New Delhi: In 2005, archeologists working in Nankang village of China’s Xi’an city found a joint tomb from the 6th century, sealed for about 1,441 years. Inside, lay a couple whose burial had Chinese motifs mixed with Indian and even Roman influences.
The man was Li Dan (505-564 CE), a connection between South Asia and East Asia. His life and lineage, revealed through both stone and DNA, would rewrite a snippet of Silk Road history.
Buried near the ancient capital of Chang’an, he was not only a Chinese aristocrat but was also of Indian descent— a Brahmin.
Xu Feihong, China’s Ambassador to India, on Friday shared this discovery that seems straight out of a historical novel. The tweet noted: “Genetic analysis has shown that Li Dan, who promoted Buddhism in northern China 1,400 years ago, was an ancient Indian descendant. His tomb in northern China combines Chinese and Indian elements, making it a remarkable testament to cultural exchange along the Silk Road.”
The discovery of Li Dan’s ancestry highlights the long-standing cultural connections between India and China. However, historically, these two major Asian powers have developed deep mistrust despite their shared heritage.
Anirudh Kanisetti, an Indian historian, reflected on the broader implications of such findings. “Discoveries like this, and our shared history more broadly, should prompt greater introspection on the Chinese side about what a true partnership could look like. It is unfortunate that the two heartlands of Asian civilisation remain stuck on rigid border disputes instead of focusing on centuries-long opportunities for collaboration, exchange, and cultural connection,” he told ThePrint.
A paradox
Li Dan’s epitaph told two stories that contradicted each other. On one side, he claimed descent from South Asia, describing his forefathers as “Brahmins from Jibin (an ancient South Asian kingdom encompassing present-day Kashmir and surrounding regions) or Tianzhu (an ancient Chinese term for India).”
And in the same inscription, he posited a northern Chinese origin, and associated himself with the Pingji Li Branch, a lineage from Hebei province known among the Northern and Southern Dynasties’ aristocracy.
His tomb also reflected the same paradox. “Themes on the stone cist coffin reflected a fusion of Chinese traditions and foreign influences,” a study described. Taoist figures like the Four Divine Beasts, Fu Xi, Nu Wa, and Xingxiu were carved alongside foreign motifs, including guardian figures resembling Buddhist statues from Tianzhu, such as the Vajra Guardians and Heavenly Kings.
For centuries, his true origin remained a question. But at Fudan University, researchers found the answer.
They carefully extracted DNA from his tooth and his consort’s temporal bone. Despite the age and low DNA levels, they were able to get detailed genome-wide data.
The results confirmed that Li Dan was male and revealed that he carried “distinct northern South Asian and northern China-related ancestries”, explaining the tomb’s culture mix.
Li Dan’s genome offered something extraordinary.
“For Li Dan, genetic analysis reveals a close relationship with modern Brahmins, supporting his Brahmin status and his biography as the progeny of Brahmanic descent,” the study noted.
Also read: Archaeologist Amalananda Ghosh pulled ASI away from colonial roots. New book celebrates him
The Silk Road
The Silk Road was a trade network of land and sea linking East (primarily China) and West (the Mediterranean, Middle East, and Europe).
While goods like silk, spices and metals moved along its paths, so did the philosophies, technologies, and religions, including Buddhism. This turned the remote regions into hubs of cultural exchange.
Indian Buddhists played a very crucial role in this cultural exchange, bringing Buddhism into China and helping it take root there.
“This genetic confirmation is significant for two reasons. First, it provides an additional layer of evidence to what we already knew from historical texts, and I believe many more individuals of mixed Indian descent are likely to be discovered. Second, it highlights the diversity of Indian society traveling to China via Central Asia,” said Kanisetti.
Why Li Dan is important
Li Dan’s life and burial reveal a story of mobility, identity, and cultural exchange in the 6th century.
It is “the first genomic evidence of a cross-border couple between South Asia and East Asia in the 6th century,” the study noted, making Li’s tomb important for understanding connections across Eurasia.
Li brings South Asia into the story of Chinese history not just as a source of ideas (Buddhism, texts, monks) or trade goods (spices, textiles), but as people who became part of Chinese society — integrated into its elite, buried in its soil, with descendants living out cultural lives in China.
He was a Brahmin from India, a Chinese aristocrat, a Silk Road traveler, and a bridge between civilisations. The duality shows that assimilation and heritage did not have to be mutually exclusive even in the 6th century.
No easy answer
Li Dan’s Indian ancestry opens a window into the complex history of cultural exchange between India and China, particularly in the spread of Buddhism over 1,400 years ago.
Historians and geneticists alike are now able to trace not only the movement of people but also the influence of diverse Indian communities on early Chinese religious and social life.
Li Dan’s lineage, Kanisetti explained, suggests that Indian influence in China extended far beyond the Gandhara region, traditionally known for sending monks and traders northward. Most travelers were coming from the Gandhara region, in northwest Pakistan. But Li Dan, being of Brahmin descent, likely had ancestors from deeper in the Gangetic plains.
This gives a much clearer sense of how extensive these trade and cultural routes were.
“It’s also crucial to understand the historical context: China was experiencing significant political and dynastic upheaval at the time, and the arrival of Buddhism—a religion promising liberation from worldly troubles—was profoundly significant. It even contributed to the rise of Pure Land Buddhism, which later became one of East Asia’s most popular forms of the faith,” said Kanisetti.
Beyond history, the implications for modern India-China relations are striking. In the 1950s, independent India was one of China’s strongest supporters and among the first to recognise communist China diplomatically.
Efforts like the Panchsheel Agreement aimed to revive these ancient ties. Then, in 1962, tensions arose. Historically, Tibet and Xinjiang served as key crossroads for India-China interaction.
“On one hand, China conquered and colonised these regions, with some accounts noting cultural destruction. On the other, India preserves remarkable archaeological remains, like those in the Central Asia exhibition at the National Museum in Delhi, spanning the 5th to 11th centuries,” said Kanisetti. “These Buddhist artifacts reflect a shared Central Asian, Indian, and Chinese culture. But the question remains: do they belong to China, the imperial power, or to India, which inherited them from the British Raj? There’s no easy answer”.
(Edited by Aamaan Alam Khan)