Research Articles

Craniofacial features of people in the Lafuqueke cemetery, Hami, Xinjiang

  • Letian HE ,
  • Yongqiang WANG ,
  • Wenbing WEI
Expand
  • 1. School of History and Culture, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000
    2. Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology in Xinjiang, Urumqi 830011

Received date: 2021-11-03

  Revised date: 2022-04-28

  Online published: 2022-12-19

Abstract

The Xinjiang region is a key crossroads between Europe and Asia, having been an important area of cultural and population exchange between East and West for thousands of years. Its history of population migration during the historical period (after 200 BC) reflects interactive patterns of different ethnic groups and cultures along the ancient Silk Road. The Lafuqueke is the first cemetery of the historical period excavated in the Hami Basin. Based on craniometric data of 10 adults from this site, this study applied multivariate statistics and biological distance to assess the population structure and to make a preliminary exploration of population history of the Hami oasis from the Late Bronze Age to the historical period. Cluster analysis and principal component analysis were used to analyze origins and affinities of the Lafuqueke population and 28 ancient populations from surrounding areas. The Squared Mahalanobis distance and nonparametric multivariate analysis of variance were applied to assess differences in the craniofacial morphology of Late Bronze Age-earlier Iron Age-historical period populations in the Hami Basin, in order to determine population continuity/discontinuity. The results are as follows. Craniometric analysis of the Lafuqueke population reveals intra-population heterogeneity. Two individuals from the mid-7th to late-mid 8th centuries have close affinities with eastern Eurasian populations. Considering burial features and burial objects, cultures and populations from the Tang Dynasty had a great influence on Hami during this period. After the 10th century, the Hami Basin was incorporated into the cultural system of the Gaochang Uygur Kingdom. However, the population structure of this region remained diverse, including individuals with similar craniometric features to those of eastern Eurasia and individuals with a mixture of eastern and western features. Craniofacial measurements of populations from the Late Bronze to early Iron Age (2000 BC-1000 BC) in the Hami show continuity indicating that the main population did not change. From the Early Iron Age to the historical period, however, a significant change occurred showing increased genetic contributions of populations from eastern Eurasia. Combined with archaeological findings and historical records, the new skeletal samples provide a preliminary understanding of population migration and integration during the historical period of the Hami oasis and allow for more detailed multidisciplinary research of this issue.

Cite this article

Letian HE , Yongqiang WANG , Wenbing WEI . Craniofacial features of people in the Lafuqueke cemetery, Hami, Xinjiang[J]. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 2022 , 41(06) : 1017 -1027 . DOI: 10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2022.0019

References

[1] Allentoft ME, Sikora M, et al. Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia[J]. Nature, 2015, 522: 167-172
[2] Haak W, Balanovsky O, Sanchez JJ, et al. Ancient DNA from European early Neolithic farmers reveals their Near Eastern affinities[J]. PLoS Biology. 2010, 8(11): e1000536
[3] Matsumura H, Hung H, Higham C, et al. Craniometrics reveal “two layers” of prehistoric human dispersal in eastern Eurasia[J]. Scientific Reports, 2019(9): 1451
[4] von Cramon-Taubadel N, Strauss A, Hubbe M. Evolutionary population history of early Paleoamerican cranial morphology[J]. Science Advances, 2017, 3(2): e1602289
[5] Gregoricka LA. Moving forward: A bioarchaeology of mobility and migration[J]. Journal of Archaeological Research. 2021, 29: 581-635
[6] Goodman AH, Armelagos GJ. Race, racism and the new physical anthropology[A]. In: Reynolds L, Liberman L(Eds.). Race and Other Misadventures: Essays in Honor of Ashley Montagu in his Ninetieth Year[M]. Dix Hills, New York: General Hall. 1996: 174-186
[7] Armelagos GJ, Van Gerven DP. A century of skeletal biology and paleopathology: Contrasts, contradictions, and conflicts[J]. American Anthropologist, 2003, 105: 53-64
[8] Stojanowski CM, Schillaci MA. Phenotypic approaches for understanding patterns of intracemetery biological variation[J]. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2010, 131(S43): 49-88
[9] von Cramon-Taubadel N. Congruence of individual cranial bone morphology and neutral molecular affinity patterns in modern humans[J]. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2009, 140(2): 205-215
[10] Weaver TD, Roseman CC, Stringer CB. Close correspondence between quantitative and molecular-genetic divergence times for Neandertals and modern humans[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2008, 105(12): 4645-4649
[11] Wang W, Ding M, Gardner JD, et al. Ancient Xinjiang mitogenomes reveal intense admixture with high genetic diversity[J]. Science Advances, 2021, 7(14): eabd6690
[12] Zhang F, Ning C, Scott A. et al. The genomic origins of the Bronze Age Tarim Basin mummies[J]. Nature, 2021, 599: 256-261.
[13] 谭婧泽, 李黎明, 张建波, 等. 新疆西南部青铜时代欧亚东西方人群混合的颅骨测量学证据[J]. 科学通报, 2012, 57(28-29): 2666-2673
[14] 韩康信. 丝绸之路古代居民种族人类学研究[M]. 乌鲁木齐: 新疆人民出版社, 1994
[15] 张林虎, 朱泓. 基于多元统计分析方法进行古代人群生物学距离研究的初步探索——以新疆地区为例[J]. 边疆考古研究, 2017(1): 269-286
[16] 张雅军, 张旭. 新疆且末县加瓦艾日克墓地人骨研究[J]. 人类学学报, 2021, 40(6): 981-992.
[17] 水涛. 新疆青铜时代诸文化的比较——附论早期中西文化交流的历时进程[A].见:中国西北地区青铜时代考古论集[C]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2001: 6-46
[18] 韩康信. 新疆焉不拉克古墓人骨种系成份研究[J]. 考古学报, 1990(3): 371-390
[19] Gao S, Zhang Y, Wei D, et al. Ancient DNA reveals a migration of the ancient Di-Qiang populations into Xinjiang as early as the early Bronze age[J]. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2015, 157(1)
[20] 余太山. 西域通史[M]. 郑州: 中州古籍出版社, 2013: 153-209+296-303
[21] 羊毅勇. 唐代伊州考[J]. 西北民族研究, 1993(1): 132-140
[22] 韩春鲜. 历史时期天山东部南坡哈密城的变迁[A].见:中国古都学会(编).中国古都研究(第三十三辑)[C]. 西安: 陕西师范大学出版总社, 2017: 8
[23] 王永强. 唐纳职城寻踪——哈密市拉甫却克墓地考古记[J]. 文物天地, 2021(7): 112-117
[24] 魏东. 新疆哈密地区青铜-早期铁器时代居民人种学研究[D]. 长春: 吉林大学, 2009
[25] 陈靓. 西安紫薇田园都市唐墓人骨种系初探[J]. 考古与文物, 2008(5): 95-105
[26] 陈靓. 西北大学新校区唐墓出土人骨的人种学研究[J]. 西部考古, 2007: 211-217
[27] 孙蕾. 郑州汉唐宋墓葬出土人骨研究—以荥阳薛村遗址和新郑多处遗址为例[D]. 长春: 吉林大学, 2013
[28] 韩康信, 谭婧泽. 吴忠西郊唐墓人骨鉴定研究[A]. 见:宁夏古人类学研究报告集[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2009, 104-145
[29] 韩康信, 谭婧泽. 吴忠明珠园唐墓人骨[A]. 见:宁夏古人类学研究报告集[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2009, 146-157
[30] 韩康信, 谭婧泽. 固原九龙山-南塬古墓地人骨鉴定报告[A]. 见:宁夏古人类学研究报告集[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2009, 182-226
[31] 崔静, 邵兴周, 王博. 新疆吐鲁番交河古城墓葬和遗址出土颅骨的初步研究[J]. 解剖学杂志, 1996(5): 444-449
[32] 李志丹. 新疆吐鲁番胜金店墓地人骨研究[D]. 长春: 吉林大学, 2015
[33] 陈靓. 新疆尉犁县营盘墓地古人骨的研究[J]. 边疆考古研究, 2002: 323-341
[34] 崔静, 吐尔逊江, 甘子明, 王博. 新疆和田民乐县尼雅遗址墓葬出土颅骨种族人类学研究[J]. 解剖学杂志, 2000(1): 84-86
[35] 韩康信. 楼兰城郊古墓人骨人类学特征的研究[A]. 见:丝绸之路古代居民种族人类学研究[M]. 乌鲁木齐: 新疆人民出版社, 1994, 345-370
[36] 张全超, 陈靓. 新疆喀什地区晋唐时期古代居民的人种学研究[J]. 边疆考古究, 2003, 368-377
[37] 张敬雷. 青海省西宁市陶家寨汉晋时期墓地人骨研究[D]. 长春: 吉林大学, 2008
[38] 李墨岑. 青海平安大槽子东汉墓地人骨研究[D]. 长春: 吉林大学, 2015
[39] 朱泓. 察右后旗三道湾汉代鲜卑族颅骨的人种学研究[A].见:魏坚(主编).内蒙古地区鲜卑墓葬的发现与研究[C]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2004: 19
[40] 陈靓, 朱泓, 郑丽慧. 内蒙古东大井东汉时期鲜卑墓葬人骨研究[A].见:魏坚(主编).内蒙古地区鲜卑墓葬的发现与研究[C]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2004: 20
[41] 郑丽慧, 朱泓, 陈靓. 内蒙古七郎山魏晋时期鲜卑墓葬人骨研究[A].见:魏坚(主编).内蒙古地区鲜卑墓葬的发现与研究[C]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2004: 10
[42] Acsádi G, Nemeskéri J. History of Human Life Span and Mortality[M]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1970
[43] Phenice TW. A newly developed visual method of sexing the Os pubis[J]. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1969, 30: 297-301
[44] Buikstra JE, Ubelaker DH(Eds.). Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains[M]. Fayetteville: Arkansas Archaeological Survey, 1994
[45] von Cramon-Taubadel N, Pinhasi R. Craniometric data support a mosaic model of demic and cultural Neolithic diffusion to outlying regions of Europe[J]. Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 2011, 278(1720): 2874-2880
[46] Darroch JN, Mosimann JE. Canonical and principal components of shape[J]. Biometrika, 1985, 72: 241-252
[47] Roseman CC, Weaver TD. Multivariate apportionment of global human craniometric diversity[J]. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2004, 125: 257-263
[48] Hubbe M, Strauss A, Hubbe A, et al. Early South Americans cranial morphological variation and the origin of American biological diversity[J]. PloS One, 2015, 10(10): e0138090. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138090
[49] Builkstra JE, Frankenberg SR, Konigsberg LW. Skeletal biological distance studies in American physical anthropology: Recent trends[J]. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1990, 82(1): 1-7
[50] 杨建新, 卢苇. 丝绸之路[M]. 兰州: 甘肃人民出版社, 1988: 33-36
[51] 李明伟. 丝绸之路贸易史[M]. 兰州: 甘肃人民出版社, 1997: 236-245
[52] 陈安利. 西安、吐鲁番唐墓葬制葬俗比较[J]. 文博, 1991(1): 60-66
[53] 李佳胜. 吐鲁番唐墓的发现与研究[J]. 西部考古, 2019(1): 227-237
[54] 郑成加. 哈密地区志[M]. 乌鲁木齐: 新疆大学出版社, 1997: 152
[55] 邵会秋. 新疆史前时期文化格局的演进及其与周邻地区文化的关系[D]. 长春: 吉林大学, 2007
[56] 孙畅. 新疆吐鲁番盆地古代洋海人群的体质特征探析[D]. 上海: 复旦大学, 2017
[57] 孙畅, 文少卿, 张梦翰, 等. 新疆察吾呼墓地出土人骨的颅骨测量学研究[J]. 西域研究, 2021, 1-13
Outlines

/