Horses (China)

Wolfgang Behr w.behr at EM.UNI-FRANKFURT.DE
Tue May 12 10:19:46 UTC 1998

At 08:37 11.05.98 -800, Paul Kekai Manansala wrote:

| Some studies on crania in Xinkiang have followed the same
| erroneous path as the interpretation of the Kennewick remains.
| That is, they have interpreted anything that doesn't fit into
| typical northeast Mongoloid as "Caucasoid" or "Pre-Caucasoid."
| Most of the remains associated with Xinkiang and also the Siberian
| "Caucasoids" are related to modern Southern Mongoloid/Pacific
| types that once were very common in Northeast and Central Asia.

Would you please be so kind as to provide some references for these
claims? In the series of craniometric studies published by the
physical anthropologist Han Kangxin during the late 80ies and early
90ies by  (cf. Xinjiang Shehui Kexue, 6 [1985]: 61-71; Kaogu Xuebao 3
[1990}: 371-390; Xiyu Yanjiu 2 [1992]: 3-23; Wenwu Tiandi 5[1992]:
44-47; see also his book on the subject: _Sichouzhilu gudai jumin
zhongzu renleixue yanjiu_, Wulumuqi: Xinjiang Renmin [1994]) there
are quite detailed comparisons with _Southern_ Mongoloid types, but
they are found definitely _not_ to be related with the Xinjiang mummies
(see esp. 1990 388 seq.). Even the more balanced study of seven skulls
from Xinjiang and Qinghai by Djuric-Srejic & Nikolic ("Odlike lobanja
drevnih skeleta is provincije Sin-Jang u Kini" ["Characteristics of
skulls of ancient skeletons from the province of Xinjiang in China"],
Srpski Arhiv za Celokupno Lekarstvo 124 [1996] 5-6: 124-9) found that

        (a)  "among the studied skulls there was no case showing
              Mongoloid characteristics"
        (b)  only 10 percent of the 274 skulls studied by Han et al.
             showed Mongoloid features
        (c)  Mongoloid features appear late, around 300 b.c.
        (d)  one of the allegedly "European" type skulls showed
             East Mediterranean (rather than Northern European)

In any case, if you find physical anthropological data problematic (which
they certainly are in many respects), what are you going to do about the
DNA analysis by Francalacci (J. of Indo-European Studies 23 [1995]: 385-
398) who concludes that "the sequence amplified from the ancient Xinjiang
corpse is more likely related to continental European lineages"?

Cheers, Wolfgang

ps: Interesting pointer to Virchow. Do you have a reference for that?

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list