Hongshan culture’s pyramid-building, Northeast Indian Magadha pyramid-shaped earliest Buddhist templ

[Oasis]

According to “mtDNA from the Early Bronze Age to the Roman Period Suggests a Genetic Link between the Indian Subcontinent and Mesopotamian Cradle of Civilization” funded by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education, the most ancient of their studied Sumerian-related specimens TQ 28F 112 (Early Bronze Age, 2650-2450 BC) belonged to the basal mtDNA M49.

It is already much later than dispersals of the so-called “Xiaonanshan civilization”-related populations, the first constructors of stone monuments in Northeast China since Late Palaeolithic and Early Neolithic (https://m.fx361.com/news/2021/0406/8062142.html http://www.soolun.net/periodical/5aa...eff10bfe2.html), who were influenced by “Yangtze River basin”-related populations, who were in turn influenced by the “Yellow River basin”-related populations in accordance with “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene”.

Nonetheless, the degree of commonalities, observed by Chinese researchers, can be higher or lower, depending on a temporal stratum, during which this or that population may be presumed to be developing.

The “Northeast Chinese continental Jomon yDNA D-M64-related”+“AR7.3K_outlier yDNA N1c Zuojiashan-related”+“ “Sino-Tibetan component of the Hongshan culture”-related” cline from “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” reaches the Tibetic Shannan specimens, who can contain mtDNA haplogroups sharing mutations with mtDNA M49 in accordance with “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China”, and the earlier in time “Xiaonanshan civilization-related” cline, whose members include 33000-year-old Neolithic_Iran-like Amur33K component, also quite closely approached the Tibetic Shannan specimens in the same article. Tibetic Shannan is already bordering Tibetic Nyingchi, which is connected to the territory of Myanmar (Burma) via the Salween River.



According to “Ancient inland human dispersals from Myanmar into interior East Asia since the Late Pleistocene”, “among the basal lineages in Myanmar, haplogroups M49, M72, M83, M55, M90, M91, M54, M84 and M24 show restricted distribution and high diversity in Myanmar and its surrounding areas, such as northeast India, northern Thailand, northern Laos and southwestern China (Figs. 2, ,33 and Supplementary Fig. S3 online), suggesting their origin and differentiation in situ.”

Similarly, “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” points to cases of basal mtDNA M49, likely related to the local substratum of Tibeto-Burman groups, in the Burmese Irrawaddy River basin.


Interestingly, “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” also points that, along with mtDNA M49, one of the mentioned Irrawaddy Tibeto-Burman populations contains mtDNA M30c as well as mtDNA M1’20’51 with mutation connected to some other branches of mtDNA M30. It means that there was a local center of mtDNA M30 dispersal from the Irrawaddy River basin in Myanmar (Burma). mtDNA M30c popped up in post-‘Indus Valley civilization’ Indo-European-led Gandhara (the Swat Valley). Nevertheless, much more cases of mtDNA M30 from the inland Indian populations (including non-Indo-European ones) along the route from Myanmar to Northeast India, where ancient Magadha later developed, and farther to the Indus Valley civilization in Pakistan was reported by “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China”. However, one case of mtDNA M30 from Jenu Kuruba gatherers of honey (which was a popular product in the Near East), living not too far from the Indian sea coast along the route used by the Indus Valley Civilization seafarers to connect the territory of the Indus Valley and the territory of Myanmar, was reported in “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China”. It means that some of mtDNA M30 bearers might have boarded the Indus Valley civilization ships and might have been brought as non-Indo-Europeans to both heartland of the Indus Valley civilization and to Mesopotamian Sumer (as a part of Sumer-Meluhha (Indus Valley civilization) contacts). Nevertheless, mtDNA M30 as a whole is a relative of mtDNA M4’67, which is often found in Onge-related populations as well as in aboriginal Indian AASI populations, so mtDNA M30 is one of the lineages, which fit the description of being a Hoabinhian/AASI-related lineage, which had been influenced by much more developed Neolithic Baojianshan from China and was being distributed by land as far as the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (according to “Genetic Continuity of Bronze Age Ancestry with Increased Steppe-Related Ancestry in Late Iron Age Uzbekistan”), forming a certain hypothetical link between the Sino-Tibetan language bearers and the populations, influencing the formation of the Caucasians (by the way, it is speculated by some western researchers that the Hurro-Urartian languages should be included in the list of languages alledgedly sharing some connections with Sino-Tibetan speakers).


Such an mtDNA lineage as mtDNA M49, which is found in Myanmar (Burma), interacted with Hongshan-affiliated populations, who reached Tibet, and was reported in Sumer-related ancient DNA, might have taken a somewhat similar sea voyage route as the case of mtDNA M30, described above, might have done (the territory of Myanmar having an independent contact with the Indus Valley civilization). It is supported by the fact that “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China” found connections between much older Myanmar-specific haplogroups and much younger haplogroups reported from populations deriving from the current region of “Sumerian Dilmun” localization, while Dilmun was considered a homeland of at least some of ancient Sumerian gods. The chosen current localization of the part of Dilmun on the Bahrain sea island does not well reflect the achievements of the Sumerian civilization, which may be influenced by the fact that western researchers, such as an American researcher Samuel Noah Kramer, consider the Sumerians a population migrating to Mesopotamia and acquiring the achievements of the local population, which had lived in Mesopotamia before the Sumerians. However, Kramer’s view of a mountainous component of the Sumerian ethnogenesis (quote: “in Kramer’s reconstruction Mesopotamia was first settled by immigrants from Iran who had painted their pottery. Somewhat later they mixed with the Semites who came from the west. Both ethnic groups created a civilisation, which expanded and eventually came into contact with early Sumerians, the nomadic tribes from Transcaucasia or Transcaspia”) matches the CHG-like populations, while Kramer’s view cannot account for populations arriving by sea, whose “Sumerian Dilmun Paradise” was not even universally accepted by all Sumerian-speaking populations. The search for a more precise localization of an inspiration for the Sumerian Dilmun continues.

The archaeology of Northeast India, to which Myanmar-related populations migrated and which used to be a non-Indo-Aryan stronghold in the distant past, is still obscure. Similarly, the compilation of results of archaeological research in Myanmar is still in its infancy as well.

According to the Indologist Johannes Bronkhorst (the author of “Greater Magadha”), even during the period of 150 year before Christ (150 BC), the grammarian Patanjali did not include the territory of Magadha located in Northeast India (adjacent to the sea), into “the land of the Aryas”. However, according to Johannes Bronkhorst, it does not mean that there were no Aryans in Northeast India, but it means that there was no systematic presence of Brahmanism in Northeast India, whereas Brahmanism originated basing on the Vedic religion of the Indo-Aryans. Therefore, Johannes Bronkhorst notes the importance of Buddhism, Jainism and Ajivika for the rulers of Magadha and early rulers of the Maurya Empire, based in Magadha. It is believed that Shakyamuni Buddha taught in Magadha.

Johannes Bronkhorst acknowledges that the design of the Buddhist stupa (“a hemispherical structure containing relics that is used as a place of meditation”) is rooted in the ancient architecture of Magadha. However, the early Buddhist temples in Magadha also contained a tower in the shape of a stepped truncated pyramid. The origin of such a tower in the shape of a stepped truncated pyramid in Buddhist temples is considered to be unclear. No pyramids and no truncated pyramids was observed in the architecture of the Indus Valley civilization, the western neighbor of the Northeast Indian territory, where Magadha later developed, despite the fact that the Indus Valley civilization was in constant contact with ziggurat-building Near Eastern populations.

However, there was also exchange between the mtDNA M49-related population (migrating to the territory of future Magadha from Myanmar) and the Hongshan-affiliated population, mentioned in the beginning of this text, which reached the Tibetic territories adjacent to Myanmar, according to “The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene” and “Ancient Mitogenomes Reveal the Origins and Genetic Structure of the Neolithic Shimao Population in Northern China”. On the territory of China, the first stone cairns were reported from the “Xiaonanshan civilization” (Early Neolithic, rooted in stone monuments reaching the Late Palaeolithic period). More importantly for the origin of “the stepped truncated pyramid” as an element of temple architecture, the development of “the stepped truncated pyramid” in connection to gradual development of the spiritual culture can be traced basing on the Hongshan culture. Indeed, simple stone platforms for civil construction were very ancient in this culture and its earlier relatives. As Chinese archaeologists mention, the three-storeyed stone altar of the Hongshan culture (the most important being related to the Hongshan Niuheliang Temple) was developing between 6000 and 5500 years ago (each storey of the altar alluded to the geometric shape of a symbol, which was accepted as denoting a certain natural or supernatural phenomenon). The three-storeyed truncated pyramid, topped with a temple (the most complete such a pyramid with each storey having smaller dimensions than the previous storey was found one kilometer north of Sijiazi Township in the Aohan Banner, where the Hongshan culture was spread) was developing between 5500 and 5000 years ago. The Nasitai regional center site of the Hongshan culture (roughly contemporaneous to the Niuheliang site and having a scope, which is comparable to the Niuheliang site, but the complete excavation was not finished yet) produced a stone statue of a kneeling/praying man, who had a head, to which a three-storeyed head decoration was tied, signifying an individual spiritual role of the three-storeyed concept.


If similar “stone-made stepped pyramids” from other contemporaneous 5500-5000-year-old Neolithic cultures in China are not reported, then it can be considered that the gradually developing in situ Hongshan concept of a three-stroyed truncated pyramid building, reported by Chinese archaeologists, gave inspiration to other ancient stepped pyramid-shaped constructions in China and adjacent territories (the highest 4300-year-old one reported so far in China being 70 meters high, sporadically decorated with stone carvings).