“In the first issue of the journal Soviet Ethnography (1963), an article by A. Abdykalykov, On the Term Burut, was published for discussion. Let me summarize its content. In Russian, Mongolian, and Chinese documents, the term burut refers to tribes that inhabited the Tien Shan region in the 18th century.
According to an established scholarly tradition represented by a significant group of researchers, the buruts mentioned in these sources correspond to the Tien Shan Kyrgyz. However, the main challenge in supporting this identification lies in the absence of the term burut in modern Kyrgyz ethnonymy.
Based on this fact, the author of the article concludes that the term burut has Kalmyk origins, meaning “traitors” or “infidels,” and argues that the word burut was a derogatory nickname given to the Kyrgyz by Kalmyk rulers. At the same time, he categorically denies any connection between the Tianshan Kyrgyz and the buruts of the Sayan-Altai region.
The correlation between the ethnonyms Kyrgyz and burut, as raised in A. Abdykalykov’s article, deserves close attention. However, upon a more thorough examination of historical and ethnographic materials, its resolution, in my view, takes on a different perspective.
From the 3rd century BCE, records begin to mention a Kyrgyz tribe living in the Ob-Yenisei basin. This ethnonym remained in use there until the 19th century. However, during the pre-Mongol period, sometime between the 13th and 17th centuries, references to the Kyrgyz also appear in the territory of modern Kyrgyzstan.
The timing and causes of the partial migration of the Kyrgyz from Sayan-Altai to the Tianshan, as well as the process by which both communities evolved into distinct ethnic groups, have been extensively studied in specialized research, which we will not delve into here.
What is important, however, is that during the late Middle Ages, the term burut came to be applied to both ethnic groups—who shared the same name but were in different stages of ethnic development.
This phenomenon is well-documented in academic literature, to the extent that A. Abdykalykov, while denying the factual identity of the Kyrgyz and buruts, must nonetheless acknowledge the existence of this historical paradox—comparable to the erroneous use of the term Kyrgyz (or Kyrgyz-Kazak) by Russians to refer to Kazakhs until the early 20th century.
The contradictions in sources, along with the significance and ambiguity of the issue, served as the motivation for writing this article to further explore the topic.
The principles of ethnonym formation among ancient Asian peoples have only been minimally studied by ethnographers and Orientalists. V. Kotvich made an initial attempt to analyze these principles in the Mongolian context, while S. M. Abramzon conducted an analysis and classification of modern Kyrgyz ethnonym.
Ethnonymic issues are also discussed in V. N. Chernetsov’s research on the history of clan structures among the Ob-Ugrians. Finally, an attempt to outline the fundamental principles of ethnonym formation among the ancient Mongols is found in the work of P. Budberg. According to him, in the vast majority of cases, ethnonyms derive from concepts that he classifies as follows:
Names of birds, animals, tools of production, and “other objects of nomadic life”;
Terms related to kinship status;
Official titles defining the leader’s position in the khan’s court;
The tribe’s geographical location or position relative to a larger political entity;
The color of the tribe’s horses;
The number of tribes within a confederation, which later becomes an ethnonym;
Finally, the mixture and associative combination of heterogeneous elements within a tribal union.
Without debating the essence of the theses presented, we must nevertheless point out several omissions. The first thesis, which traces the origin of an ethnonym to names of birds, animals, and “other objects of nomadic life,” does not even hint at the fact that, in some cases, an ethnonym or self-designation appears to reflect the name of a totemic (sometimes economically significant) animal, as was the case, for example, among the Seneca-Iroquois clans.
All researchers agree that the most ancient forms of clan names are self-designations based on an ancestral animal, especially when this ancestor is depicted as a female figure.
The core idea of totemism—the concept of a collective kinship between humans and their totem, which in turn implies kinship among members of the same group—historically necessitated not only bearing the “surname” of the totemic animal but also considering oneself its descendant and a bearer of its essence.
“A lion’s cub is still a lion”—this maxim from the Oghuz epic Kitab-i Dede Korkut would have been spoken without any figurative connotation by a member of the Lion clan two thousand years ago. However, it should be noted that zoomorphic names or ethnonyms are not necessarily or always associated with totemism; they may arise due to tradition or other motives. Nevertheless, their deepest historical layer is rooted in totemism, and the totemic substratum undoubtedly played a crucial role in ancient ethnonym formation.
Totemism, in its original form, existed during that period of Asian history when written records about distant peoples were just beginning to appear. These sources document instances where members of certain tribes considered themselves to be descendants of an animal ancestor.
In the beliefs of the ancient inhabitants of Asia, the motif of the deer ancestor is particularly persistent. It appears in the epic narratives and legends of the Xiongnu-Huns, Turks, Uighurs, Khitans, Polovtsians (Kipchaks), Mongols, Ossetians, and other peoples. Its supposed counterpart is the cult of the wolf among the same peoples.
Traces of totemism can also be seen in the widespread cult of the serpent (e.g., the Avars and others), the dog (Tibetans, inhabitants of the northern Altai ranges), and various other animals.
It is likely that remnants of totemism can also be found in ethnonyms that denote animals:
•Bugu (Chinese: Pugu) — bull-maral (red deer)
•Aygyr (Chinese: Sijie) — stallion
•Sygyr (Chinese: Sijie) — cow
•Itlyk (or Itlar, Kuchuk, It-Barak) — dog
•Oghuz — bull
Admittedly, drawing conclusions about totemism based solely on names is difficult. However, in certain cases, the connection is undeniable, and the identity between the name and the totem is reinforced by the beliefs of the ethnonym-bearers themselves.
Since totemism was undoubtedly present in the earliest epochs, we must also recognize its inevitable attribute—the taboo on the life and name of the animal considered sacred. Even in later times, when the totem took on anthropomorphic characteristics, tabooing remained in effect, artificially maintained by aristocratic clans and tribes to preserve their hegemony. There is abundant material confirming this phenomenon.
For brevity, I will limit myself to a characteristic statement by Rashid al-Din:
“And such a custom exists,” he says, “that whatever is the ongon (totem) of a certain tribe—they do not attack it, do not resist it, and do not eat its meat, as they have appropriated it for themselves as a favorable omen. To this day, this meaning remains valid, and each tribe knows its own ongon.”
The tabooing of the totem’s name, when it coincided with the name of a dominant “divine” clan—as well as prohibitions on mentioning the name of a clan founder or the most distinguished ancestors—led to the necessity of euphemizing the original word, which had become sacred. Judging by materials from the ancient Turkic period, this process followed two paths:
Modification of the existing name
Direct substitution with a word borrowed from the lexicon of neighboring languages (lexical borrowing)
There are many instances in which an exonym (a foreign term) becomes a self-designation. As Jordanes remarks:
“It is well known and often noted how common it is for tribes to adopt foreign names: the Romans took Macedonian names, the Greeks adopted Roman ones, the Sarmatians used Germanic names. The Goths, in particular, frequently borrowed Hunnic names.”
The same applies to the terms “Rus” (Ros) and “Ant”, whose origins are debated.
The Avars, who worshipped the serpent, bore a name that, based on its Chinese transcription (Rouran, Zhaozhan) and historical records, reflected the symbolism of a snake (worm). In the West, they were known by the Indo-Iranian designation Kermhion (from Old Iranian karmi, meaning “worm” or “serpent”).
Similarly, the term “It” (dog), which was part of the ethnonymy of the southern Russian Kipchaks-Polovtsians, was later replaced by the Mongol-derived ethnonym Nogai (dog), which became a self-designation for several Turkic-speaking groups in the same territories.
A similar phenomenon is known from the history of the ancient Turks of Orkhon. From the Tonyukuk Inscription, it is clear that Tonyukuk represented the maternal (katun) phratry of the Turks-Sirs (or Shirs, Turkic Sir/Sir).
The relationship between the names of the Khaganate Turks of Orkhon is equally transparent. In runic epitaphs, they are referred to as Blue (Heavenly) Turks, which implies the existence of a cult of the sky among them.
The Turkic Kök-Türk (Blue Turk) undoubtedly corresponds to the Chinese transcription A-shi-na (Middle Chinese a-si-na < asana / asna), which reflects the Khotanese-Saka word asana, meaning “blue,” “azure,” or “heavenly.”
Sometimes, a tribe becomes known by multiple names according to the principles outlined above—based on their religious beliefs, place of residence, the animals they raise, etc. For example, historical Kipchaks are referred to in sources as Kumans, Polovtsians, Sary, Tokmaks, and so on.
The Tanguts were also called Dangxiang and Minyak. B. O. Dolgikh records several variations of the Tungus ethnonym, including Nyurumnyali, Jurumjdal, and Ilim Tungus. The Yakuts’ self-designation is “Sakha.” Similar examples exist among the Iranians and other peoples.
In this context, the widespread cult of the eagle among the peoples of the Sayan-Altai Highlands is of particular interest. Ethnographic material on this subject has been collected and analyzed by L. Ya. Sternberg, D. K. Zelenin, A. Zolotaryov, U. Harva, and V. N. Basilov, making it unnecessary to elaborate further here.
The eagle cult, which in ancient beliefs was often merged with the griffin, has been known in this region since the time of Aristeas and Herodotus. In Arimaspea, a work imbued with shamanistic themes, as demonstrated by K. Möller, the outermost tribes in the northwest are depicted as fantastic creatures.
In this narrative, the people guarding the griffins’ gold—when their western neighbors, the Argippaeans (“swift horses”), are localized in Dzungaria—appear to be inhabitants of Sayan-Altai, which is often referred to as the Hyperborean Mountains.
Some confirmation of this can be found in Chinese sources. The geographical treatise “Shan Hai Jing” (The Classic of Mountains and Seas) describes three types of five-colored birds, which were associated with the legendary phoenix among northern foreigners during the Qin era.
One section of the encyclopedia “Taiping Guangji” (vol. 490) is titled “The Great Bird of Beihai” (North Sea, i.e., Lake Baikal):
“In Beihai lives a great bird, a thousand li in height. The color (or image) of its head is called ‘Heaven,’ the color of its chest is called ‘Climate,’ the color of its left wing is called ‘Black Gull,’ the color of its right wing is called ‘Governance.’ Its head faces directly east… Sometimes it flaps its wings and flies, and its feathers cut through the air like thunder and wind.”
This also connects to ancient Chinese myths, which state that the deity of Beihai and the Wind (cf. Herodotus’ account of the north wind in the land of the griffins) was Yuqiang, depicted with a human face and a bird’s body.
Another deity, called Jiufeng (“Nine-Headed Phoenix”), had a bird’s body and nine heads with human faces.
In subsequent centuries, references to griffins, eagles, or magical phoenix-like birds in the Sayan-Altai region disappear, likely due to the general cessation of information regarding the peoples of this area. The only remaining clue is a tamga, recorded as Kyrgyz, in the Tang Huiyao (8th–10th centuries), depicting a four-winged bird.
The Persian author Gardizi (11th century) states that one of the objects of worship among the Kyrgyz was the falcon. The History of the Mongols also mentions that falcons were kept by the Kyrgyz—a fact that, given the scarcity of sources, cannot be considered insignificant.
Indeed, the Secret History of the Mongols records that during Jochi’s campaign against the Tumens and Kyrgyz, the Kyrgyz noyons Yedi, Inal, and Aldi-Eri Orbek-Digin came to him:
“They expressed their submission and paid homage to the ruler with white falcons (shinkhot).”
According to Rashid al-Din, during Kublai Khan’s reign, envoys arrived from the Kur, Burku, and Kyrgyz regions:
“They presented a white-legged, red-beaked falcon and a white eagle.”
Any doubts regarding the cultic significance of the eagle (gyrfalcon, falcon) among the Kyrgyz disappear when considering the system of ancestral-patron subordination during the disintegration of the clan system. Just as clans and their ancestors held hierarchical positions within a confederation, so too did their cults.
This conclusion is also supported by the story of the Kyrgyz’ submission to Genghis Khan.
As Abu al-Ghazi reports, during their submission to the Mongols, the Kyrgyz presented rich gifts, the most significant of which was:
“A red-eyed, red-beaked white falcon.”
Clarifying this account, Rashid al-Din states that:
“The white falcon was presented as a sign of reverence from the younger to the elder and as a symbol of submission.”
The emergence of the eagle cult among the Kyrgyz likely dates back to a period in their history most closely associated with matriarchy. Remnants of this can be observed in one of the most significant genealogical titles of the Kyrgyz in the 8th century:
•Khizyl (Kyzyl)
•Kush-aba
•Achu
The meaning of the first title remains unclear. The component kush in the compound title kush-aba (“bird-mother”) broadly means “bird”, including (when combined with epithets) “eagle.”
Alongside the following term “achu” (meaning “father”), this title appears to be a euphemism. The persistent recurrence of griffon-eagle totemism in Sayan-Altai from at least the 5th century BCE to the 13th century and well beyond suggests that this was not merely the totem of a single clan, but rather a deity common to all Kyrgyz tribes.
The previous analysis of totems and ethnonyms provides insight into possible ways of clarifying the semantic origin of the term Kyrgyz.
According to medieval tradition, most Turkologists interpret the ethnonym Kyrgyz through the sacred meaning of the number forty (kyrk), which is formed with the plural (or more precisely, dual) suffix -z.
Another group of scholars, including the author of this article, supports a different hypothesis—that Kyrgyz derives from Kyrkun, with a preferable etymology meaning “Steppe Huns.”
A recent attempt to analyze the term was made by K. I. Petrov, who, using fragmentary references to the “red-faced” Yenisei Kyrgyz of the 8th–9th centuries, argues that Kyrgyz originates from the Turkic kyryg (or kyrgu), meaning “red.”
Rejecting the traditional interpretation, he suggests that the term referred to the red-colored breeds of animals in this region. This interpretation, however, presents several difficulties:
There is no historical precedent in Asia for adopting ethnonyms based on “the color of regional animal breeds.”
There is no known historical name for Sayan-Altai meaning “Red.” The Turkic Kögmen and Chinese Qing-shan both mean “blue” or “azure.”
The term kyr- and its variants, examined by I. Laude-Tsirtautas, predominantly mean “gray” or “steppe.” This meaning is specifically noted for kyrkyr, which Petrov used as an equivalent to the ethnonym Kyrgyz.
Although red had some sacred significance for the Kyrgyz, its exact function remains unclear. However, within religious terminology, it was expressed through the term kizyl, not “kyrgu.”
All of these points significantly weaken Petrov’s hypothesis.
Thus, the expansion of Petrov’s theory by N. A. Baskakov, published in Soviet Ethnography, is unlikely to be productive. Accepting Petrov’s main thesis regarding the composition of the ethnonym Kyrgyz, Baskakov breaks it into two components:
•Qyryyz < Qyrgu-Oghuz, meaning “Red Oghuz.”
•According to the theory of U. Harva, O. Pritsak, A. Gabain, and I. Laude-Tsirtautas, this would mean “Southern Oghuz.”
However, color symbolism in geographic orientation seems unlikely to be the key to deciphering the ethnonym Kyrgyz, even if we accept the highly speculative reconstruction ”Qyrgu-Oghuz”. Furthermore, linking the Kyrgyz to the Oghuz is highly problematic.
Color-based determinants in ethnonyms only appear when distinguishing a subgroup relative to a larger static entity. Thus, if the Kyrgyz were truly part of the Oghuz, they should have been called “Kara-Oghuz” (“Black Oghuz”), meaning “Northern Oghuz.”
The earliest reference to the Yenisei Kyrgyz appears in the late 3rd century BCE, in the context of the Xiongnu-Hun conquests. They are referred to in Chinese sources as Jian-Kun (Ancient Chinese: Kien-Kwon). Since the final “-p” in Han dynasty transcriptions regularly represented a native “-g”, this group could correspond to the native name Karkyr~Karkir—which is further supported by the earliest Byzantine transcription “Kerkir” (Χέρχιρ).
Similarly, another Chinese transcription, Ge-Kun (Ancient Chinese: Klek-Kwan), corresponds to Turkic Karkyr~Karkir. This reconstruction accurately reflects the pronunciation of the term in “R”-Turkic languages and aligns with the Turko-Oghuz form Karkir. The 8th-century author Gai Jia-Yun, when discussing the transcription Jian-Kun (Kerkir), states:
“The current altered name He-He (or Gu)-Si (Middle Chinese: Yust-Yust (Kuot)-Sie < Xarxas~Xarxas) is also an ancient name for the northern foreigners.”
The most accurate phonetic transcription of the Kyrgyz ethnonym, according to contemporaries, was Sya’-Jia-Si (Middle Chinese hat-kat-sis < xarkas~xarkas). This reconstruction closely corresponds to the Uyghur-Tibetan pronunciation Hir-kis and the common Arabic-Persian form Khirkhiz.
It is particularly important to note that the Turkic form Kyrkyz~Kyrgyz, which appears in runic inscriptions, stands alone and is not corroborated by any contemporary sources. This suggests that it is a later modification within the Turkic linguistic sphere. Therefore, any attempt to etymologize the Turkic variant of the ethnonym using Turkic linguistic roots is futile, as the term has undergone de-etymologization in the Turkic language context.
The ethnonym Kyrgyz, judging by Greek reports about griffins, originated during the era of totemism and reflected the designation of a totemic animal (“griffon,” “eagle”). Its explanation should likely be sought in Indo-Iranian linguistic material, in the lexicon of the inhabitants of the Altai, who, as Herodotus writes, ‘separated from the Royal Scythians.’
It is probable that the close connection between ‘griffins’ and the Argippaeans—‘swift riders’—is indicated by the standard phrase used by Greco-Roman writers:
‘The griffins will reunite with the horses.’
For the designation of eagles and griffins, Indo-Iranian languages record the following terms:
•Proto-Indo-Iranian: karkasa
•Avestan: kahrkasa
•Pahlavi & Middle Persian: kargas (“vulture”)
•Pamir languages: karyez (“eagle”)
•Sogdian: carkas (also recorded as crks)
•Ossetian: cxrgxs (“eagle”)
•Mansi: sarkes
•Udmurt: zuges (“eagle”)
Echoes of this meaning can also be observed in Turkic vocabulary, particularly in the Middle Asian tafsir tradition, where the word karghas (kerges) refers to a griffin or mythical griffin-like bird. The linguist L. Z. Budagov, noting Persian influence (marked as “P” for Persian loanword), defines kerkes as a “mythical bird that feeds on corpses” or simply “eagle.” These forms directly coincide with the designation of the Kyrgyz in the 15th–16th centuries as Kerges and Kergesh, as noted by K. I. Petrov.
Currently, there is no direct evidence that the post-Scythian Kyrgyz perceived themselves as descendants of a griffin or eagle. However, there is one possible piece of evidence that could become compelling if a new interpretation proves satisfactory.
This concerns the Sujin inscription, left by one of the Kyrgyz conquerors of the Uyghur Orkhon Khaganate in 841–843 CE, bearing the title-name Buila-Kutlug-Yargan. The second line of the inscription, which reads:
“qyrqyz oily man”, is usually translated as:
“I am the son of a Kyrgyz” or “I am a Kyrgyz-born son.”
However, within the stylistic conventions of ancient Turkic runic inscriptions, this form of parental identification is unknown. Traditionally, parents were always identified by their personal name and title, never by tribal affiliation. A similar formula appears in only one other document in runic script—in paragraph 45 of the divination book Irk Bitig (7th–8th centuries). It begins with the words:
“Kijik oyly man” which S. E. Malov translates as:
“I am the offspring (literally, ‘son’) of a deer.”
This parallel suggests that in the second line of the Sujin inscription, the hero of the text is actually referring to his totemic ancestor. This interpretation is further reinforced by the tamga on the monument, which, according to a photograph published by G. Ramstedt, depicts a clawed bird, likely an eagle or a griffin.
It is well known that tamgas engraved on the front side of runic monuments had specific meanings, serving as symbols of the tribes whose representatives erected them. Thus, this evidence—when considered alongside previous observations—strongly supports the interpretation of the ethnonym “Kyrgyz” as being associated with the idea of a totemic ancestor in the form of an eagle or griffin.
As is well known, tamgas engraved on the front side of runic monuments had a specific meaning and served as symbols of the tribes whose representatives placed them. Thus, this fact—when considered alongside previous observations—further supports the interpretation of the ethnonym “Kyrgyz” as being linked to the idea of an ancestral totem in the form of an eagle or griffin.
The historian G. F. Miller was among the first to suggest that the Yenisei Kyrgyz were known under the name “Burut.” This view was later supported by V. V. Radlov and partially by G. Gaworth.
The identification of the Yenisei Kyrgyz with the Buruts was further substantiated by A. Abdykalykov, who introduced new archival materials supporting this claim. Today, this identification is widely accepted and considered established.
Similarly, the use of the term “Burut” in reference to the Tianshan Kyrgyz is equally undeniable. This can be clearly traced in Chinese sources from the 18th–19th centuries. A notable example appears in the Kyrgyz epic Manas, where the character Almambet declares:
”…On the cold jailoo, in campaign,
The Burut people have gathered.
Their great khan is none other than Manas,
And Manas is recorded in our annals.
Manas, the lion among the Kyrgyz lions!”
The Totemic Connection of the Term “Burut”
The semantic meaning of “Burut” in relation to ethnic nomenclature is also evident among the Kachin people, whose origins are in some way connected to the ancient Kyrgyz. The Kachin clan “Burut” (also spelled Burut, Purut, Burkut) literally translates to “Golden Eagle” or simply “Eagle.” Among the Kachins, the eagle was regarded as a totemic animal, serving as:
•The ancestor of shamans
•The guardian spirit of the clan
•The eponymous symbol of the tribe
The variations of the ethnonym clearly trace back to the common Turkic term Burkut (“Eagle”), although its phonetic form was altered against the usual phonetic norms of the Kachin dialect. The above materials allow us to recognize this transformation as both natural and necessary. On the other hand, these findings provide sufficient grounds to revisit the interpretation of the term “Burut,” first proposed over half a century ago by N. F. Katanov:
“The Buruts (Kara-Kyrgyz) are the same as Burut (Berkut, Eagle) among the Kachins.”
In other words, the term “Burut,” which bears signs of euphemization, is an exact equivalent of the ethnonym-euphemism “Kyrgyz.”
The spread of the eagle cult among the peoples of Sayan-Altai left its traces not only in the ethnonym of the Kyrgyz themselves but also in broader regional traditions. Among historians of Asian history, one passage continues to provoke curiosity—an account recorded by the Venetian traveler Marco Polo in Chapter 72 of his Book of Marvels. Speaking of the Bargu Valley, located 40 days’ journey from Karakorum and Altai and inhabited by the Merkit tribes, Marco Polo reports:
“After forty days’ journey, there is an ocean-sea, and in that place, there are mountains where peregrine falcons build their nests. Know that there are no men, no women, no animals, and no birds—except for a single bird called Bargkenlak, which the falcons feed on. When the Great Khan needs such falcons, he sends people there to fetch them. In that sea, there are islands where gyrfalcons live. To tell you the truth, this place is so far to the north that the North Star is left behind, to the south. The number of these birds on that island is truly great, and the Great Khan has as many as he desires.”
If we follow Marco Polo’s account, we reach a rather unexpected conclusion:
In the plain of Bargu (Bargujin, Barguzin, Baikal, “the Northern Sea”), there lives “a wild people called the Merkits,” yet at the same time, there are “neither men nor women,” only falcons. The obvious fantastical nature of this information led scholars to resolve the contradiction by distributing the details to different geographic locations. However, it is important to note that all medieval authors refer to the “Northern Sea” exclusively as Lake Baikal.
Marco Polo himself never visited Baikal, and his reports about the peoples living there are entirely based on Mongol accounts. Given this, we must conclude that in Mongol perceptions, the Merkits, who inhabited the Baikal region, were symbolically identified with falcons.
Attempts to etymologize the term Merkit generally rely on the assumption that it is of Mongolic origin or at least a Mongolized form of an earlier name. The most common Chinese transcription, as recorded in the Yuan Shi, is Me-li-ji (Merkit), referring primarily to the Merkits of the Baikal region or the Selenge River area. However, some sources present variations such as:
•Mu-li-ji (Murkit, Murkit)
•Mo-li-ji-tai (Morkitai)
•Mo-li-si (Morxit, Morhit)
Some of these forms are specifically localized in Eastern Tianshan, while after 1205, they appear in Altai.
The meaning of the ethnonym Merkit (Markit, Miirkit, Morkit, Morxit) becomes clearer when analyzed in the ethnographic context of the Sayan-Baikal region. The Teleut Seok (clan) Merkut, also known as Merkit (Markiit, Markit), considered itself descended from a white-headed eagle. For them, the eagle was regarded as:
•The bird of the Sky Lord
•The constant companion and helper of shamans
In this case, the word “Merkut” (“Merkit”) refers to a mythical celestial bird, described as:
“Covering the Moon with its left wing and the Sun with its right wing.”
The Merkit (or Merket) clan among the Mongol-Torguts also believed they were born from this same bird. According to their traditions, when thunder struck, which they believed was sent down by the Sky Lord, they would shout:
“I am Merkut, I am Merkut!”
This exclamation reminded them of their kinship with the sacred eagle and was believed to ward off death. In the Oirat (Altai) language, where initial b and m can alternate, the word for “golden eagle” or “eagle” appears as Morkut, Murkut.
This closely resembles the Teleut term Merkut (Merkit), though it is not phonetically identical. During the military campaigns of Genghis Khan, some Merkit clans migrated westward to the Altai region and beyond, eventually becoming part of the ethnogenesis of Turkic-speaking peoples, including:
•Kazakhs
•Bashkirs
•Uzbeks
As they integrated into new linguistic and cultural environments, their ethnonym Merkit, which was originally a totemic reference, lost its semantic foundation and became a generic tribal name with no direct link to its original totemic meaning. The lifespan of an ethnonym is determined by a multitude of factors that reflect various aspects of the ethno-genetic process.
Despite the inherent difficulties in studying them—primarily due to the absence of direct historical evidence—it is possible to identify what appears to be the most ancient cycle of Asian ethnonymy, whose origins are closely linked to totemism.
There is a direct correlation between the taboo on the name of a totemic ancestor animal and the modification of ethnonyms with totemic significance. In many cases, the ethnonym undergoes changes within its native linguistic environment, adapting through internal linguistic means. For example:
•Burkut → Burut → Merkit
Similarly—if not even more significantly—there are instances of euphemization, where the original sacred term is replaced by a foreign word that serves as a semantic equivalent. This substitution occurs because the original term becomes partially or entirely taboo within its native language environment. Examples of this process include:
•Nogai (from Mongolian nokai, meaning “dog”)
•Oghuz (from Tocharian okso, meaning “bull”)
A crucial intermediate step in this transformation is linguistic calquing or translation, which an ethnonym inevitably undergoes before being fully integrated. For instance, the Turkic word for “yellow” (sari) appears in various ethnonyms across different languages:
•Russian: “Polovtsy”
•Armenian: “Hardiash”
•German: “Flawen”
This translation or semantic adaptation is a necessary but preliminary stage in the formation of an ethnonymic doublet. Once reintroduced into the vocabulary of the cultural group that originally held the totemic belief, the term gains the status of an independent ethnonym—that is, a self-designation (autonym). This newly established ethnonym may exist alongside other names for the same ethnic group or, for various reasons, entirely replace them.
We refer to this process as ethnonymic calquing. While this term may not be entirely precise—since it could be mistakenly associated with the well-known phenomenon of linguistic calquing—we have attempted to clarify above that these two processes are qualitatively distinct. A concrete example of ethnonymic calquing can be observed in the semantic relationship between the ethnonyms:
•Kyrgyz ~ Burut → “Eagle,” “Griffin”
This example illustrates how ethnonyms evolve, often undergoing linguistic transformation and cultural adaptation, while retaining traces of their totemic origins.“ - Yuri Alexandrovich Zuev, Kyrgyzy-Burut (“Griffin,” “Berkut”). On Totemism and Principles of Ethnonym Formation
DNA Science Data 🧬
Joo-Yup Lee and Shuntu Kuang, University of Toronto, Canada - “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, “A Comparative Analysis of Chinese Historical Sources and Y-DNA Studies with Regard to the Early and Medieval Turkic Peoples’
Wen, Shao-qing - “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), "Dual origins of the Northwest Chinese Kyrgyz: the admixture of Bronze age Siberian and Medieval Niru'un Mongolian Y chromosomes", Nature
Lee, Joo-Yup - “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) - 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.
Zaxylyk Sabitov - “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, “Historical-Genetic Approach in the Study of the Ethnogenesis and Material Culture of the Ancient Kyrgyz” - International Journal of Experimental Education
Igor Rozhanski, Tsukuba, Japan - “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.” - Igor Rozhanski, Tsukuba, Japan, “The Lithuanian Tatars: DNA Ancestry Traced To The Eurasian Steppes”, Academy of DNA-Genealogy
Volkov V.G., Kharkov V.N., Stepanov V.A. - “The Southern Altaians and the Tian Shan Kyrgyz are descendants of close relatives of the Yenisei Andronovans, most likely the descendants of the Altai Andronovans.
It is well known that linguists and ethnographers have long established a close linguistic and ethnic kinship between the Kyrgyz and the Southern Altaians.
Some historians believe that the Kyrgyz and the Southern Altaians once belonged to a single community and that the migration of the Kyrgyz from the Altai to the Tian Shan occurred relatively recently (Abramzon, 1959: 34; Abdumanapov, 2007: 95, 114).
It is also highly probable that the spread of Indo-Iranian languages in this region is linked specifically to the R-L342.2 subclade.
At the same time, there is virtually no doubt that representatives of this subclade formed the core of the Indo-Aryans who ‘invaded’ India approximately 3,500 years ago.
The haplotypes of the carriers of the Andronovo and Tagar cultures show the greatest similarity with the haplotypes of the Southern Altaians and the Tian Shan Kyrgyz.
Preliminary results indicate the following: while the distribution range of the SNP marker L342.2 is significant, it remains confined within Asia.
In Europe, this SNP marker is practically absent, except among populations of clear Asian origin, such as Ashkenazi Jews, as well as Lithuanian and Volga Tatars.
This SNP marker is more frequently found among the following population groups: Arabs (primarily those living on the border with Iraq), Turks, Pakistanis, North and South Indians, Afghans, Southern Altaians, Tian Shan Kyrgyz, and Bashkirs.
According to most researchers specializing in Aryan studies, the semi-nomadic pastoralist tribes of the Srubnaya and Andronovo cultural-historical communities represent the Indo-Iranian group of the Indo-European language family.
These tribes are possibly the legendary Aryans who, in the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE, entered ancient Iran, crossed the Hindu Kush mountains in Afghanistan, and invaded the Indus Valley.
The modal 15-marker haplotype of one of the Southern Altaian groups within haplogroup R1a1a, as presented in O.A. Balaganskaya’s study (Balaganskaya, 2011: 22), fully coincides with the modal haplotype of the most numerous R1a1a cluster among the Tian Shan Kyrgyz.”
Zhaxylyk Sabitov - "Arzhan burial mound—the oldest known Scythian burial site, located in the Republic of Tuva, Russia—are particularly noteworthy. According to Kazakh DNA researcher Zhaxylyk Sabitov, the kurgan is the resting place of ancestors of nearly half of the Kyrgyz people, who are carriers of the haplogroup R1a-Z93.
The burial sites in the Minusinsk Basin, from which the Kyrgyz Khaganate later emerged, include a man closely related to 45% of modern Kyrgyz. This lineage belongs to the R1a Kyrgyz subclade Z2125.
The royal burials in the Arzhan Valley and Arzhan-2 (near Tuva, close to the Minusinsk Basin) also contain ancestors of the Kyrgyz. Tribes such as Adygine, Tagay, Saruu, Sarybagysh, Bugu, and Solto have close relatives buried there.
The analysis of BAM files was conducted by Vladimir Tagankin. Below, we outline the clearly established facts:
1. Sample RISE386: Originating from the Bulanovo-Sintashta culture settlement (Southern Ural), this sample is dated to 2298–2045 BCE. It belongs to the subclade Z2121/S3410+, Z2124+, YP1460+. YP1460 is identified as a marker of the Kyrgyz branch. This sample is genetically related to approximately 40% of modern Kyrgyz. This group also includes a significant portion of Southern Altaians, a small number of Kazakhs, and Polish-Lithuanian Tatars.
2. Sample RISE495:Found in the Arban 1 settlement of the Karasuk culture (Khakassia), this sample belongs to the subclade R-S23592 (Z2124+, Z2125+, Z2122-, Z2123-) and is identified as positive for YP349. This subclade is ancestral to the Kyrgyz branch. Close genetic relatives of this sample include approximately 40% of Kyrgyz, particularly those from specific subdivisions of On Kanat and Sol Kanat.
3. 2017 Study on Ancient DNA:A 2017 publication presented genetic data on ancient DNA (Y-chromosome and autosomal markers).
Among the samples, S441 was identified from the Arzhan settlement (Tuva), dating to the 7th–6th centuries BCE. This sample exhibited two positive mutations: YP1456+ and S23592+, both of which are ancestral mutations for the Kyrgyz branch.
Scythians of Arzhan-2: The remains from Arzhan-2 exhibit a blend of Caucasoid and Mongoloid morphological traits. This reflects the historical intermingling of populations in the region.”
Commentaires