A cautionary note on the application of limited genetics studies to whole populations
« previous post | next post »
"Unraveling the origins of the sogdians: Evidence of genetic admixture between ancient central and East Asians", Jiashuo Zhang, Yongdi Wang, Naifan Zhang, Jiawei Li, Youyang Qu, Cunshi Zhu, Fan Zhang, Dawei Cai, and Chao Ning, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports (Volume 61, February 2025, 104957)
Highlights:
- Genome-wide data was generated for two individuals from a joint burial in the Guyuan cemetery dating to the Tang Dynasty.
- The female individual exhibits local ancestry, while the male individual carries both local ancestry and additional genetic components.
- The integration of genomic data with archaeological evidence suggests that the two individuals were likely husband and wife.
- The Sogdians, who travelled to China and intermarried with local populations, played a significant role in the Silk Road trade.
Fair enough, but:
Abstract
Again, the bulk of these observations are sound and safe, but the last sentence is garbled and overreaching, hence admonition is advised.
The Introduction of the paper consists of three paragraphs giving basic information about the history of the Silk Road, who the Sogdians were, and how the Sogdians settled in China. The main sections of the paper are:
Archaeological context of Guyuan Tang dynasty tomb (M1401)
Ancient genome data overview and ancient DNA authentication
Discussion and conclusion
As one would expect from a paper on ancient DNA, the overwhelming emphasis is on the description of the human remains in Tomb M1401, together with the extraction and analysis of their DNA. These findings have caused quite a sensation among scholars and laypersons from various fields. However, if one does a google search on — guyuan tomb M1401 — (no quotation marks or dashes) one will get a very different picture of the male occupant of the tomb from that offered in the paper under discussion here, namely the European aspects of his physical remains. In contrast, the current study emphasizes his local affinities.
Strictly speaking, this study applies only to the two individuals whose ancient DNA remains were the subject of the analysis. Similar interpretations have been applied to ancient DNA studies of specimens from the Tarim Basin, Mongolia, and elsewhere in Central and Inner Asia. From these limited data, large claims about entire populations are made, giving precedence and weight to genetics, highlighting the "local admixture" of available specimens.
I believe that the balance has swung too far in favor of genetic material, which, after all, require extensive chemical, mathematical, and statistical manipulation to make sense of. In my estimation, we should pay more attention to the larger panorama provided by history, archeology, language, and art history, e.g., "Sogdians on the Silk Road" (5/22/25). Indeed,we need to take a very close look at the Guyuan Sarcophagus itself, including the massive volumes of Rosalind E. Bradford (2009), whose research has uncovered motifs from across Asia and even North Africa, while not overlooking the Chinese facets of this extraordinary coffin.
Selected readings
- "Sogdians on the Silk Road" (5/22/25)
- "Turco-Sogdian horses and languages" (10/28/24)
- "Tocharo-Sinica and Sogdo-Sinica" (7/3/24)
- "Tocharo-Sinica" (5/13/24)
- "Catalogue of Sogdian Writings in Central Asia" (1/5/23)
- "Sogdians and Xiongnu / Huns" (2/21/22)
- "The sound of ancient Iranian languages" (10/26/23)
- Victor H. Mair, ed., The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern Central Asia (Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man Inc. in collaboration with the University of Pennsylvania Museum Publications, 1998). 2 vols.
- J. P. Mallory and Victor H.Mair,The Tarim Mummies: Ancient China and the Mystery of the Earliest Peoples from the West(London: Thames & Hudson, 2000).
- Elizabeth Wayland Barber, The Mummies of Ürümchi (New York: W. W. Norton, 1999)
[h.t. Hiroshi Kimamoto}
Pamela Crossley said,
June 21, 2025 @ 9:43 am
I like this comment. It is true that fads have controlled so much of the historiography of migration and cultural exchange, from the days of Cavalli-Sforza to our days of Svante Paabo and David Reich. There is no substitute for a whole picture–art, documentation, climatology, archeology and satellite proxies, genetics, and everything we will adapt in the future.
wgj said,
June 21, 2025 @ 9:48 am
The "Guyuan Sarcophagus" is a really sloppy name, as obviously there have been more than one sarcophagus found in an ancient hotspot like Guyuan – in fact, several made of stone are exhibited in the Guyuan Museum (which has an "Ancient Tombs" section: [http://m.nxgybwg.com/e/action/ShowInfo.php?classid=13&id=160]), many of them apparently (partly) Sogdian. The most famous one should at least be referred to as the "Guyuan Lacquer Sarcophagus", as that's much rarer if not unique.
Victor Mair said,
June 21, 2025 @ 1:10 pm
@Pamela,
Thank you so much for understanding the gist of what I was saying.
Tom said,
June 21, 2025 @ 7:34 pm
However, it's important to remember that the era of pre-aDNA analysis led to some apparently very wrong conclusions.
Yves Rehbein said,
June 22, 2025 @ 4:02 pm
Also this just in today, tl;dr: Linguistic Evidence Suggests that Xiōng‐nú and Huns Spoke the Same Paleo‐Siberian Language
S Bonmann, S Fries – Transactions of the Philological Society, 2025 [Wiley]
Yves Rehbein said,
June 22, 2025 @ 4:14 pm
Also just one day ago: Proto-Tungusic – Reconstructing the Ancestral Tongue of the Qing Founders
Learn Hittite [Youtube]
The video says nothing about Qing, and nothing at all about Sogdians, however. Only that Hunnic had some influence, which complicates the phylogeny.
Yves Rehbein said,
June 22, 2025 @ 4:40 pm
Correction: "Mongolic" (5:30). Even as I searched this I wrote "Hunnic" by mistake.
David Marjanović said,
June 23, 2025 @ 6:32 am
Yes; this is the "please don't desk-reject this manuscript for lack of impact" sentence.
I don't think that's actually a different picture. Not that many genes influence appearance; and even citizens of Iran today – very broadly the same population plus Middle Eastern admixture – can look like unremarkable southern Europeans.