Photo: Kyrgyz actor Aziz Muradilayev (1978-2022)
"Sixty years have passed since Granar raised the question of the Turkicization of the population of Central and Middle Asia by the Huns. In the literature on the Huns that has appeared since, this question, as part of the broader problem of the connections between the Huns of the East and the West, has been thoroughly discussed.
However, the scarcity of Chinese sources that illuminate the period of complex ethnic rearrangements in these territories, and their insufficient study in light of the historical phonetics of the Chinese language, have led and continue to lead researchers either to assert the exclusive role of the Huns in Central Asia, as, for example, MacGovern and A.N. Bernshtam did, or to completely deny the westward migrations of the Huns. Attempts to compensate for the lack of written sources with archaeological excavation materials have also, so far, been unsuccessful.
One of the peoples whose origin and 'Turkicization' is directly linked to the westward movement of the Huns is the ancient Kyrgyz. This view was proposed at one time by A.N. Bernshtam: 'Based on the study of materials from graves of the Oglakhty complex type, the following can be established for the Minusinsk Basin (for the group of so-called Tashtyk Culture burials):
1) The graves, judging by the fabrics identical to those from Noin-Ula, dated to the first centuries A.D., belong to the period of Hunnic dominance in this area, and possibly also to the Xianbei, for whom the Minusinsk Basin, which in antiquity was called the country of Giangun (Kyrgyz), with a population of Dingling origin, was their northern border. The intermingling of Central Asian tribes with the Dinglings gave rise to the first Kyrgyz ethnic association.
2) The tribes of the country of Giangun were the northern part of the Hunnic confederation and were engaged in agriculture and pastoral livestock breeding, which was likely the main form of production. Through the Huns, the Dinglings traded with China, from which they received fabrics, mirrors, and other goods in exchange for hunting, livestock, and fishing products.
The Dinglings had fairly developed industries: ceramics, metalworking, and others.'" In the paragraph about the ancient Kyrgyz, A.N. Bernshtam writes: "On the Yenisei, where the Europoid-type Dingling had long lived, a new group of tribes appeared as a result of the mixing of the Dingling with the Huns and Xianbei, known in Chinese sources as Ge-gun or Jian-gun" (ibid.; it should be Ge-kun, Jian-kun).
Here, different phenomena from various time periods are mixed: 1) the westward campaign of the Hunnic Chanyu Zhizhi in the mid-1st century B.C.; 2) the appearance of the Mongolic-speaking Xianbei-Sabirs in the 3rd century A.D., and 3) the chronicle does not account for the existence (rather than the origin!) of the Jian-kun (Kyrgyz) in the late 3rd century B.C.
However, some indirect data from written sources suggest that the ancient Kyrgyz were Turkic-speaking long before the Huns' (Chinese: Xiongnu) westward campaigns in the mid-1st century B.C. Since the earliest Chinese accounts of Turkic-speaking tribes refer to the Huns, as well as their descendants, the Xiongnu (Huns), and the Kyr-Kun (Kyrgyz) (Jian-kun), the author of this article believes that analyzing the terms Xiongnu and Jian-kun could shed some light on the question of the Kyrgyz's origin.
In Chinese-Tabgatch documents from the 3rd-5th centuries A.D., there are frequent mentions of tribes such as Tuguhun, Tuyuhun, Kezhuhun, etc., all sharing a distinctive final part of their names, typically represented by the same character hun, with its ancient pronunciation ghun.
According to L. Bazin, the form ghun is identical to the ancient Turkic plural-collective suffix ghun, which, in turn, traces back to the independent word kün — "female ancestor" — "human collective" — "people." This conclusion allows us to include this form of the Chinese rendition of the term ghun (*kün*) into the corpus of ancient Turkic social terminology. If the etymology of the term kün establishes a relationship between the concepts of woman and people, initially connected by kinship ties and later by ethnic unity, then we have reason to suppose that the term kün could have become the self-designation of some Turkic-speaking tribe or clan.
Indeed, in Chinese sources from the 5th-10th centuries, we find numerous descriptions of the tribes hun — ghun and kun-u, with its ancient reading kün-ŋ — kün, whose names are quite comparable both with the hun from Chinese-Tabgatch documents and with the kün of the Orkhon texts.
The folk etymology of these and related tribes traces their origin to a common ancestor, the Xiongnu — ghun, known in phonetic sources as ghun — gunna.
The form hun first appears in Chinese sources from the 7th-5th centuries B.C. to designate the Turkic-speaking inhabitants of Mongolia. According to common opinion, it corresponds to the later widespread (3rd century B.C.) ethnonym Xiongnu-*ghun*.
The brief context in which this first mention appears is quite curious: "liu-hun-zhi-rong" — "western (in Chinese orientation, southwestern) foreigners of the six huns." From this, it follows: 1) the inhabitants of the Western Region, the ancestors of the Huns, were called by the Turkic term ghun (or kün), and 2) they were divided into six groups, each of which bore the same name.
Distant echoes of this division of the Huns are found in the Turkic legend of Oghuz Khan, thoroughly studied by N.Y. Bichurin and A.N. Bernshtam. Common to all known versions of the Oghuz-nama is the genealogy that invariably traces the origin of all Turks to a common ancestor, Oghuz Khan, a legendary figure linked to the Hunnic Chanyu Modu.
If Modu (Bagatur)-Chanyu and Oghuz Khan are the same person (as confirmed by the similarity of events described in the legend and in Chinese accounts), then one important detail is missing from the Chinese version: the existence of Oghuz Khan's six sons, representing six tribes. This missing detail—the division of the Huns into six related tribes—appears to be a key fact absent from the life story of Modu-Chanyu.
The further history of the Huns is little known. Chinese chroniclers report that one part of the Huns remained in Ordos, while another moved north to the regions of the Iro River and the Yin Mountains, forming new tribal unions, which also became known in history as Hunnic. One of these unions, alongside the Huns-Wusuns of the Hangai Plateau, was the ancient Hun-Kyrgyz of Northern Mongolia.
Today, the true pronunciation of the terms Ge-kun — Ke[r]-kün and Jian-kun — Ki[r]-kün, i.e., Kyrkün, is established. Both forms are reasonably deciphered from Turkic vocabulary as kyr (or kir) — "field," "steppe," and kün — "field Huns," "steppe Huns."
For the origin of the ethnonym "Kyrgyz" from "kyrk" — "forty" and "z" — a plural form, see S.E. Malov, Monuments, p. 417; Dorji Banzarov, Collected Works, Moscow, 1955, p. 184. D. Banzarov, in our view, incorrectly restored the singular form "Kirgiz" from the plural "Kergut"; it would have been better to restore it as "Kergun." The plural form of "Kirgiz" is repeatedly found in The Secret History as "Kirgisut."
Both forms are logically deciphered from Turkic vocabulary as kyr (or kir) — "field," "steppe," and kün — "field Huns," "steppe Huns." This interpretation is supported not only by all subsequent forms of the Chinese transcription of the term "Kyrkün" up to the 6th century but also by data from written sources. For example, the anonymous Hudud al-Alam mentions the city of Kirkun-khan ("the Kyrgyz khan") north of the Tian Shan; a city with the same name and the Hirgun tribe were also known to Rashid al-Din.
The name of the Kergut tribe (the plural form of Kergun) appears in the Mongolian text of the Tsagan-Baishin inscription of the 17th century. However, researchers (V. Kotvich and G.E. Grumm-Grzhimailo) consider its comparison with the ethnonym "Kyrgyz" quite doubtful.
Finally, the name of the Hirgun River (in Siberia: Kirgun, Kyrkun), a left tributary of the Baldzhir River in northern Mongolia, is well-known and can be seen as a toponymic trace of the Kyrkün-Kyrgyz presence there. All of this makes it quite plausible to consider the existence of the Kyrkün tribe as real and to compare it with the Jian-kun (Kyrkün) mentioned in Chinese chronicles.
Some data from Chinese chronicles support the identification of the Kyrkün with the Huns, shedding light not only on this equivalence but also on the broader Hunnic question. This includes a 3rd-century A.D. chronicle, Wei Lue, preserved in the annotations to the Sanguozhi, which has yet to be fully considered by researchers.
In this work, the existence of two groups of Kyrkuns is noted. One of them (Ge-kun) is listed among the countries located north of the land of the Huns (Xiongnu!), that is, north of Ordos. In the list, it is placed between the Dingling-Dili to the east and the Xinli-Sir to the west.
This localization of the Kyrkuns coincides with the data from the Qian Hanshu and Tang Huiyao, which identified the Kyrkuns as being located on the upper Yenisei. A more interesting report states: "The land of Jian-kun is located to the northwest of Kangju. It has a fighting force of 30,000 men. They migrate, following the grass; there are many wolves; they have good horses."
Considering that Kangju (Kangyui) was located in the Talas region — the middle Syr Darya — the only possible location for these Kyrkuns would be around the Aral Sea, where K. Enoki localizes the state of Su-de (Sogdak) and where the Chinese later noted (in 440 A.D.) the "fourth branch" of the Hunnic dynasty.
This region is also associated with the first mention of the Huns by the Roman author Dionysius Periegetes. In Eustathius' commentary on Periegetes' Description of the Earth, it is mentioned that the Huns live near the Albanians (Alans — Yancai — in the southwest) on the shores of the Aral Sea, or the "sea without shores," as referred to by Chinese authors.
According to Marquart, supported by S.P. Tolstov, the name of the ruler of this country, as recorded by Priscus, was Kun-khan, the khan of the Huns. In the absence of other reliable information about the actual migration of the Huns to the west, into Central Asia and Europe, this reference in Wei Lue appears to be the only argument supporting the theory of the unity of the eastern and western Huns. The general term "Huns" undoubtedly refers here to a specific group — the steppe Huns, the Kyrkuns.
It is still difficult to accurately date the time of this migration and to determine whether it affected the territory of present-day Kyrgyzstan. However, the analysis of the term "Kyrkun" suggests a connection between the ancient Kyrgyz and the Turkic-speaking Hunnic ethnic group, raising the question of their Hunnic origin.
In historical literature, the view that the Wusuns and ancient Kyrgyz were of Europoid racial type — as opposed to the Mongoloid racial type of the Xiongnu-Huns — has long been established. Therefore, the spread of Mongoloid traits into the Yenisei Basin and Central Asia is often associated with the penetration of the Xiongnu-Huns and their "Turkicization" of the local population in these regions.
However, data from written sources and archaeological excavations seriously question the Mongoloid nature of the Xiongnu-Huns themselves. In this regard, it is worth recalling a chronicle's account: "[The Chinese emperor] Shi Min [4th century A.D.] issued a decree to execute every single Hun in the state, and during this execution, many Chinese with high noses were killed" (N.Y. Bichurin — Fr. Iakinf, Statistical Description of the Chinese Empire, vol. II, pp. 74-75).
The same conclusion is supported by findings from Chinese archaeologists during excavations in Xi'an. A figurine of a Hun discovered in one of the Tang-era tombs vividly shows Europoid features in his racial type.
The timing and reasons for the change from the term Kyrkun to Kyrgyz remain unclear. The Orkhon inscriptions no longer mention the term "Kyrkun"; the inhabitants of the Yenisei are referred to only as "Kyrgyz." They are known by this same name in the closest Arabic-language sources from that time.
However, neither the Orkhon inscriptions nor the Arabic authors mention the fact of replacing the old ethnonym with the new one — Kyrgyz. There are only a few details in Chinese chronicles that, although they do not explain the reasons for this change, allow us to trace its process.
According to the text of Tangshu, "Jie-jia-si, according to Bichurin: Hakyanzi is the ancient state of Jian-kun... They are also called Ju-wu (according to Bichurin: Guyvu) and Jie-gu (according to Bichurin: Gyegu)... Jie-gu was mistakenly used, and few still called them Gegu. They are also called Ge-yi-si." In Zizhi Tongjian, which mainly repeats the data from Tangshu, we find under the year 639: "Jian-kun; later mistakenly called Jie-gu; few still called them Gegu. They are also called Ge-yi-si, and also called Jie-jia-si."
In both cases, it is notable that the sources clearly state that Jie-gu is a mistaken, incorrect transcription of the ethnonym. The fact of the ethnonym change was also noted by Gai Jia-yun, the Chinese imperial governor in Anxi, and the author of the book Siyu ji ("Description of the Western Region"): "The current changed name Ge-yi-si is the former name of the northern foreigners." In Tang Huiyao, three more forms of the transcription of the ethnonym "Kyrgyz" are mentioned: Ge-gu-zi, Hui-gu-si, and Jia-jia-si.
The existence of such a number of Chinese transcriptional forms of the ethnonym Kyrgyz itself suggests its novelty and unfamiliarity to the Chinese, who had known the Kyrkuns since the 3rd century B.C. and had used a stable transcription of Jian-kun and Gekun in consistent graphical writing.
From the total number of transcriptions of the term Kyrgyz, two can be highlighted as the most accurately reflecting the original pronunciation, according to the sources: Ge-yi-si-Kergyz and Jie-jia-si-Kergez. The others are either rarely used or, like Jie-gu (Kirgut), simply "incorrect."
Judging by the context of the Chinese chronicles, the emergence of the term Kyrgyz can be dated to the 5th-6th centuries. It is likely that the appearance of the new ethnonym Kyrgyz (Ge-yi-si) is connected with the fragmentation of the Hunnic tribal formations (Kyrkuns).
It is possible that this new name reflects the secondary formation of the Kyrgyz tribal union in relation to the Kyrkuns." - Yuri Alexandrovich Zuev: the term "Kyr-Kun." On the question of the ethnic origins of the Kyrgyz according to Chinese sources
🧬 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."
Comments