“The Kyrgyz belong to the ancient peoples of Central Asia. Among the peoples currently living in Central Asia, none seem to have a name that appeared so early in history.
Almost all of our information about the eastern part of Central Asia in the pre-Mongol period is drawn from Chinese official historiography, where the names of peoples and other proper nouns, both personal and geographical, are rendered in Chinese characters.
In translating Chinese texts, Russian scholars generally relied on the pronunciation of characters in the contemporary Beijing dialect, while Western European scholars adhered to literary Chinese, or the so-called ‘Mandarin’ language.
Some sinologists also attempted to determine, based on linguistic data, how certain characters might have been pronounced at the time relevant to the text, which occasionally led to discussions about the ethnographic origins of the peoples mentioned by the Chinese.
Among Western European sinologists, references are often made to Fr. Hirth’s article Nachworte zur Inschrift des Tonjukuk (1899), Chavannes’ work Documents sur les Tou-kiue (Turcs) occidentaux (1903), and de Groot’s work Die Hunnen der vorchristlichen Zeit (1921).
In Russian, the Chinese accounts of the peoples of Central Asia have been compiled in the work of the monk Iakinf (Bichurin), Collection of Information on the Peoples Inhabiting Central Asia in Ancient Times (1851), which covers up to the 10th century; the continuation of this work was intended to be V.P. Vasilyev’s History and Antiquities of the Eastern Part of Central Asia from the 10th to the 13th Century (1857).
The earliest record of Chinese official historiography is the Historical Records (Shi Ji) by Sima Qian, ‘the father of Chinese history,’ who completed his work in 99 BCE. At that time, the northern neighbors of the Chinese were the Huns (Hiung-nu), who had created the first historically known vast nomadic empire in Central Asia.
The Chinese generally associated the Huns with Turkic peoples. Until recently, European scholars also mostly considered the Huns to be Turks, although now such a specialist on Chinese accounts of Central Asia as Prof. Pelliot leans toward the previous theory of the Mongolian origin of the Huns.
According to Sima Qian, the Huns to the north subdued the kingdom of Gegun (transcribed by de Groot as Kik-k’un), apparently in 201 BCE. Both Chinese and European scholars associate this transcription with others used for the word Kyrgyz, so the report of events in 201 BCE should be regarded as the earliest known record of the Kyrgyz.
Efforts have been made to interpret this transcription differently. In the first syllable, which later appears in the form Gyan, they saw the name of the river ‘Kem,’ and in the second, the name of the river ‘Orkhon,’ leading them to believe that the Chinese used this name for the area between the Yenisei and the Orkhon. Indeed, among Turkic peoples, the Yenisei has always been called ‘Kem,’ but the Chinese used a different character to convey this word, not the one used for the first part of the name Kyrgyz.
The second part was indeed represented by the same character later used for the name of the Orkhon River, suggesting that the Chinese also heard a nasal sound at the end of the Kyrgyz name. Pelliot believes this might represent a Mongolian singular formation – Kyrkun. Since the Chinese probably learned about the Kyrgyz from their Hun neighbors, this would confirm Pelliot’s view of the Mongolian origin of this people.
The account of the event in 201 BCE says nothing about the territory of the Kyrgyz or its location. But along with the Kyrgyz, presumably as their neighbors, the Ting-ling people are mentioned, who are thought to be ancestors of the so-called ‘Yenisei Ostyaks.’ On this basis, it can be assumed that the Kyrgyz already lived on the Yenisei, as they did later.
Somewhat more, though still very little, geographical data can be found in the History of the Early Han (206 BCE – 25 CE); its author, Ban Gu, died in 92 CE. In his account of events in the latter half of the 1st century BCE, the Kyrgyz are referred to as Gyangun (Kien koen by Chavannes, Kin-k’un by de Groot). One of the Hun leaders moved westward to an area near the land of the Usun, frequently mentioned as the western neighbors and enemies of the Huns.
The location of the Usun land is defined quite precisely, with its center south of Issyk-Kul, extending westward to Fergana, and to the east covering the area east of Lake Ebi-Nor and west of the city of Shiho. Upon learning of the approaching Huns, the Usun sent an 8,000-man detachment against them, which the Huns defeated, likely not within the Usun lands but further east.
After defeating the Usun, the Huns moved north against the Uge people, then west against the Gyangun people, and then north against the Ting-ling people. Subjugating these ‘three kingdoms,’ the Huns frequently sent troops against the Usun, consistently defeating them.
The Hun leader stayed for some time in the land of Gyangun, later allying with the Usun’s western neighbors, the Kangju (Kangju, Kang-kiu by Chavannes, K’ang-ki by de Groot), whose lands reached the region northwest of Fergana.
The Huns accepted the Kangju’s invitation to move into their territory, sustaining heavy losses en route (only 3,000 soldiers survived), but were able to establish a powerful kingdom there and achieve significant victories over the Usun. This kingdom was destroyed by a Chinese army sent westward in 36 BCE, and the Hun leader, the founder of the kingdom, was executed.
The Gyangun land is also said to have been located 7,000 li (a li at that time being about one-third of a verst) west of the Hun capital (on the Orkhon or Tole) and 5,000 li north of the territory of Cheshi or Gusu, i.e., from the area in eastern Chinese Turkestan where the city of Turfan is now located. We will see that later Muslim geographers also describe a route to the north into the Kyrgyz land on the Yenisei from the Turfan area.
If the distances given by the Chinese are close to reality, it is possible that the Kyrgyz then lived not only on the Yenisei but also further south, in the area where Lake Kyrgyz-Nor (nor or nur, meaning ‘lake’ in Mongolian) is now located. As far as I know, there is no information about when or why the lake received this name.
In any case, the course of events suggests that the Gyangun land was located east of the Usun land, and only due to a casual omission are the Usun not mentioned in the account of the Hun movement from Gyangun to Kangju land; it is certain that the losses sustained by the Huns on this route were inflicted by the Usun.
The oversight of Ban Gu misled Yu Huan, the author of the History of the Wei Dynasty (220-264), who wrote in the 3rd century. He places the Gyangun land next to Kangju and to the northwest of it. He places the land of the Ting-ling to the north of Kangju and, in a clear contradiction, asserts that Gyangun was situated between these ‘kingdoms.’ This error also misled de Groot.
It is also mentioned that Chinese officials appointed Hunnic rulers over the Gyangun and other northern lands. However, these reports do not seem to be based on precise sources. At the very end of the 2nd century BCE, Wei Lü, an official of nomadic origin educated in China and sent as an envoy to the Huns, joined the Huns.
In the history of the Tang Dynasty (618-907) compiled in the 11th century, it is said that Wei Lü was made ruler among the Ting-ling. However, this is not explicitly stated in the History of the Early Han. In 99 BCE, the defeated Chinese general Li Ling defected to the Huns after long resistance; he died in the Hunnic land in 74 CE, and his son is later mentioned among the Hun officials.
In a note to this passage in Iakinf’s translation, it says that ‘Li Ling remained with the Huns and was granted dominion over the Kyrgyz (the Tang Dynasty transcription of the term Kyrgyz), where his descendants ruled almost until the time of Genghis Khan.’ The Tang history records that the Kyrgyz khan, a descendant of Li Ling, overthrew the Uighur state in 840 and died in 847.
Since the Tang Dynasty belonged to the Li family, the Kyrgyz khan was acknowledged as a relative of the Chinese ruling dynasty during negotiations in 841. An attempt was made to include his name in the royal lineage, but this was abandoned, with the recognition that ‘the Kyrgyz are a small clan and cannot be equated with the Tang house.’
There appears to be no information about the fate of the Kyrgyz people during the first five centuries CE. It is entirely unknown how the fall of the Hunnic Empire at the end of the 1st century CE and the rise of the Xianbei affected the Kyrgyz. The Xianbei were traditionally considered Tungusic; however, in a lecture given in Leningrad, Prof. Pelliot identified them as Turks, citing a Chinese dictionary of the Xianbei language. I have not seen any published information about this dictionary.
In the History of the Later Han (25–220), compiled only in the 5th century, it is written that the Xianbei ruler Tanshihai (died 181 CE) ‘stopped the Ting-ling in the north, defeated the Usun in the west, and took control of all the lands formerly under Hunnic rule.’ The mention of the Ting-ling suggests that Tanshihai controlled the land of their southern neighbors, the Kyrgyz. In the same history, the Ting-ling are sometimes mentioned where we might expect references to their southern neighbors.
The Wuhuan people were classified by the Chinese as ‘Eastern Barbarians’ (Dong Hu) and were likely once the eastern neighbors of the Huns, in the area north of the Gobi Desert. The Chinese also state that this desert, where the Wuhuan harbored criminals, was located southwest of the Ting-ling and northeast of the Usun; furthermore, they mention military detachments organized by the Chinese in the early Common Era, comprising both the Ting-ling and the Wuhuan.
After the 2nd century, the Ting-ling are no longer mentioned, nor is there any information about the Kyrgyz until the formation of the nomadic Turkic-Oghuz empire in the 6th century.” - V. V. Bartold, The Kyrgyz (A Historical Outline). Earliest Mentions.
Literature:
[1] L. Ligeti and other scholars have provided a linguistic explanation for the origin of the name Kyrgyz from the numeral kyrk (‘forty’) with the plural suffix -(y)z, similar to the collective ethnic name Oghuz, which likely originates from the word ok (og) meaning ‘clan’ or ‘tribe,’ with the plural suffix -(u)z (see Abulgazi, Genealogy of the Turkmens, edited by Kononov, p. 84, note 31; for more details, see Abramzon, On Semantics).
This explanation aligns with Central Asian written tradition, where, in a listing of 92 Uzbek tribes, the Kyrgyz are mentioned among clan names that are numerals: ming (thousand), yuz (hundred), kyrk (forty), and on (ten) (see Avaz-Muhammad, folio 266b).
For the possible connection of the name Kyrgyz with the ethnic or geographic term az ~ as ~ us, see below, p. 485, note 20, and p. 504, note 10. For legends explaining the name Kyrgyz as derived from 40 maidens, see p. 504, note 10, and from 40 ghuz (giz), see p. 513, note 6. — V.R.
[2] See my review: ZVORAO, vol. XV, pp. 162–185.
[3] See my review: Annals, vol. II, pp. 261–267.
[4] For theories about the Huns, see Inostrantsev, The Huns. After Bartold’s work, numerous studies have been dedicated to the Huns, including McGovern, The Early Empires (reviewed by Bernshtam, VDI, 1940, nos. 3–4) and Bernshtam, Outline of the History of the Huns (reviewed by Borisov, VI, 1952, no. 11; Kyzlasov — Merpert, VDI, 1952, no. 1; Udaltzova, Against Idealization). More recent works on the Huns of Central Asia include Gumilev, The Huns (reviewed by K. Vasiliev, VDI, 1961, no. 2; Duman, Peoples of Asia and Africa, 1962, no. 3; Vorobyov, Peoples of Asia and Africa, 1962, no. 3); Ma Changshou, Northern Barbarians and the Xiongnu. — B.S.
[5] Modern transcription: Jiangkun.
[6] Modern transcription: Jian.
[7] For this name, see Hambis, Notes on Käm. — V.R.
[8] Jiangkun.
[9] For the Usun, see above, p. 25 and following.
[10] Modern transcription: Kangju.
[11] On Kangju (Kangzhu), see above, pp. 175–176.
[12] Modern transcription: Cheshi.
[13] Modern transcription: Gushi.
[14] It is unclear which author V.V. Bartold had in mind here. As B.I. Pankratov pointed out, the History of the Three Dynasties was compiled and edited by Chen Shou, who wrote the History of the Han Dynasty, while the histories of the other two dynasties, including the history of Wei (220–264), were compiled by a special commission. The name Yu Huan does not appear among the authors of this work. — V.R.
[15] Bichurin, Collection of Information, vol. I, p. 51.
[16] Ibid., p. 461.
[17] Tan Shihai.
[18] See Bichurin, Collection of Information, vol. I, p. 169: “…in the north he stopped the Ting-ling, in the east he repelled the Fuyu, in the west he defeated the Usun and took control of all the lands formerly under the Hunnic state, stretching from east to west for 14,000 li, including all the mountains, rivers, and salt lakes.
🧬 DNA Science Data:
“Haplogroup R1a1, more specifically, its subclade R1a1a1b2 (defined by mutation Z93), is the genetic marker of the Indo-European pastoralists, who migrated from modern-day Ukraine to modern-day Iran, India, the Kazakh steppes, the Tarim Basin, the Altai Mountains region, the Yenisei River region, and western Mongolia during the Bronze Age.
Naturally, R1a1, more specifically, its subclade R1a1a1b2 (R1a-Z93), occurs at high frequency among the Turkic peoples now residing in the Yenisei River and the Altai Mountains regions in Russia.
Compared to the Tuvinians, the Khakass (whose name was created by the Soviets from Xiajiasi (黠戛斯), a Chinese name for Kyrgyz, since they were regarded as descending from the Kyrgyz have noticeably higher percentages of R1a1 (35.2%) and much lower percentages of haplogroups C (1.1%) and Q (4%). However, N is also the most prevalent haplogroup (50%) of the Khakass (Gubina et al. 2013: 339; Shi et al. 2013)
As for the Altaians, the Altai-Kizhi (southern Altaians) are characterised by a high percentage of R1a1 (50%) and low to moderate percentages of C2 (20%), Q (16.7%) and N (4.2%) (Dulik et al. 2012: 234).
The major differences between the Khakass and the southern Altaians are the lower frequency of haplogroup N (in another study, haplogroup N is found at high frequency (32%) among the Altaians in general: see Gubina et al. 2013: 329, 339) and the higher frequencies of haplogroups C2 and Q among the latter.
The descent of the Kyrgyz (Kyrgyz) of the Tien Shan Mountains region (Kyrgyzstan) from the Yenisei Kyrgyz is debated among historians.
However, among the modern Turkic peoples, the former have the highest percentage of R1a1 (over 60%). Since the West Eurasian physiognomy of the Yenisei Kyrgyz recorded in the Xin Tangshu was in all likelihood a reflection of their Eurasian Indo-European marker R1a1a1b2 (R1a-Z93), one may conjecture that the Tien Shan Kyrgyz received their R1a1 marker from the Yenisei Kyrgyz. That is, the former are descended from the latter.
The other Y-chromosome haplogroups found among the Kyrgyz (Kyrgyz) are C2 (12~20%), O (0~15%) and N (0~4.5%).50 The lack of haplogroup Q among the Qirghiz (Kyrgyz) mostly distinguishes them from the Altaians.
During the Bronze Age and early Iron Age, the Yenisei River region was inhabited by Indo-Europeans. The dna study of 26 ancient human specimens from the Krasnoyarsk area dated from the middle of the second millennium bc to the fourth century ad shows that the Yenisei pastoralists mostly belonged to haplogroup R1a1 (Keyser et al. 2009: 401)
The high frequency of R1a1 among the modern-day Kyrgyz and Altaians may thus prove that they are descended from the Yenisei Kyrgyz. In addition, this may explain the reason why medieval Chinese histories depict the Kyrgyz as possessing West Eurasian physiognomy.
The Y-chromosomes of the Kök Türks have not been studied. After the collapse of the Second Türk Khaganate in 745 ce, the Kök Türks became dispersed and it is difficult to identify their modern descendants.
If they were indeed descended from the Eastern Scythians aka Saka (Suo) or related to the Kyrgyz, as the Zhoushu states (Zhoushu 50.908), the Ashina (royal Türkic dynasty, possibly related to the Turko-Jewish Khazar Khaganate, according to Peter B. Golden of Rutgers University) may have belonged to the R1a1 lineage.” - Joo-Yup Lee and Shuntu Kuang, University of Toronto, Canada
Source: “A Comparative Analysis of Chinese Historical Sources and Y-DNA Studies with Regard to the Early and Medieval Turkic Peoples’
Authors: Joo-Yup Lee and Shuntu Kuang from, the University of Toronto of Canada
“Kyrgyz are an admixed population between the East and the West. Different patterns have been observed in the patrilineal gene pool of the Kyrgyz. Historically, ancient Kyrgyz were considered to be the Yenisei Kyrgyz that may perhaps be concerned with the Tashtyk culture.
Extremely low Y-diversity and the presence of a high-frequency 68.9% Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a1-M17 (a diagnostic Indo-Iranian marker are striking features of Kyrgyz populations in central Asia. It is believed that this lineage is associated with Indo-Europeans who migrated to the Altai region during the Bronze Age and mixed with various Turkic groups.
Among the Asian R1a1a1b2-Z93 lineages, R1a1a1b2a2-Z2125 is quite common in Kyrgyzstan (68%) and Afghan Pashtuns (40%), and less frequent in other Afghan ethnic groups and some Caucasus and Iran populations (10%). Notably, the basal lineage R1a1a1b2-Z93* is commonly distributed in the South Siberian Altai region of Russia.
According to the published ancient DNA data, we found that, in Middle Bronze Age, Haplogroup R1a1a1b2a2a- Z2125 was mainly found in Sintashta culture population from Kamennyi Ambar 5 cemetery, western Siberia, in Fedorovo type of the Andronovo culture or Karasuk culture population from Minusinsk Basin, southern Siberia, and in Andronovo culture populations from Maitan, Ak-Moustafa, Aktogai, Kazakh Mys, Satan, Oy-Dzhaylau III, Karagash 2, Dali, and Zevakinskiy stone fence, Kazakhstan.” (Wen, Shao-qing; Du, Pan-xin; Sun, Chang; Cui, Wei; Xu, Yi-ran; Meng, Hai-liang; Shi, Mei-sen; Zhu, Bo-feng; Li, Hui (March 2022)
Source: "Dual origins of the Northwest Chinese Kyrgyz: the admixture of Bronze age Siberian and Medieval Niru'un Mongolian Y chromosomes", Nature
Authors: Wen, Shao-qing; Du, Pan-xin; Sun, Chang; Cui, Wei; Xu, Yi-ran; Meng, Hai-liang; Shi, Mei-sen; Zhu, Bo-feng; Li, Hui (March 2022)
“The modern-day descendants of the Yenisei Kyrgyz, the Kyrgyz people, have one of the highest frequencies of haplogroup R1a-Z93. This lineage believed to be associated with Indo-Iranians who migrated to the Altai region in the Bronze Age, and is carried by various Türkic groups. The Zhoushu [the book of the Zhou Dynasty] (Linghu Defen 2003, Chapter 50, p. 908) informs us that the Ashina, the royal clan of the Kök Türks, were related to the Kyrgyz.
If so, the Ashina may have belonged to the R1a1 lineage like the modern-day Tienshan Kyrgyz, who are characterised by the high frequency of R1a1 (over 65%). Haplogroup R1a1, more specifically, its sub- clade R1a1a1b2 defined by mutation Z93, was carried by the Indo-European pastoralists, who reached the Kazakh steppes, the Tarim Basin, the Altai Mountains region, the Yenisei River region, and western Mongolia from the Black Sea steppes during the Bronze Age (Semino et al. 2000, p. 1156, Lee, Joo-Yup (2018)
Source: Lee, Joo-Yup (2018). "Some remarks on the Turkicisation of the Mongols in post-Mongol Central Asia and the Kipchak Steppe ''. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. 71 (2): 121–124. doi:10.1556/062.2018.71.2.1. ISSN 0001-6446. S2CID 133847698.
Kazakh DNA researcher Zhaxylyk Sabitov states: “Until the 9th century, the Kyrgyz lived along the Yenisei River in the Minusinsk Basin. In the 9th century, the Yenisei Kyrgyz migrated to the Altai and Irtysh regions.
“From 1326 to 1329, some Altai Kyrgyz moved to Semirechye and the territory of modern Kyrgyzstan.” He also published DNA sample data from the Sintashta culture, which he claims “is related to the Altai and modern Kyrgyz, while the Arban-1 samples from the Karasuk culture are ancestral to modern Kyrgyz. Genetic data from Arzhan complex (8th century BCE) also show parental genes of the Kyrgyz.”
It is known that the structure of Arzhan has similarities with the Sintashta-Andronovo kurgans (M.P. Gryaznov). It is known that Saka tribes lived in the territory of Kyrgyzstan, and later the Wusun tribe arrived from the east. The high percentage of R1a1 among the Kyrgyz appeared through three routes: from the Saka tribes, from the Wusun Sakas, and from the Dingling tribes. There is also a theory about the migration of part of the Yenisei Kyrgyz to the territory of modern Kyrgyzstan.” (Zhaxylyk Sabitov)
Source: “Historical-Genetic Approach in the Study of the Ethnogenesis and Material Culture of the Ancient Kyrgyz” - International Journal of Experimental Education
“The land of Modern Kyrgyzstan, populated at the turn of the eras by the Saka and Wusun tribes, was overrun by the Yenisei Kyrgyzes (Khakasses) in the 8th c. AD.
Since Kyrgyzstan is a natural mountain fortress of the Tian Shan mountains, it is an island similar to the Lithuanian Tatars, with high genetic inertia and limited influences. Essentially, all four are Scythians, the Saka Scythians, Wusun Scythians, Yenisei Kyrgyz Scythians, and the Lithuanian Tatar Scythians.”
Source: “The Lithuanian Tatars: DNA Ancestry Traced To The Eurasian Steppes”, Academy of DNA-Genealogy, Tsukuba, Japan, Igor Rozhanski
"Samples from the burials of the Andronovo, Tagar, and Tashtyk cultures were identified using Y-STR analysis, which allows for the comparison of these samples with each other and with samples from representatives of different populations, both ancient and modern.
The Andronovo haplotypes S10 and S16 have the following structure:
ANDRON S10, S16:
13-25-16-11-11-14-10-14-11-18-15-14-11-16-20-12-23
The greatest number of matches is observed with the Tian Shan Kyrgyz and the Southern Altaians. Complete matches of haplotypes in populations that are geographically close and share a common history are possible only in cases of genetic relationship; random matches are unlikely.
Thus, the Southern Altaians and the Tien Shan Kyrgyz are likely descendants of close relatives of the Yenisei Andronovites, most likely the descendants of the Altai Andronovites. It is well established by linguists and ethnographers that there is close linguistic and ethnic kinship between the Kyrgyz and the Southern Altaians (Baskakov, 1966: 15-16).
These peoples share the same names for their clan divisions (Mundus, Telos-Doolos, Kipchak, Naiman, Merkit, etc.). Kyrgyz legends refer to Altai as the ancestral home of their people. Several historians believe that the Kyrgyz and Southern Altaians once formed a single community and that the migration of the Kyrgyz from Altai to Tien Shan occurred relatively recently (Abramzon, 1959: 34; Abdumanapov, 2007: 95, 114).
Source: Volkov V.G., Kharkov V.N., Stepanov V.A. Andronovo and Tagar cultures in light of genetic data."
Kommentare