Geographic locations of the studied sites in Gansu and nearby regions (color-filled circles) and published ancient sites in East Asia co-analyzed in this study (white-filled circles).
Archaeologists have long warned that “pots are not people”. The distribution of a particular style of pottery does not necessarily trace the movement of the people who first made it, because pots can be traded, copied or carried through a succession of neighbouring communities. Much the same principle applies to crops, livestock and agricultural techniques: wheat can travel without wheat farmers, sheep without shepherds, and an effective method can spread simply because other people adopt it.
Distinguishing between the movement of people and the movement of their culture is therefore essential when reconstructing prehistory. Agriculture sometimes spread by demic diffusion, in which expanding farming populations moved into new territory and brought their domesticates with them. In other cases, it spread principally by cultural diffusion, as existing populations acquired crops, animals or knowledge through trade, imitation and intermediate exchange networks. Archaeological remains alone do not always reveal which process occurred, but ancient DNA can now test the alternatives directly.
Gansu, in north-western China, provides an especially important case. Situated between the Yellow River basin, the Tibetan Plateau, the Mongolian Steppe and the routes leading towards Central Asia, the region became a major corridor of prehistoric trans-Eurasian exchange. Crops and livestock domesticated much farther west eventually appeared there, raising the obvious question of whether they arrived with migrating western farmers or passed between the established populations of Inner and East Asia.
A multidisciplinary study published in Cell has now examined genomic data from 149 people who lived at eleven Gansu sites between approximately 4,700 and 3,000 years ago. Western-derived crops or livestock were present at nine of those sites, yet the researchers found no corresponding influx of western Eurasian or Central Asian ancestry. The principal genetic components instead derived from populations associated with the Yellow River basin, the south-eastern Mongolian Plateau and the Tibetan Plateau. A few genetic outliers testify to regional mobility and contact, but not to wholesale population replacement.
The evidence therefore indicates that the western domesticates reached Gansu largely through cultural transmission—possibly along the Inner Asian Mountain Corridor or through chains of intermediary communities across the Mongolian Steppe. Crops, animals and ideas crossed Eurasia farther and more readily than the people among whom they had originated. The finding also shows why neither pottery, farming nor any other cultural innovation can safely be treated as a proxy for mass migration.
This carefully reconstructed picture bears little resemblance to the simplistic human history imagined by biblical literalists. It contains no recently dispersed descendants of a single family spreading from Babel with fixed cultures and divinely assigned identities. Instead, it reveals long-established, genetically differentiated populations connected by shifting networks of exchange, occasional mobility and selective cultural borrowing. People did not need to migrate en masse for useful innovations to spread across a continent.
Researchers could reach that conclusion only by combining archaeology with population genetics, kinship analysis and evolutionary models of ancestry. The resulting history is neither a neat migration story nor a biblical folk tale, but the far more interesting record of real human communities exchanging animals, plants, technologies and ideas while largely retaining their regional genetic continuity.
When Things Move but Populations Do Not. Finding a new kind of pottery, crop or livestock in a region does not necessarily mean that the people who originated it migrated there. Objects can be traded, techniques copied and domesticates passed from one neighbouring community to another. Archaeologists therefore use the useful warning that “pots are not people”.The Chinese Academy of Sciences report explains the findings of the study published in Cell.
Agriculture can spread by two broadly distinguishable processes:
- Demic diffusion occurs when farming populations migrate into new territory, taking their crops, livestock and agricultural knowledge with them. If they settle and reproduce there, they normally leave a detectable genetic contribution in later populations.
- Cultural diffusion occurs when existing communities acquire crops, animals or techniques through contact with other groups. Useful innovations can pass repeatedly between neighbours and travel thousands of kilometres without any large-scale movement of the population in which they originated.
The distinction is not always absolute. A crop might spread mainly through exchange while being carried part of the way by merchants, herders, marriage partners or small groups of migrants. Cultural transmission does not mean that nobody moved; it means that the innovation spread without substantial population replacement.
Why material culture can be misleading
Archaeological cultures are commonly defined by recurring combinations of pottery, tools, burial customs and other material remains. These categories are useful, but they are not equivalent to biological populations or self-conscious ethnic groups.
The same caution applies to agriculture. Seeds can be exchanged; breeding animals can pass between communities; and cultivation, herding and food-processing methods can be taught or copied. The eventual geographical range of a domesticate may consequently extend far beyond the movements of the population that first domesticated it.
- A traded pot may have been made hundreds of kilometres from where it was buried.
- Local craftspeople can imitate foreign designs.
- A community can adopt a new technology without changing its ancestry.
- Migrants can abandon their former customs and adopt those of their hosts.
- People of different ancestries can share the same material culture.
How ancient DNA tests the alternatives
Ancient DNA gives archaeologists an independent source of evidence. If agriculture arrived through a substantial migration, the newcomers would usually contribute recognisable ancestry to the receiving population. If crops and livestock appear without a corresponding genetic change, cultural transmission becomes the more likely explanation.
This is what the Gansu study found. Western-derived crops or livestock occurred at nine of the eleven sampled sites, but the 149 ancient people studied showed no substantial western Eurasian or Central Asian genetic contribution. Their ancestry remained predominantly associated with populations from the Yellow River basin, the south-eastern Mongolian Plateau and the Tibetan Plateau.
There was evidence of contact and limited mobility, including a few individuals with unusual regional ancestry. What was absent was the large influx of western farmers that would be expected if the domesticates had reached Gansu through direct demic diffusion. Crops, livestock and knowledge had travelled through exchange networks more extensively than the populations in which they had originated.
Glossary
- Demic diffusion
- The spread of an innovation through the migration and reproduction of the people who possess it.
- Cultural diffusion
- The transmission of ideas, practices or material goods between populations without substantial population replacement.
- Material culture
- The physical remains produced or used by a society, including pottery, tools, ornaments and buildings.
- Genetic ancestry
- The inherited component of a person’s genome connecting them statistically with earlier populations. It is not the same as culture, language, nationality or ethnicity.
- Population continuity
- The persistence of much of a region’s existing ancestry despite cultural or technological change.
- Population replacement
- A major demographic change in which incoming people replace, absorb or substantially alter an established population.
Multidisciplinary Study Sheds Light on Agricultural Diffusion, Population Movement, and Funeral Practices in Ancient Gansu
A multidisciplinary study has answered key questions about how agricultural practices diffused into ancient Gansu from Eurasia, as well as described population movements and funeral practices in the Gansu region thousands of years ago.
Gansu, now a province in northwestern China, has long been a key crossroads for transcontinental exchanges of domesticated crops and livestock. Yet it has not been clear whether such exchanges were driven by human migration—a process known as demic diffusion—or by the introduction of crops and livestock to existing populations—a process known as cultural diffusion.
Now, researchers using genomic data from 149 ancient human individuals in Gansu, have shown that the introduction of western-derived agriculture amid waves of trans-Eurasian exchange was not accompanied by direct demic diffusion.
The study, which was published in Cell on September 3, was conducted by a research team led by Professor FU Qiaomei from the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), working in collaboration with multiple institutions.
The genomic data used in the study date to around 4,700–3,000 years ago—a critical period when cereals and livestock first domesticated in western Eurasia were being introduced to the region.
According to the researchers, the results did not detect any traces of genetic influence from western Eurasia or Central Asia among the ancient individuals, despite the adoption of western-derived crops or livestock at nine of the 11 Gansu sites.
Instead, the dominant genetic ancestries detected in Gansu were linked to populations that once inhabited the Yellow River basin, the southeastern Mongolian Plateau, and the Tibetan Plateau. A few genetic outliers also pointed to interactions between Gansu and regions both nearby and farther north, including the cis-Baikal area.
These results suggest that the introduction of western-derived domesticates did not involve a direct large-scale western population influx—unlike patterns of agricultural expansion found in Europe and Central Asia. Possible explanations for this phenomenon chiefly include cultural diffusion through the Inner Asian Mountain Corridor, or transmission via exchange networks or intermediary populations across the Mongolian Steppe.
Unveiling Social Practices in Ancient East Asia
In addition to the genetic focus, the study also included information on Late Neolithic and Bronze Age social and burial practices, based on investigation of the large cemetery at Mogou (3,600–3,200 years before the present)—one of the largest excavated cemeteries in China.
The researchers noted that genetic similarities among the Gansu sites revealed a broad correlation—though not a strict alignment—between genetic ancestry and archaeologically defined cultural groups.
Through kinship and identity-by-descent (IBD) analyses, most Mogou individuals were found to form a broadly linked network based on biological relatedness that persisted through the transition from the Qijia to the Siwa archaeological cultures, pointing to a continuous and connected society.
The researchers also found evidence of endogamy at Mogou, as two individuals showed signs of parental consanguineous mating, while runs of homozygosity segments hinted that Mogou may also have practiced some level of exogamy, finding some mates from outside communities. Furthermore, female and male individuals at Mogou did not exhibit significant differences in relatedness, suggesting that the Mogou community did not strictly maintain either patrilocal or matrilocal residence patterns.
By integrating burial practices and genetic patterns, the results showed that genetic outliers—individuals who were not close biological relatives of core community members—were more likely to be buried in settings archaeologically interpreted as lower-status. As for biological sex, while males were predominantly buried with food production tools and females with spinning wheels, no significant differences were found in other burial practices analyzed, such as burial location or the number of funerary objects.
Surprisingly, no strong correlation emerged between genetic relatedness and burial distance among the sampled burials in the cemetery. Within tombs containing multiple burials, no first- or second-degree relatives were found buried together, and some co-buried individuals may have had mixed social status or have been interred at different times.
These results imply that burial customs at Mogou were not strictly centered on biological relatedness, and that other interpersonal relationships, along with the repeated use of tombs over different time periods, likely also played a role in determining who shared a tomb.
According to the researchers, this multidisciplinary study provides important insights into population movements amid waves of trans-Eurasian exchange—demonstrating that the introduction of western-derived agriculture was not accompanied by direct demic diffusion—while also shedding light on the extensive kinship networks and complex burial customs of the local community at Mogou.
Publication:
The problem for Bible-literalist creationists is the history these findings reveal: established regional populations, distinctive ancestries and networks of exchange through which people acquired useful innovations without being replaced by their neighbours. Western-derived crops and livestock reached Gansu, but there was no corresponding substantial influx of western ancestry in the people sampled. Human history cannot be reconstructed simply by following a crop, a pottery style or a story about the dispersal of Noah’s descendants.
In the familiar young-Earth chronology, the period covered by this study straddles the supposed global Flood and its aftermath. Creationists must therefore explain how evidence of established populations and regional connections fits a catastrophe that allegedly erased every human community except one family. The absence of substantial western ancestry in these Gansu individuals is not, by itself, a comprehensive test of that narrative. Nevertheless, the study adds to a much broader archaeological and genetic record that cannot plausibly be compressed into the recent repopulation of the planet by eight survivors.
The contrast in methods is equally revealing. The researchers tested competing explanations for the spread of domesticates by bringing genetic evidence to bear on archaeological observations. They could distinguish extensive cultural transmission from large-scale migration because those processes make different predictions about ancestry. Biblical literalism begins with a conclusion that must be preserved, leaving its defenders to explain away whatever evidence fails to conform.
The people of ancient Gansu were participating in an ordinary but remarkable human process: learning from others, exchanging useful resources and adapting their livelihoods. Their history emerges from the evidence they left behind. No appeal to a global catastrophe or supernatural dispersal is needed to explain it—and insisting on those events makes the evidence harder, rather than easier, to understand.
Advertisement
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
All titles available in paperback, hardcover, ebook for Kindle and audio format.
Prices correct at time of publication. for current prices.
No comments :
Post a Comment
Obscene, threatening or obnoxious messages, preaching, abuse and spam will be removed, as will anything by known Internet trolls and stalkers, by known sock-puppet accounts and anything not connected with the post,
A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Remember: your opinion is not an established fact unless corroborated.