4.8 Article

Insights into the genetic histories and lifeways of Machu Picchu's occupants

Journal

SCIENCE ADVANCES
Volume 9, Issue 30, Pages -

Publisher

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adg3377

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Machu Picchu was originally a palace of the Inca emperor Pachacuti, built between approximately 1420 and 1532 CE. Little was known about the residents' origins and connections to the inhabitants of Cusco, the Inca capital. By studying the genome-wide data of 34 individuals buried at Machu Picchu and comparing them with 34 individuals from Cusco, it was found that the retainer population at Machu Picchu was highly diverse, with genetic ancestries associated with various regions of the Inca Empire and the Amazon. This suggests a diverse community of retainers at Machu Picchu, where people of different genetic backgrounds lived, reproduced, and were buried together.
Machu Picchu originally functioned as a palace within the estate of the Inca emperor Pachacuti between similar to 1420 and 1532 CE. Before this study, little was known about the people who lived and died there, where they came from or how they were related to the inhabitants of the Inca capital of Cusco. We generated genome-wide data for 34 individuals buried at Machu Picchu who are believed to have been retainers or attendants assigned to serve the Inca royal family, as well as 34 individuals from Cusco for comparative purposes. When the ancient DNA results are contextualized using historical and archaeological data, we conclude that the retainer population at Machu Picchu was highly heterogeneous with individuals exhibiting genetic ancestries associated with groups from throughout the Inca Empire and Amazonia. The results suggest a diverse retainer community at Machu Picchu in which people of different genetic backgrounds lived, reproduced, and were interred together.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available