In the photo: Reconstructed faces based on skulls: One of the mummies from the Tarim Basin in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China, and a Scythian from the Arzhan kurgan — the oldest known Scythian burial mound, located in the Republic of Tuva, Russia, where, according to the well-known Kazakh DNA researcher Sabitov, "rests the ancestor of half of the Kyrgyz people, a carrier of haplogroup R1a-Z93.
"The Kyrgyz are one of the most ancient peoples of Central Asia and Southern Siberia. For more than two millennia, written sources have documented the existence of this ethnonym (or its phonetic variants) in connection with historical events occurring in various regions of Asia, primarily in the Sayan-Altai Highlands and the Tien Shan.
Accordingly, in Turkological literature, one encounters Kyrgyz-related terms such as 'ancient Kyrgyz,' 'Yenisey Kyrgyz,' 'Ala-Tau Kyrgyz' or 'Tien Shan Kyrgyz,' 'Pamir Kyrgyz,' 'Afghan Kyrgyz,' 'Eastern Turkestan (Xinjiang) Kyrgyz,' etc. [Choroev, 1988, p. 143]. At the core of all these ethnic formations lies a substratum of Turkic-speaking tribes that formed in Southern Siberia, along the Yenisey River, from which the term 'Yenisey Kyrgyz' originates.
At a certain point in history, poetically referred to by V.V. Bartold as the era of 'Kyrgyz imperial dominance' (9th-10th centuries AD), the area of Kyrgyz ethnocultural genesis encompassed vast regions of northern Central Asia and, to some extent, parts of Middle Asia, leading to the widespread dissemination of the cultural tradition they created.
All other groups of Kyrgyz (or Kirghiz), in one way or another, are connected with the Yenisey (Central Asian) Kyrgyz but developed later as a result of their migration and assimilation of local tribes. Thus, the beginning of the ethnopolitical history and cultural genesis of the Kyrgyz is entirely projected onto the territory of Southern Siberia, specifically the Minusinsk Basin, where they established their first state in the early Middle Ages. This is reflected in numerous accounts from written sources and corresponding archaeological materials of the period.
The history and culture of the Yenisey Kyrgyz are represented unevenly in sources. In some cases, written evidence dominates, while in others, archaeological data prevails. Sometimes, these sources closely correlate, making these periods the most productive for study.
The Yenisey Kyrgyz themselves, living on the northern periphery of Central Asian state formations, depending on the political situation in Central Asia, would at times actively appear on the historical stage, while at other times they seemed to 'withdraw' from it. However, subsequent events that 'called' them back to the historical arena convincingly demonstrate the continuous development of Kyrgyz culture and statehood.
These reasons explain why it is unlikely to create a coherent, equally detailed account of the Yenisey Kyrgyz’s history at present. However, based on the availability of written sources, several periods (or stages) in the ethnocultural history of the Yenisey Kyrgyz, as well as specific episodes related to the peculiarities of Kyrgyz society and neighboring peoples, can be illuminated with a sufficient degree of accuracy. These are the aspects that receive the most attention in the further presentation of the material.
Gyangun and Dinlin – Ancestors of the Yenisey Kyrgyz
The origins of the ethnocultural genesis of the Yenisey Kyrgyz trace back to the Hunnic period. In Chinese sources from the Tang Dynasty, it is stated: “Khaghas (Kyrgyz — D.S.) is the ancient state of Gyangun... The inhabitants intermingled with the Dinlin. The Khakas domain once formed the western borders of the Huns” [Bichurin, 1950, pp. 350-351]. This account, despite its brevity, clearly corresponds with the events in the ethnopolitical history of the population of Southern Siberia during the Hunnic era.
It is known that in 201 BC, the founder of the Hunnic tribal confederation, Maodun (or Modu Chanyu), launched a military campaign to the north, during which he “subjugated the northern territories of the Hunyu, Qushe, Gegun, Dinlin, and Xinli” [Taskin, 1968, p. 41]. However, there is no information in the sources about the precise location of the northern tribes conquered by the Huns.
By 176 BC, the unification of Hunnic lands was complete, and as the source poetically puts it, “all peoples who drew the bow were united into one family” [Taskin, 1968, p. 43]. Among these peoples, the Dinlin and Gyangun may have been connected to the early history of the Yenisey Kyrgyz. Judging by the evidence, after a certain period, they began to actively struggle for their independence.
Thus, the first uprising of the Dinlin against the Huns is noted in 72 BC. In 61 BC, “because in recent years the Dinlin had raided the Xiongnu (Huns — D.S.), during which they killed and captured several thousand people and drove off horses, the Xiongnu sent more than 10,000 horsemen against them, but achieved nothing” [Taskin, 1973, p. 30].
In 49 BC, Zhi Zhi Chanyu again “forced the Dinlin to surrender in the north” [Taskin, 1973, p. 37], but later they reappeared as one of the main opponents of the Xiongnu state.
At the same time, the Gyangun were also subjugated by Zhi Zhi Chanyu, having been conquered by Maodun back in 201 BC, and like the Dinlin, they had earlier separated from the Xiongnu state. It is reported that the lands of the Gyangun “were located 7,000 li west of the Chanyu’s residence (on the Tola River in Mongolia — D.S.) and 5,000 li north of the territory of Cheshi (the Turpan Oasis in Eastern Turkestan — D.S.).
There, Zhi Zhi remained to live” [Taskin, 1973, p. 37]. Unfortunately, these first accounts of the ethnography of northern Central Asia are insufficient to determine the precise location of Zhi Zhi Chanyu’s residence and, consequently, the territory of the Gyangun settlement in the mid-1st century BC.
The vectors drawn from the Hunnic Chanyu’s residence on the Tola River to the west and from the Cheshi territory to the north do not align. The sources do not mention any direct relationship between the Dinlin and the Gyangun. However, the fact that both peoples consistently resisted the Central Asian Huns during the same period suggests that their struggles likely did not occur in isolation from one another.
It is possible that this factor played a consolidating role, as later, according to the Tang chronicles, the inhabitants of the Gyangun country “intermingled with the Dinlin,” which marked the beginning of the future state of the Yenisey Kyrgyz. The localization of the bearers of the ethnonyms Dinlin and Gyangun, as well as the possibility of identifying them with specific archaeological sites, remains a subject of debate.
The question of the Dinlin, representatives of the ancient Europoid race in Central Asia, was first raised in the famous work by G.E. Grum-Grzhimailo, who compiled all known information about them from written sources [Grum-Grzhimailo, 1926, pp. 1-78].
Later, advances in archaeology and paleoanthropology allowed researchers to propose several hypotheses regarding the identification of the Dinlin with known archaeological cultures — the Afanasievo culture [Gumilev, 1959, p. 19], the Karasuk or Tagar cultures [Kiselev, 1951, pp. 180-183], the Tagar culture [Teploukhov, 1929; Kyzlasov, 1960, pp. 161-166 (not listed in the bibliography); 1984, p. 16; and others], the Tashtyk culture [Chlenova, 1967, p. 221], and the Mongun-Taiga culture [Alekseyev, 1974, p. 390].
The view that the Dinlin were associated with the Tagar culture, whose territory was identified with the Minusinsk Basin, gained the most traction. In the literature, the term “Tagar Dinlin” even appeared; however, this identification cannot be accepted uncritically.
It should be noted that the Dinlin are mentioned in written sources starting from the late 3rd century BC, and from this perspective, all identifications with earlier South Siberian archaeological cultures are unsubstantiated.
There is also doubt about the association of the Dinlin with the Tagar culture, considering the remoteness of the Minusinsk steppes from the eastern centers of written tradition and the inconsistency between the predominantly agricultural lifestyle of the Tagar people and some characteristics of the Dinlin noted in written sources [Chlenova, 1967, pp. 220-222].
On one hand, the Dinlin are described as a pastoral people with large herds of livestock; on the other hand, it is noted that “from the knees upward, they have human bodies, but from the knees down, they are covered with horsehair and have hooves; they do not ride horses, but run as fast as horses” [Pozdneyev, 1899, p. 10].
Behind this fantastical image likely hides the figure of a foot hunter on skis, using horsehide, who inhabited the mountainous and taiga regions. Despite the fragmentary nature of these accounts, they suggest that the Dinlin lived in areas with diverse physical and geographical conditions.
The widespread settlement of the Dinlin tribes — north of the Gobi Desert, from Lake Baikal to the Irtysh River — has been frequently noted by researchers [Bichurin, 1950, p. 50; Bernshtam, 1951, p. 239; Serdobov, 1971, p. 26; and others]. At the same time, the distribution area of the Tagar culture is more clearly defined — it includes the Minusinsk Basin and the adjacent forest-steppe regions to the north, including the Krasnoyarsk-Kansk and Achinsk-Mariinsk areas.
This territory is significantly smaller than the area of Dinlin settlement described in written sources. L.N. Gumilev is likely correct in suggesting that “the word ‘Dinlin’ was probably polysemous and had a common noun meaning alongside its ethnonymic use” [Gumilev, 1959, p. 19], referring to the population of the northern periphery of the Hunnic domains.
It is difficult to say exactly which group of Dinlin was conquered by Maodun in 201 BC. The Dinlin may have included tribes of the Tagar culture, but the territory of the Dinlin's settlement was not limited to the Minusinsk Basin.
The presumed territory of the Dinlin tribes' settlement most closely corresponds to burials with stone constructions (in stone cists, crypts, and ground graves with stone coverings), which were widely distributed in the area from Lake Baikal to the Irtysh River, starting from the 3rd century BC — the same period when mentions of the Dinlin first appear in written sources.
Such burials, typologically distinct from earlier ones, are most characteristic of the Bulan-Kobin type sites in the Altai Mountains, the Ulag-Khem culture in Tuva, the Teshin ground cemeteries in the Minusinsk Basin, and the late stage of the Kula-Jurga culture in Eastern Kazakhstan [Savinov, 1987]. It is not yet possible to fully substantiate this viewpoint, but some observations that support this hypothesis deserve attention.
For instance, the aforementioned data on the repeated conquests of the Dinlin by the Huns and their continuous contacts in the 2nd-1st centuries BC suggest a close familiarity between the Dinlin and the Hunnic cultural tradition. In other words, there must have been a Hunnic component in the archaeological sites distributed from Lake Baikal to the Irtysh River in the late 1st millennium BC.
Among all types of burials, only those with stone constructions meet this condition. The existence of several local cultures (Ulag-Khem, Teshin, Bulan-Kobin, Kula-Jurga) within a single archaeological community of stone burial constructions most closely matches the form of a multi-tribal association, which is documented for the Dinlin according to written sources.
However, fully accepting this view is hindered by the fact that the tradition of constructing burials with stone structures, most characteristic of the tribes of the Sayan-Altai Highlands during the Hunnic period, does not have a clearly expressed continuation in the early medieval cultures of Southern Siberia, including the culture of the Yenisey Kyrgyz.
The clearest genetic link to the medieval period is seen in the ethnonym Gegun (Gyangun). It is now established that the names Gegun, Gyangun, Kigu, Qigu, Gegu, Hegusi, Khagasy represent different phonetic variants of a single ethnonym — Kyrgyz [Yakhontov, 1970], referring to a people who lived in the Middle Yenisey region, in the Minusinsk Basin, and were thus called the Yenisey Kyrgyz (to distinguish them from the later Kirghiz of the Tien Shan and other regions of settlement).
However, while the connection of all these names with the medieval Kyrgyz is undisputed, many uncertainties remain regarding their localization and association with any known archaeological culture. In considering the written accounts of Maodun's northern campaign, V.V. Bartold noted that the account of the events of 201 BC does not mention either the region of the Kyrgyz or its location [Bartold, 1963, p. 476].
The geographical coordinates provided regarding the location of Zhi Zhi Chanyu’s residence led V.V. Bartold to suggest that “the Kyrgyz then lived not only on the Yenisey, but also further south, in the area where Lake Kyrgyz-Nor is now located” [Bartold, 1963, p. 477], meaning in Northwestern Mongolia.
Later, the hypothesis of the initial residence of the Gyangun in Northwestern Mongolia became more widely accepted in the literature. This idea significantly influenced the hypothesis proposed by S.V. Kiselev [Kiselev, 1951, pp. 560-561] and expanded by L.R. Kyzlasov [Kyzlasov, 1960, pp. 161-166], which suggests a two-stage migration (under Maodun and Zhi Zhi) of the Turkic-speaking Gyangun to the north, into the Minusinsk Basin, where they mixed with the local Tagar tribes (Dinlin), thus forming the foundation of the Kyrgyz ethnos.
However, it should be noted that even V.V. Bartold exercised caution when linking the name of Lake Kyrgyz-Nor in Northwestern Mongolia as evidence of the ancient Gyangun presence there. "As far as I know," he wrote, "there is no information on when and why the lake received this name" [Bartold, 1963, p. 477].
In this regard, it is difficult to agree with G. Nurov, who studied this issue and argued that the attempt to link the name of the lake, as well as the term khereksur (Kyrgyz graves), “with the very brief (second half of the 9th century and the beginning of the 10th century) and not particularly strong dominance of the Yenisey Kyrgyz in this area cannot be considered convincing” [Nurov, 1955, p. 69].
The wide dispersal of the Yenisey Kyrgyz in the mid-9th century, as will be shown below, was a crucial stage in the ethnic history of all the peoples of northern Central Asia. The memory of this event, preserved in toponyms, hydronyms, and the names of ancient burial mounds, is no less real than the memory of events two thousand years ago, when the people with whom these names are associated did not yet exist.
In addition to geographical data, archaeological evidence supporting this hypothesis includes burials uncovered by G.I. Borovka on the Tola River in Mongolia. These burials followed the cremation ritual, which later became characteristic of the Tashtyk culture and the Yenisey Kyrgyz [Borovka, 1927, pp. 66-67], as well as Central Asian elements found in early Tashtyk crypts in the Minusinsk Basin [Kyzlasov, 1960, pp. 27, 49-50, 63-64, 134-135]. However, as modern evidence shows, these findings are not definitive.
Several kurgans with cremation rituals, excavated by G.I. Borovka on the Tola River, lack precise dating: alongside Hunnic ceramics, one of them (Ikhe-Alyk) contained a typologically later arrowhead, dated no earlier than the 8th-9th centuries [Borovka, 1927, pp. 66-67, table III].
The custom of burning the burial chamber originated in the Minusinsk Basin as early as the 4th-3rd centuries BC, during the Saragashen stage of the Tagar culture, and continued to develop in the large kurgan-crypts of the Teshin stage (2nd-1st centuries BC).
To what extent the Kyrgyz cremations on the Yenisey are connected to the local Saragashen-Teshin tradition or an introduced (Gyangun?) tradition is a question that requires further study. Additionally, the sources do not mention that the Gyangun of the Hunnic period practiced cremation.
The Tashtyk crypts, which contain Central Asian elements, according to M.P. Gryaznov's periodization, belong to a later period (3rd-5th centuries AD), as will be discussed in more detail below, in the section on the domain of the Qigu on the Middle Yenisey. Thus, for now, the only reliable conclusion, based on the sequence of northern tribes conquered by Maodun, seems to be that the Gyangun lived south of the Dinlin in the Sayan-Altai Highlands, in a region that remains among the least explored archaeologically.
Therefore, while the localization of the Gyangun in Northwestern Mongolia at the end of the 1st millennium BC cannot be ruled out, it must be acknowledged that there is no conclusive evidence, and other viewpoints, also based on more or less substantiated hypotheses, are possible.
It seems that the Gyangun and Dinlin, the supposed ancestors of the Yenisey Kyrgyz, occupied not only different but also vast regions in the northern areas of Central Asia during the Hunnic period. Their consolidation, which marked the beginning of the Yenisey Kyrgyz community, occurred at a later time.
In the mid-2nd century, the leader of the Xianbei, Tanshihuai, “seized all the lands that had once been under the rule of the Huns” [Bichurin, 1950, p. 154]. In this context, the Wei Shu mentions the hegu (i.e., the Kyrgyz) as one of the tribes that submitted to the Xianbei [Suprunenko, 1974, p. 239].
Based on this account, it can be assumed that from this time on, the Kyrgyz were already known by their name, which, despite various phonetic variants, they retained throughout their subsequent ethnosocial history.” - Dmitry Glebovich Savinov, “States and Cultural Genesis in Southern Siberia during the Early Middle Age”:
🧬 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."
コメント