНОЕ ЖЕЛЕЗО В ПРОИЗВОДСТВЕННОЙ И РИТУАЛЬНОЙ ПРАКТИКЕ ЯМНОЙ КУЛЬТУРЫ ПРИУРАЛЬЯ (N. L. Morgunova, M. A. Kulkova, A. M. Kulkov -METEORITE IRON IN PRODUCTION AND RITUAL PRACTICE OF THE PIT CULTURE OF THE URALS)
• David W. Anthony - The Horse, the Wheel and Language, page 336
• Ludmila Koryakova - The Urals and Western Siberia in the Bronze and Iron Ages, page 189
• Krzysztof Tomasz Witczak - A WANDERING WORD FOR ‘HARDENED IRON, STEEL’ A STUDY IN THE HISTORY OF CONCEPTS AND WORDS