Content uploaded by Joo-Yup Lee
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joo-Yup Lee on Nov 15, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
© , , | ./-
() –
brill.com/inas
Inner
ASIA
A Comparative Analysis of Chinese Historical
Sources and - Studies with Regard to the Early
and Medieval Turkic Peoples
Joo-Yup Lee
University of Toronto
jooyup38@gmail.com
Shuntu Kuang
University of Toronto
1988kuang@gmail.com
Abstract
In the past 10 years, geneticists have investigated the genetic variation of modern
Turkic populations as well as ancient of the Xiongnu and others. The accumu-
lated ndings of these surveys, however, have not been adequately noted by specialists
in Inner Asian history. In order to ll this gap, we conducted a comparative analy-
sis of textual information and genetic survey data on the early and medieval Turkic
peoples. First, we examined the information on the origins, identity, and physiognomy
of the early and medieval Turkic peoples contained in the Chinese Standard Histories
(zhengshi 正史). We then discussed how the ndings of genetic surveys complement
the textual information. Both Chinese histories and modern studies indicate
that the early and medieval Turkic peoples were made up of heterogeneous popula-
tions. The Turkicisation of central and western Eurasia was not the product of migra-
tions involving a homogeneous entity, but that of language difusion.
Keywords
Turkic peoples – Chinese Standard Histories – - haplogroup – Turkicization –
physiognomy
() –
Introduction
In the past 10–15 years, geneticists have traced the genetic origins of various
human populations by studying their paternally inherited Y-chromosomes and
maternally inherited mitochondrial . In the process, geneticists have also
investigated the genetic variation of modern Inner Asian populations (Wells
et al. 2001; Zerjal et al. 2002), as well as ancient extracted from the remains
of the Xiongnu and the Sakhas (Yakuts), among others, as will be discussed
below. The accumulated ndings of these genetic surveys, however, have not
been adequately noted by specialists in Inner Asian history. This article aims
to ll this gap by conducting a comparative analysis of textual information and
genetic survey data on the early and medieval Turkic peoples. First, we will
examine the information on the origins, identity and physiognomy of the early
and medieval Turkic peoples contained in the Chinese Standard Histories
(zhengshi 正史). We will then demonstrate in detail how the ndings of ge-
netic surveys on the ancient and modern Turkic peoples corroborate or com-
plement the textual information. The conclusions of this article are as follows:
both medieval Chinese histories and modern studies point to the fact that
the early and medieval Turkic peoples were made up of heterogeneous and
somatically dissimilar populations. The Turkicization of central and western
Eurasia in the past two millennia was not the product of migrations involving
a single, homogeneous Turkic entity, but that of multiple waves of language
difusion involving both Turkic and Turkicized peoples.
For introductory studies, see Underhill & Kivisild (2007); Oppenheimer (2012).
The term ‘Inner Asia’ is used in this article to refer to the Mongolian and Kazakh steppes,
while ‘Central Asia’ is used for the interior region stretching from the Caspian Sea in the west
to Xinjiang, China, in the east and from Kazakhstan in the north to Afghanistan in the south.
At the same time, it is also true that geneticists’ interpretations of data on Inner Asian
populations are often impaired by their limited knowledge of Inner Asian history and the
languages needed to study it and, on rare occasions, are inuenced by biases. Therefore,
although we have used genetic survey data from numerous genetic studies in this work, we
do not necessarily agree with the interpretations suggested in these studies.
The Standard Histories (zhengshi 正史), also known as the Twenty-Four Histories, are a col-
lection of ocial Chinese annals covering the period from antiquity to the Ming Dynasty in
the seventeenth century.
() –
The Origins, Identity, and Physiognomy of the Early and Medieval
Turkic Peoples according to Chinese Histories
The Xiongnu
The Xiongnu were the rst nomadic empire-builders in Inner Asian history.
Historians have been unable to conrm whether or not the Xiongnu were a
Turkic people. According to some fragmentary information on the Xiongnu
language that can be found in the Chinese histories, the Xiongnu were Turkic
and not Mongolic. The mid sixth-century work Weishu relates that the lan-
guage of the Gaoche (高車), a Turkic people who established a nomadic state
in modern-day Xinjiang in the late fth century , and that of the Xiongnu
were roughly the same with some diferences. In addition, the mid seventh-
century work Beishi recounts that the language of the Yuwen Xiongnu, a
Xiongnu tribe active during the Sixteen Kingdoms Period (304–439 ) in
northern China, was quite diferent from that of the Xianbei, a Mongolic or
Para-Mongolic people (Beishi 98.3270). However, the linguistic aliation of the
Xiongnu may remain open to speculation even though some of the Xiongnu
remnants later may have taken part in the formation and development of vari-
ous Turkic nomadic confederations. Concerning the origin of the Xiongnu, the
Shiji by Sima Qian (司馬遷, d. 86 ) relates that they were descended from
Chun Wei (淳維) (Shiji 110.2879), a legendary gure from the ancient Xia (夏)
Dynasty, thus attributing a Xia origin to the Xiongnu. Such an explanation is of
no scientic value in determining the origin of the Xiongnu. Yet it does suggest
that the physiognomy of the Xiongnu was not too diferent from that of Sima
Qian’s own Han (漢) Chinese population, who also considered themselves de-
scendants of the Xia. However, the Jie (羯), ‘a separate branch of the Xiongnu
(匈奴別部)’, who founded the Later Zhao Dynasty (319–351 ), appear to
have possessed West Eurasian physiognomy, that is, ‘deep-set eyes’, ‘high nose
bridges’ and ‘heavy facial hair’. The Jinshu relates that when the Later Zhao
Dynasty was overthrown, the Han Chinese rebel leader Ran Min massacred
about 200,000 Jie, or those with ‘high nose bridges’ and ‘heavy beard (高鼻多
須)’ (Jinshu 107.2792). Moreover, the Jinshu records the following conversation
between a Jie notable and a Han Chinese ocial:
We are not concerned with modern theories of ethnicity or identity in this study. Our main
concern is demonstrating how the historical Turkic peoples were identied by their contem-
porary historians.
For a detailed study of the Xiongnu aliations, see Golden (1992: 57–9); Kim (2016: 7).
‘其語略與匈奴同而時有小異’ (Weishu 103.2307).
() –
Sun Zhen, the chamberlain (詹事) of the crown prince, asked the minis-
ter (侍中) Cui Yue, ‘I sufer from eye diseases. What is the remedy for it?’
Yue, who had always been informal towards Zhen, teased him saying, ‘if
[you] urinate in the middle [of the eye], it will be cured’. ‘How can you
urinate in the eye?’ Zhen asked. ‘Your eyes are dented. You can urinate in
the middle’, Yue said. Zhen harboured hatred and reported this to [Crown
Prince] [Shi] Xuan (石宣). Xuan was the most ‘barbarian (hu 胡)’-looking
among the princes. His eyes were deep. Hearing this, he became very
angry. He killed Yue and his son.
The Dingling or Tiele
Unlike for the Xiongnu, historians know with certainty that the Dingling
(丁零), a nomadic people who inhabited present-day northern Mongolia dur-
ing the Xiongnu period, were a Turkic people. Chinese histories are unanimous
in depicting them as the ancestors of the Tiele (鐵勒), a group of Turkic tribes
that became one of the dominant nomadic powers in the Mongolian steppes
after the disintegration of the Xiongnu empire (Weishu, 103. 2307; Beishi,
98.3270). According to the Shiji, Maodun (冒顿, r. 209–174 ), who founded
the Xiongnu empire in the late third century , subdued the Dingling (Shiji
110.2893), along with the Donghu (東胡), the Yuezhi (or Rouzhi 月氏) (Shiji
110.2889–90) and the Qirghiz (Gekun 鬲昆) (Shiji 110.2893). The Dingling are
mentioned again in the Chinese histories as Han allies who, along with the
Wusun (烏孫) and the Wuhuan (烏桓), raided the weakened Xiongnu during
the rst century (Hanshu 94a.3787–88).
The Dingling outlived the Xiongnu and re-appear as the Gaoche, or Tiele,
in the medieval Chinese histories. As to the origin of the Gaoche, or Tiele, the
Weishu and the Beishi describe them as ‘the remnants of the ancient Chidi
(古赤狄之餘種)’ (Weishu 103.2307; Beishi 98.3270.), while the Suishu (c. 630s
) and the Jiu Tangshu (c. 940s ) merely describe them as ‘the descen-
dants of the Xiongnu (匈奴之苗裔)’ or ‘a separate stock of the Xiongnu (匈
奴別種)’ (Suishu 84.1879–80; Jiu Tangshu 199b.5343). The latter two histories
also describe the Tiele as a large and widespread group of tribes that inhabited
not only the Mongolian steppes but also the Kazakh steppes. Some of them
include Uighur (Huihe 回紇 or Weihe 韋紇), Syr Tarduš (Xueyantuo 薛延陀),
‘太子詹事孫珍問侍中崔約曰:「吾患目疾,何方療之?」約素狎珍,戲之曰：「溺
中則愈.」珍曰:「目何可溺？」約曰:「卿目睕睕,正耐溺中.」珍恨之,以白
宣.宣諸子中最胡狀,目深,聞之大怒,誅約父子.珍有寵于宣,頗預朝政,自誅約之
後,公卿已下憚之側目’ (Jinshu 106.2776). The Jie may have spoken a Yeniseian language.
See Vovin (2000: 92–103).
() –
Bayegu (拔也古), Hun (渾), Tuva (Doubo 都播), Quriqan (Guligan 骨利幹) and
Alan (阿蘭), among others (Suishu 84.1880). Some of these Tiele tribes listed
in the Chinese histories seem to have been non-Turkic-speaking groups. For
instance, the mid eleventh-century work Xin Tangshu writes that the language
of the Bayegu was somewhat diferent from that of the Tiele (言語少異) (Xin
Tangshu 217b.6140). Furthermore, the Alans were an ancient Iranic people
known to classical writers from the rst centuries . Regarding the Tiele,
the Suishu also notes that ‘their custom was similar to that of the Tujue (Kök
Türks) (其俗大抵與突厥同)’, but that the two difered in their marriage and
burial customs. Importantly, the Chinese histories do not make any particular
mention of the physiognomy of the Tiele.
The Kök Türks
The nomadic people who spread the Turkic language and the name Türk be-
yond the Mongolian steppes were the Kök Türks (Tujue 突厥 in Chinese) led
by the Ashina clan. Importantly, Chinese histories do not describe them as de-
scending from the Dingling or as belonging to the Tiele confederation. The
Zhoushu (c. 630s ), for instance, describes them as ‘a separate tribe of the
Xiongnu (匈奴之別種)’ (Zhoushu 50.907) or ascribes their origin to the Suo
state (suo guo 索國) located to the north of the Xiongnu (Zhoushu 50.908). The
Suishu recounts that the Kök Türks are descended from ‘the mixed barbarians
(za hu 雜胡) of Pingliang (平涼)’ (Suishu 84.1863). Interestingly, the Zhoushu
also relates that the Ashina clan was related to the Qirghiz (Qigu 契骨)
(Zhoushu 50.908), who are described in the Xin Tangshu as possessing ‘red hair’
and ‘blue eyes’ (Xin Tangshu 217b.6147). However, as to their physiognomy, the
Kök Türks difered from the Qirghiz. According to the Jiu Tangshu, an Ashina
commander named Ashina Simo (阿史那思摩) was not given a high military
post by the Ashina rulers because of his Sogdian (huren 胡人) physiognomy:
Simo was a relative of Xieli. Because his face was like that of the ‘bar-
barian (huren 胡人)’ and not like that of the Tujue, Shibi [Khagan] and
Chuluo [Khagan] were doubtful of his being one of the Ashina. Thus
although he always held the title of Jiabi tele[i] (夾畢特勒) during Chuluo
The Tujue (Kök Türks) cremated their dead, while the Tiele buried them (Suishu 84.1880).
For a detailed study of the Kök Türk founding legends, see Sinor (1982).
Pingliang was located in present-day Gansu Province, China.
Hu (胡) denoted the Sogdians in Tang China.
() –
and Xieli’s time, he could not become a shad (she 設) in command of the
army till the end …
It should be noted that the seventh-century Tang historian Yan Shigu (顏師
古), who added a commentary to the Hanshu (c. 80s ), describes the Wusun
(烏孫) as follows:
The Wusun have the weirdest appearance among all the Rong (戎) of the
Western Region (西域). Today’s Hu (胡) people, being blue-eyed and red-
bearded, and having the appearance of macaques, were originally their
progeny.
However, no comparable depiction of the Kök Türks or Tiele is found in the
ocial Chinese histories.
The Kök Türks became divided into Eastern Türks and Western Türks in the
late sixth century (583 ). The Western Türks, centred in the Kazakh steppes,
developed into an autonomous tribal confederation that included some tribes
not found among their eastern counterpart, such as the Qarluq (Geluolu
歌邏祿), the Chuyue (處月), the Türgesh (Tuqishi 突騎施), and perhaps the
Khazars (Hesa 曷薩). These tribes, which would outlive the Ashina clan and
‘思摩者, 頡利族人也. 始畢、處羅以其貌似胡人, 不類突厥, 疑非阿史那
族類, 故歷處羅, 頡利世, 常為夾畢特勒, 終不得典兵為設’ (Jiu Tangshu
194a.5163). Perhaps this is reminiscent of the Kazakh view of non-Inner Asian physiog-
nomy. Ármin Vámbéry, the Hungarian Turkologist, who travelled in Central Asia in the
mid nineteenth century, writes that ‘[the Kazakhs] compassionate all whose faces have
not the pure Mongol conformation. According to their aesthetic views, that race stands at
the very zenith for beauty …’ (Vámbéry 1865: 421).
‘烏孫於西域諸戎其形最異. 今之胡人, 青眼赤髭鬢, 狀類彌猴者, 本其種也’
Hanshu, 96b.3901. The same passage is written in the Tongdian 通典 [Comprehensive
statutes], a universal administrative history. See Du You 杜佑. Tong dian 通典
[Comprehensive statutes], chapter 192. https://zh.wikisource.org/zh-hant/%E9%80%9A
%E5%85%B8/%E5%8D%B7192 (accessed 14 July 2017).
Perhaps the physiognomy of the Kök Türks is well manifested in the stone head of Kül
Tegin, an Ashina general of the Second Türk Khaghanate. According to the Russian
anthropologist Oshanin, the Kök Türks spread the ‘Mongoloid’ phenotype to Central Asia
(Oshanin 1964: 20).
The Jiu Tangshu lists the Qarluq and Chuyue among the tribes of the Western Türks ( Jiu
Tangshu 194b.5179; Xin Tangshu 217b.6143).
For instance, in the Jiu Tangshu (194b.5190), Wuzhile[i] (烏質勒), a Türgesh chief, is
described as being from ‘a separate stock of the Western Türks (西突厥之別種)’.
The Khazars are referred to as ‘Tujue Hesa (突厥曷薩)’ in the Xin Tangshu (221b.6247).
Thus, the Khazars may well have been an ofshoot of the Western Türks.
() –
the Eastern Türks and play an important role in medieval Central Asian his-
tory, had probably incorporated some indigenous, non-Turkic elements of the
Kazakh steppes. The Jiu Tangshu (194b.5179) writes that the language of the
Western Türks was ‘slightly diferent’ from that of their eastern counterpart.
Interestingly, the Chinese histories refer to some obscure nomadic tribes
residing beyond northern Mongolia as Tujue, i.e., Kök Türk. These include such
tribes as the Muma Tujue (木馬突厥) [Wooden-horse Türk], the Xianyu Tujue
(鮮于突厥) and the Niuti Tujue (牛蹄突厥) [Ox-hoof Türk], who resided to the
east of the Qirghiz. However, not much is known about them and as to why
they were designated as Tujue. According to the Xin Tangshu (217b.6148), the
Doubo (都播), an ancestral tribe of modern Tuvinians, constituted one of the
three Muma Tujue tribes, who ‘mourn their dead like the Kök Türks’.
The Uighurs
One of the major Tiele tribes that were subdued and ruled by the Kök Türks was
the Uighur (Huihe 回紇), who allied with the Qarluq, a Western Türk tribe, and
the Basmil, another Tiele tribe, and overthrew the Second Türk Khaghanate in
745 . As to the origin and identity of the Uighurs, the Chinese histories de-
scribe them as descending from the Xiongnu and previously belonging to the
Tiele (Jiu Tangshu 195.5195). Importantly, they do not associate or identify the
Uighurs with the Kök Türks. For instance, whereas the Shatuo tribe is referred
to as ‘a separate tribe of the Western Tujue’ in the Xin Tangshu (218.6153), no
such mention is made regarding the origin of the Uighurs. In fact, the Uighurs
themselves viewed the Kök Türks as aliens, just as the latter had not regarded
the Uighurs and Tiele (referred to as Toquz Oghuz in the Orkhon inscriptions)
as Türks.
For the Muma Tujue, see Xin Tangshu (217b.6148). For the Xianyu Tujue and Niuti Tujue,
see Xin Wudaishi (73.907).
It is not clear whether or not these Tujue tribes were indeed Kök Türks. Denis Sinor sug-
gests that they were the Kök Türks ‘living outside the Türk state’ or ‘[not belonging] to the
ruling stratum of the Türk state’ (Sinor 1985: 152–7).
‘送葬哭泣, 與突厥同’ (Xin Tangshu, 217b.6144).
For instance, in their ocial inscriptions, the Uighurs (Uyγur) use the term Türük only for
the Kök Türks, whom they consider to be their enemies and oppressors. See Tekin (1983:
46 (text), 49 (trans.)); see lines 9–10 (north side) of the Šine-Usu inscription (Moriyasu
et al. 2009: 11 (text), 24 (trans.)).
For instance, see lines 11–14 (east side) of the Kül Tegin inscription translated in Silay
(1996: 4).
() –
The Qirghiz
The Qirghiz, who destroyed the Uighur Khaganate in 840 , were centred in
the upper Yenisei region, not in the Mongolian steppes. According to the You
yang za zu, written by Duan Chengshi in the ninth century , the Qirghiz
regarded themselves as progenies of a god and a cow:
The Jiankun (堅昆) [Qirghiz] tribe, [unlike the Türks], is not of wolf
descent. Their ancestors were born in a cave located to the north of the
Quman Mountain. They themselves say that in the ancient times there
was a god who mated with a cow in that cave. The people’s hair is yellow,
eyes are green, and beards are red.
The Qirghiz are distinguished from the Uighurs and other Tiele tribes in
Chinese histories. The Xin Tangshu, which provides detailed information on
the Qirghiz and the Tiele tribes, does not include the former among the latter
(Xin Tangshu 217b.6139–6145). In addition, while the Xin Tangshu states that
‘their language and script were identical to those of the Uighurs (其文字言
語，與回鶻正同)’ (Xin Tangshu 217b.6148), it also notes the peculiar physical
phenotype of the Qirghiz. The Xin Tangshu relates: ‘The people are all tall and
big and have red hair, white faces, and green eyes (人皆長大，赤髮、皙面、綠
瞳)’ (Xin Tangshu, 217b.6147). According to the Xin Tangshu, their neighbour-
ing tribe named Boma (駁馬) or Bila (弊剌) resembled the Qirghiz, although
their language was diferent (Xin Tangshu 217b.6146). This may imply that the
Qirghiz were originally a non-Turkic people who became Turkicized dur-
ing the Kök Türk period at least partly through inter-tribal marriages. The Xin
Tangshu relates that ‘the Kök Türks sent women as wives for the [Qirghiz]
‘堅昆部落非狼種, 其先所生之窟在曲漫山北。自謂上代有神與牸牛交於此窟.
其人髮黃, 目綠, 赤髭髯.’ Duan Chengshi 段成式. You yang za zu 酉陽雜俎
[Miscellany of Youyang], chapter 4. https://archive.org/stream/06047413.cn#page/n120/
mode/2up (accessed 16 July 2017).
Gardīzī, a mid eleventh-century Persian historian and geographer, also writes in his work
that the Qirghiz were characterised by their ‘reddishness of hair and whiteness of skin’
because they were originally Slavs (Saqlāb). See Abd al-ayy ibn Zaāk Gardīzī (1984:
557): for an English translation of this text, see Martinez (1982: 126).
On the origin of the Qirghiz, see Golden (1992: 177–8). While Golden acknowledges that
the Qirghiz may have been a ‘Turkicised’ people, Michael R. Drompp (1999: 399–400)
refutes this idea and argues that whether the Qirghiz were ‘originally’ a Turkic people or
a ‘Turkicised’ people would never be determined. However, genetic studies show that the
Qirghiz were most likely a non-Turkic people by origin.
() –
chiefs (突厥以女妻其酋豪)’ (Xin Tangshu, 217b.6149). In the case of Are (阿熱),
the Qirghiz ruler who destroyed the Uighur Khaganate, his wife was a Qarluq
woman, while his mother was a Türgesh (Xin Tangshu 217b.6149). In addition,
the Xin Tangshu relates that the Qirghiz ‘intermixed with the Dingling (其種雜
丁零)’ (Xin Tangshu 217b.6146–47). At any rate, the (red-haired) Qirghiz ‘found
dark hair ominous (以黑髮為不祥)’ and ‘regarded those with black eyes as de-
scending from [Li] Ling (李陵)’, a Chinese general who had defected to the
Xiongnu.
The Önggüt and the Naiman
From the collapse of the Uighur Khaganate in the mid ninth century to
the rise of the Mongols in the early thirteenth century , the nomadic peo-
ples of the Mongolian steppes remained largely divided and were loosely
controlled by the Khitan Liao (907–1125 ) and the Jurchen Jin (1115–1234
). During this period, there was an increase of Mongolic elements in the
Mongolian steppes (Golden 1992: 284). The Turkic tribes that were still pres-
ent in the Mongolian steppes at the turn of the thirteenth century included
the Önggüt and the Naiman. The Önggüt were probably descended from the
Chuyue, the above-mentioned Western Tujue tribe. The Yuanshi states that
the chief of the Önggüt, Alawusi Tijihuli (阿剌兀思剔吉忽裏), who submitted
to Chinggis Khan in 1203, was ‘a descendant of the Shatuo-yanmen (沙陀雁
門之後)’ (Yuanshi 118.2923). In turn, the Xin Tangshu relates that the Shatuo
(沙陀) were ‘a progeny of the Chuyue, a separate tribe of the Western Tujue
(西突厥別部處月種也)’ (Alā al-Dīn Aā Malik Juvaynī 1958: vol. 1, 55–6). The
origin of the Naiman is not well documented. However, one may speculate that
the Naiman were an ofshoot of the Uighurs. The name of the Naiman ruler
before their defeat by Chinggis Khan was Inanch Bilgä Bügü Khan according
to Rashīd al-Dīn Hamadānī (1247–1318) (Rashīd al-Dīn Fażlallāh Hamadānī
1988: vol. 1, 97–98; Rashiduddin Fazlullah 1998–99: vol. 1, 69). In fact, Bügü
Khan was the legendary founder of the Uighurs, who was born of two parent-
trees. Inanch Bilgä Bügü Khan was named after the Uighur progenitor Bügü
Khan maybe because the Naiman also viewed the latter as their ancestor.
‘以黑髮為不祥. 黑瞳者, 必曰陵苗裔也.’ (Xin Tangshu 217b.6147).
According to the Xin Tangshu (218.6153), the Chuyue acquired the name ‘Shatuo Türk’
after residing near a great desert called Shatuo.
See Alā al-Dīn Aā Malik Juvaynī (1958: vol. 1, 55–57): A similar legend of Bügü Khan was
also recorded by Yu Ji in the Gaochang wang shi xun bei 高昌王世勳碑 [The monumen-
tal inscription of the king of Gaochang]: see Su Tianjue (1965: vol. 2, 259). For a detailed
() –
In addition, the Naiman used the Uighur script, which was later adopted by the
Mongols. Perhaps their relatedness was one of the reasons why the Naiman
and the Uighur tribes had special ties in the Uzbek Khanate of Khiva (1511–1804
). In the Firdaws al-Iqbāl, a history of the Qunghrat Uzbek Dynasty (1804–
1920 ), the two are described as friend (dūst) tribes (Shīr Muammad Mīrāb
Mūnīs & Muammad Rīżā Mīrāb Āgahī 1988: 103). As to the physiognomy
of the Önggüt and the Naiman, Rashīd al-Dīn relates that the former ‘resem-
bled the Mongols (bi-mughūl mānand)’ (Rashīd al-Dīn Fażlallāh Hamadānī
1988: Vol. 1, 99; Rashiduddin Fazlullah 1998–99: Vol. 1, 70) and that the girls
(dukhtarān) of the latter were ‘renowned for their beauty and comeliness (bi-
usn va jamāl mashhūr bāshand)’ (Rashīd al-Dīn Fażlallāh Hamadānī 1988:
Vol. 1, 99; Rashiduddin Fazlullah 1998–99: Vol. 1, 70).
The Qipchaq
The Qipchaq were a Turkic group that formed the dominant nomadic confed-
eration in the Qipchaq Steppe (Kazakh and Black Sea steppes) from the mid
eleventh century to the early thirteenth century . After being conquered by
the Mongols, some of them served the Chinggisids as auxiliary forces in the
Yuan Dynasty (1271–1368 ). The Chinese histories do not provide substan-
tial information on the Turkic tribes of the Qipchaq Steppe but the Yuanshi
(c. 1370s ) ofers interesting information on the origin of the Qipchaq
clan Ölberli in the biography (liezhuan 列傳) of the Yuan general Tutuha
(土土哈):
Tuotuoha’s ancestors were originally the tribe of the Andahan Mountain,
by the Zhelian River, north of Wuping. At rst Quchu migrated to the
north-west, to the mountain called Yüliboli, by which they named their
discussion of the Qocho Uighur foundation myths involving a parent-tree, see Okada
(1987: 197–201).
After defeating the Naiman, Chinggis Khan hired Tatatonga 塔塔統阿, who was an
Uighur scholar (傅) serving the Naiman khan, to teach his sons in the Uighur script
(Yuanshi 124.3048).
According to Yuri Bregel, the Naiman and Uighur tribes in Khiva were regarded as sharing
‘common ancestors’ and were ‘related with marriage’: see Shīr Muammad Mīrāb Mūnīs
& Muammad Rīżā Mīrāb Āgahī (1999: 548 n107). Abū al-Ghāzī Bahādur Khan (r. 1644–
63), the Chinggisid ruler of the Uzbek Khanate of Khiva, also notes their friendly relations
in his work: see Aboul-Ghâzi Béhâdour Khân (1970: 185 (text), 195 (trans.)).
Both Omeljan Pritsak (1982: 336–9) and Peter Golden (1988: 22) support a Mongolic origin
of the Ölberli clan.
() –
clan, and they called their state Qincha (Qipchaq). Its territory is 30,000 li
away from China. The summer nights are extremely short. The sun rises
as soon as it sets. Quchu begat Suomona. Suomona begat Yinasi. They
were kings of the Qincha from generation to generation.
Concerning the physiognomy of the Qipchaq tribe, the Zizhi tongjian hou-
bian [Later compilation to the comprehensive mirror to aid in government],
a seventeenth-century continuation of Sima Guang’s Zizhi tongjian by Xu
Qianxue, states that they had ‘blue eyes and red hair (青目赤髪)’.
The Muslim Depiction of Turkic Peoples
From the eleventh century onwards, Islamic Central Asia and the Qipchaq
Steppe replaced the Mongolian steppes and eastern Inner Asia as the main
regions for the activities of the Turkic nomads. Unlike Chinese historians, who
reserved Tujue (Türk in Turkic) for the Kök Türks, Muslim writers used the term
Turk broadly to denote not only the Turkic-speaking peoples, but also other
non-Turkic peoples. However, like Chinese historians, Muslim writers in gener-
al depict the ‘Turks’ as possessing East Asian physiognomy. For instance, Sharaf
al-Zamān āhir Marvazī describes them as being ‘short, with small eyes, nos-
trils, and mouths’ (1942: 53–4, 156). Similarly, abarī (d. 923) depicts the ‘Turks’
as being ‘full-faced with small eyes’ (1987: 21). In his Qābūs-nāma, the eleventh-
century Ziyarid ruler Kai Kāūs also describes the ‘Turks’ as possessing ‘a large
head (sar-i buzurg), a broad face (rūy-i pahn), narrow eyes (chashmhā-i tang),
and a at nose (bīnī-i pakhch), and unpleasing lips and teeth (lab va dandān
na nīkū)’ (Kai Kāūs ibn Iskandar 1951a: 103; 1951b: 64). The Arab historian and
geographer al-Masūdī (896–956) writes that the Oghuz Turks residing in
‘土土哈, 其先本武平北折連川按答罕山部族, 自曲出徙居西北玉裡伯裡山, 因以
為氏, 號其國曰欽察. 其地去中國三萬餘里, 夏夜極短, 日暫沒即出. 曲出生
唆末納, 唆末納生亦納思, 世為欽察國王’ (Yuanshi 128.3131).
Xu Qianxue 徐乾學, Zizhi tongjian houbian 資治通鑑後編, chapter 141: http://skqs
.guoxuedashi.com/wen_562r/11559.html (accessed 16 July 2017). However, E. Bretschneider
(1876: 174, n301) argues that the Qipchaqs are confused with the Russians here. According
to the Russian anthropologist L.V. Oshanin (1964: 24, 32), the ‘Mongoloid’ phenotype,
characteristic of modern Kazakhs and Qirghiz, prevails among the skulls of the Qipchaq
and Pecheneg nomads found in the kurgans in eastern Ukraine.
An Arabic geographical manuscript states that the Uighurs (Toquz Oghuz), the people of
China, and the Turks resembled each other in facial appearance: see Frye (1949: 92–3).
The Oghuz were a nomadic group that inhabited the Aral Sea and Caspian Sea steppes
during the ninth and tenth centuries .
() –
Yengi-kent, a town near the mouth of the Syr Darya, ‘are distinguished from
other Turks by their valour, their slanted eyes, and the smallness of their stat-
ure’ (wa hum ashadd al-Turk ba’san wa aqaruhum wa agharuhum a‘yunan wa
fī al-Turk man huwa aqar min hā’ulā’) (al-Masūdī 1962–: Vol. 1, 212). However,
Muslim writers later diferentiated the Oghuz Turks from other Turks in terms
of physiognomy. Rashīd al-Dīn writes that ‘because of the climate their fea-
tures gradually changed into those of Tajiks. Since they were not Tajiks, the
Tajik peoples called them turkmān, i.e. Turk-like (Turk-mānand)’ (Rashīd al-
Dīn Fażlallāh Hamadānī 1988: Vol. 1, 35–6; Rashiduddin Fazlullah 1998–99:
Vol. 1, 31). ā Tanīsh Mīr Muammad Bukhārī (d. c. 1549) also relates that
after the Oghuz came to Transoxiana and Iran, their ‘Turkic face did not re-
main as it was’ (1983: fol. 17a (text), Vol. 1, 61 (trans.)). Abū al-Ghāzī Bahadur
Khan similarly writes that ‘their chin started to become narrow, their eyes
started to become large, their faces started to become small, and their noses
started to become big’ after ve or six generations (Abu-l-Gazi 1958: 42 (text),
57 (trans.); Ebülgazî Bahadir Han 1975: 57–8). As a matter of fact, the mixed
nature of the Ottomans, belonging to the Oghuz Turkic group, is noted by the
Ottoman historian Muafā Ālī (1541–1600). In his Künhül-abār, he remarks
that the Ottoman elites of the sixteenth century were of mostly of non-Turkic
origin: ‘Most of the inhabitants of Rum are of confused ethnic origin. Among its
notables there are few whose lineage does not go back to a convert to Islam …’
(Ekser-i sükkān-i vilāyet-i Rūm meclis-i muteli ul-mehūm olub ā‘yānında az
kimsene bulunur ki nesebi bir müslüm-i cedīde muntehī olmaya) (Fleischer 1986:
254; Muafā Ālī, Künhül-abār 1860–68: Vol. 1, 16).
In sum, the ocial Chinese histories, which provide substantial information
on the origins, identity and physiognomy of the early and medieval Turkic-
speaking peoples, do not describe the latter, including the Tiele, the Qirghiz,
and the Kök Türks, among others, as having a single origin. Neither do they
describe the early and medieval Turkic peoples as sharing a common (Turkic)
identity. Furthermore, the Chinese histories depict the Turkic peoples as pos-
sessing Inner Asian phenotypic traits in general with a number of exceptions
(see Table 1).
In the following section, we will discuss how genetic surveys corroborate or
complement the Chinese historical records on the origins, identity, and physi-
ognomy of the early and medieval Turkic peoples.
The stone heads of the Seljuk princes kept at the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art
show that the Oghuz possessed Inner Asian physiognomy. For images of the Seljuk stone
heads, see Canby et al. (2016: 44–46, 50).
() –
Their origin Their physiognomy Their possible
(modern) descendants
Xiongnu Descendants of Chun
Wei from the Xia Dynasty
(Not diferentiated from
that of Han Chinese)
Various Turkic
peoples and Mongols
Jie Xiongnu A separate branch of the
Xiongnu
Described as possessing
‘deep-set eyes’, ‘high nose
bridges’ and ‘heavy facial
hair’
Dingling/
Tiele
The remnants of the
ancient Chidi;
The descendants of the
Xiongnu;
A separate stock of the
Xiongnu
(Not diferentiated from
that of Han Chinese)
Various Turkic
peoples, including
Sakhas, Tuvinians,
Western Yugurs and
Buryats, among
others
Kök Türks A separate tribe of the
Xiongnu;
The Suo state located to
the north of the Xiongnu;
The mixed barbarians of
Pingliang
Non-Sogdian (huren 胡
人) looking
Various Turkic
peoples, including
Tuvinians
Uighurs Tiele (non-Kök Türks);
The descendants of the
Xiongnu
(Not diferentiated from
that of Han Chinese)
Western Yugurs and
Xinjiang Uighurs,
among others
Yenisei
Qirghiz
(Non-Tiele);
(Non-Kök Türks)
Described as being ‘tall
and big’ and as having
‘red hair’, ‘white faces’ and
‘green eyes’
Tien Shan Qirghiz,
Khakass and southern
Altaians, among
others
Önggüt A separate tribe of the
Western Tujue (Türks)
Described as ‘resembling
the Mongols’
Kazakhs and
Mongols, among
others
Qipchaq The tribe of the Andahan
Mountain, north of
Wuping (Ölberli Qipchaq)
Described as possessing
‘blue eyes and red hair’
(in a th-century source)
Kazakhs, Uzbeks, and
Crimean and Volga
Tatars, among others
‘Turks’ in
Muslim
sources
Descendants of Japheth,
son of Noah
Described as being ‘short,
with small eyes, nostrils,
and mouths’ or ‘full-faced
with small eyes’
Various Inner
Eurasian peoples
The Turkic peoples as described in the Chinese and Muslim sources
() –
Genetic Surveys on the Turkic Peoples
The Genetic Variation of Modern Turkic Populations
The Y chromosome is one of the two gender-determining chromosomes that
makes a person male. It is inherited from a man by his sons, who then pass it
on to their sons largely intact throughout time until it develops a mutation.
When a mutation, which is a permanent structural alteration in the se-
quence, occurs, a man with that mutation will then pass it along to all of his
male descendants. Over time, such mutations accumulate, which allow us to
trace relatedness in groups of people.
The male group or patrilineal lineage that shares a certain mutation is
called a - haplogroup (see Figure 1). In other words, a haplogroup is a
population descended from a common ancestor who had and passed on a spe-
cic mutation. Population geneticists have categorised human - into over
20 major groups, with many sub-groups, to which all males belong.
Every person has 22 matching pairs of chromosomes, but the 23rd pair, the and gen-
der chromosomes, are unmatched and they determine one’s maleness () or female-
ness (). A large portion of the Y chromosome does not exchange material with the
chromosome.
A - haplogroup is dened by the presence of one or more - mutations called
Single Nucleotide Polymorphism, or . For instance, haplogroup C is dened by a
mutation named M216 and others. The Y Chromosome Consortium (), a scholarship
group formed to standardize haplogroup nomenclature, named - haplogroups using
the capital letters A through T and their subclades using numbers and lower case letters.
When a new is discovered and tested, a new haplogroup subclade is determined.
For the most up-to-date version of the - haplogroup nomenclature and - tree,
see http://www.isogg.org/tree. For introductory studies of the Y-chromosome hap-
logroups, see Y Chromosome Consortium (2002); Hammer & Zegura (2002); Karafet et al.
(2008); Chiaroni et al. (2009).
Simplied - haplogroup tree.
() –
In general, diferent populations show diferent Y-chromosome hap-
logroup compositions and frequencies. For instance, the most common
Y-chromosome haplogroups among the Arabic-speaking peoples are hap-
logroups J and E. The most common Y-chromosome haplogroups among
Africans, western Europeans and East Asians are haplogroup E, haplogroup
R1b and haplogroup O, respectively. Among the Native Americans and the
Inuit people, haplogroup Q prevails. Haplogroup C2 (formerly known as C3)
is most characteristic to Mongolic, Turkic and Tungusic, that is, the ‘Altaic’-
speaking populations (see Map 1).
Interestingly, the dominant - haplogroups among various mod-
ern Turkic populations are not uniform, and neither are their haplogroup
compositions. While they may share certain haplogroups, the frequencies of
these haplogroups vary in general. This means that various Turkic populations,
including the Sakhas (inhabiting northeastern Siberia), the Tuvinians (residing
For the origins of modern human populations based on the study of Y-chromosomes, see
Underhill et al. (2001); Jobling & Tyler-Smith (2003).
This study is concerned with the Y-chromosome , i.e., the paternal ancestry, not the
mitochondrial , i.e., the maternal ancestry, of the Turkic peoples. One should note
that Turkic peoples can be diferentiated more readily by their Y-chromosome
than by their mitochondrial . For instance, the Turkic Tuvinians and Sojots and the
Mongolic Buryats are not very distinguishable from each other when it comes to their
maternal ancestry since they all share similar mitochondrial haplogroups. See
Derenko et al. (2003: table 3).
Dominant - haplogroups in diferent world regions.
() –
in the Sayan Mountains region), the Altaians (various groups residing in the
Russian Altai Mountains region), the Volga Tatars (residing in the Volga-Ural
region), the Xinjiang Uighurs and the Uzbeks (inhabiting the Central Asian
oasis regions), the Kazakhs (inhabiting the Central Asian steppe region), the
Turkmens (residing in the Karakum Desert region), the Azeris (residing in the
Caucasus region) and the Turks (inhabiting Anatolia and the Balkans), are not
made up of homogeneous patrilineal lineages (see Map 2 and Table 2).
Contemporary states in Inner Eurasia cannot readily use genetics to make national-
ist claims since analysis challenges nationalist paradigms that tend to emphasise
the autochthonous development or homogeneity of a nation. For instance, mainstream
Kazakh scholarship emphasises the lineal descent of the Kazakhs from the Indo-
European pastoralists who resided in the Kazakh Steppe in the Bronze Age (charac-
terised by haplogroup R1a1), while downplaying the later Mongol contribution to the
ethnic makeup of the Kazakhs. However, analysis shows that the most prevalent
- haplogroups among the Kazakhs are haplogroups C2 and O, among others, that
they share with the Mongols and eastern Inner Asian Turkic peoples. Importantly, it is
unlikely that the Turkic-speaking Central and Inner Asian states will make ‘pan-Turkic’
claims using genetics since analysis points to their heterogeneity, not their homo-
geneity. At the same time, the main author of this article suspects that the collection and
presentation of genetic data can be inuenced by historical or political claims although
this suspicion cannot be proven. Interestingly, according to the data of the Manchus
provided in some Chinese studies, the presence of - haplogroup O2b, which appears
at high frequency among the Japanese and Koreans but is virtually absent among the
Han Chinese, is rather minimal among the Manchus. However, O2b reaches 27~34%
among the Manchus in the Japanese and Korean surveys. For the Manchu -
haplogroups, see Katoh et al. (2005: table 1); Jin et al. (2010: table 4).
Turkic peoples and their dominant -
haplogroups.
() –
The - haplogroups of modern Turkic peoples
Their - haplogroups (percentage) Their possible most recent
ancestral groups
Sakhas N (~%); C (.~.%) Quriqan (Tiele)
Tuvinians N (.~.%); C (.~.%);
Q (.~.%); Ra (.~.%)
Muma Tujue (Türks)
Tiele
Khakass N (%); Ra (.%); Q (%); C (.%) Yenisei Qirghiz, among
others
Southern Altaians
(Altai-Kizhi)
Ra (%); C (%); Q (.%);
N (.%)
Yenisei Qirghiz, among
others
Tien Shan Qirghiz
(Kyrgyz)
Ra (over %); C (~%);
O (~%); N (~.%)
Yenisei Qirghiz, among
others
Western Yugurs C (.~%); D (.%); O (.%);
Q (%); Ra (.~%)
Ancient Uighurs, among
others
Kazakhs
Argyn
Qipchaq
(Karakypshak)
Naiman
C (.~%); O (~%)
G (.%)
Rb (.%)
C (%); O (.%)
Qipchaqs and Mongols,
among others
Karakalpaks C (.%); G (%); Ra (.%);
N (.%) among the On Tört Uruw
grouping; Ra (.%); N (.%);
C (.%); Q (.%) among the
Qonghrat grouping
Qipchaqs and Mongols,
among others
Xinjiang Uighurs Ra (~.%); J (.~%);
O (.~%); C (.~%);
N (~.%)
Ancient Uighurs and
Bronze Age Indo-
European pastoralists,
among others
Uzbeks Ra (.~%); J (.~.%);
C (~%, .%); O (~%);
N (~.%)
Various Turkic and Iranic
groups, and Shibanid
Uzbeks, among others
Volga Tatars Ra (.~.%); N (.~.%);
I (~.%); J (.%); C (.~.%)
Various Turkic, Slavic,
and Uralic groups
Chuvashes Ra (.~.%); N (~%);
J (.%); I (.%); C (~.%)
Various Turkic, Slavic,
and Uralic groups
Bashkirs N (~%); Ra (~%); Rb (~%);
C (~%); J (~%); I (~%)
Various Turkic, Slavic,
and Uralic groups
() –
Their - haplogroups (percentage) Their possible most recent
ancestral groups
Turkmens Q (.~.%); J (.~.%); Ra
(.~.%); L (~.%); G (~.%);
E (.~.%); N and O (.~.%);
C (~.%) among the Turkmens in
Afghanistan and northern Iran
Q (%); H (%); Rb (%); Ra (%);
G (%); N (~%); J (~%); C (~%)
among the Turkmens in Karakalpakstan (I)
Ra (.%); N (.%) among the
Turkmens in Karakalpakstan ()
L (%); J (%); Q (%); E (%);
N (%) among the Afshar Turkmen
villagers in Turkey
Oghuz/Turkmens, among
others
Azeris J (%); G (%); E (%) among the
Azeris in Azerbaijan
J (.%); Ra (.%); Rb (.%);
E (.%); G (%); T (.%); Q (.%); N
(.%) among the Azeris in northeastern
Iran
Oghuz/Turkmens and
various indigenous
groups
Turks J (.%); Rb (.%); E (.%);
G (.%); Ra (.%); I (.%);
L (.%); N (.%); Q (.%); C (.%);
O (.%)
Oghuz/Turkmens and
various indigenous
groups
The - haplogroups of modern Turkic peoples (cont.)
The Sakhas, formerly known as Yakuts, are the easternmost as well as north-
ernmost Turkic people in the world. They were originally a horse-riding people
from the western Baikal region. It is believed that the Sakhas descend from
the Quriqan (Tokarev 1962: 107; Golden 1992: 143–4, 415), which was a Tiele
tribe (see Jiu Tangshu 199b.5343). According to recent genetic surveys, the most
The funerary rituals of the pre-modern Sakhas were similar to those of the Turkic peoples
of the western Baikal region and of the ancient Xiongnu (Crubézy et al. 2010: 8, 9–10).
() –
typical Y-chromosome haplogroups of the Sakhas and their frequencies are as
follows: N1c1 (89~94%) and C2 (2.1~3.6%) (Pakendorf et al. 2006: 346, table 6:
N-TatC corresponds to N1c1; Kharkov et al. 2008: 200, table 1: N3a corresponds
to N1c1). Haplogroup N1c1 is widespread among the Uralic peoples and Turkic
peoples. Haplogroup N originated in East Asia and approximately 8000–10,000
years ago spread from Siberia into eastern/northern Europe (Hong Shi et al.
2013). It is present in northeastern Europe at high frequency: 70.9% and 41.3%
among eastern Finns and western Finns, respectively (Lappalainen et al. 2008:
table 1), and 43% and 17% in northern Russia and central Russia, respectively
(Balanovsky et al. 2008: 242, table 2). C2 is the major haplogroup of the Mongols,
Kazakhs, and Evenks, who belong to the proposed Altaic language family (for
the Evenks, see Pakendorf et al. 2007: 1017, table 5: C-M217 and its subclades
C-M48 and C-M86 correspond to C2; for the Mongols and Kazakhs, see Wells
et al. 2001: 10245, table 1: M130 and M48 correspond to haplogroup C2; Zerjal
et al. 2002: 474, table 3: haplogroups 10 and 36 correspond to haplogroup C2).
In northwestern Mongolia and the Sayan Mountains region, now reside
the Tuvinians. Perhaps, they are the descendants of the Tiele and/or Muma
Tujue (Türks), one of whose three tribes was Doubo (Tuva). The major
Y-chromosome haplogroups of the Tuvinians and their frequencies are as fol-
lows: N subclades N1c1 and N1b (42.2~45.1%), C2 (16.1~26.5%), Q (4.9~13.9%),
and R1a1 (7.8~12.3%) (Gubina et al. 2013: 339, table 3; see Kharkov et al. 2013:
1239. C3 in this article corresponds to C2). The frequencies of each haplogroup
may vary depending on the surveys with diferent samples, but the above two
recent surveys show that haplogroups N and C2 are the most prevalent pater-
nal lineages among the Tuvinians. Haplogroups N and C2 are also the main
paternal clans among the Buryats (see Kharkov et al. 2014: 183, table 1), who are
the neighbouring Mongolic people of the Tuvinians. Haplogroup Q, which is
found across Eurasia, is present at signicant frequency among the Turkmens,
two Siberian peoples (Yeniseinan Kets and Uralic Selkups at 93.7% and 66.4%,
respectively) (Tambets et al. 2004: 667, table 3), and the Native Americans (at
over 90%). Haplogroup R1a1, more specically, its subclade R1a1a1b2 (dened
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
However, the two groups possess diferent subclades of N and C2, which means that they
have distinct paternal origins.
According to genetic studies, the Native Americans descend from a migrant group from
the Altai Mountains region. See e.g. Dulik et al. (2012: 229–46; Malyarchuk et al. 2011:
583–8).
() –
steppes, the Tarim Basin, the Altai Mountains region, the Yenisei River region,
and western Mongolia during the Bronze Age.
Naturally, R1a1, more specically, 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 Qirghiz, since they were regarded as descending from the
Qirghiz) 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, table 3;
Shi et al. 2013: table 3). As for the Altaians, the Altai-Kizhi (southern Altaians)
are characterised by a high percentage of R1a1 (50%) and low to moderate per-
centages of C2 (20%), Q (16.7%) and N (4.2%) (Dulik et al. 2012: 234, table 2).
The major diferences 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 Qirghiz (Kyrgyz) of the Tien Shan Mountains region
(Kyrgyzstan) from the Yenisei Qirghiz 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 Qirghiz
recorded in the Xin Tangshu was in all likelihood a reection of their Eurasian
Indo-European marker R1a1a1b2 (R1a-Z93), one may conjecture that the Tien
Shan Qirghiz (Kyrgyz) received their R1a1 marker from the Yenisei Qirghiz.
That is, the former are descended from the latter. The other Y-chromosome
On this point, see Semino et al. (2000: 1156: M17 or Eu19 in this article corresponds to R1a1);
Zerjal et al. (2002: 477–8, table 3: haplogroup 3 corresponds to haplogroup R1a1); Keyser
et al. (2009: 406–9); Li et al. (2010: 9–10).
The Altaians have been divided into northern and southern groups based on linguis-
tic, cultural and anthropological traits. According to genetic research, the northern
Altaians are closer to Yeniseian, Ugric and Samoyedic speakers, while the southern
Altaians are closer to their neighbouring Turkic groups. The southern Altaians and the
Tien Shan Qirghiz (Kyrgyz) share recent common ancestry with each other. The north-
ern Altaians in general exhibit relatively higher frequencies of haplogroups N and Q and
lower frequencies of C2 and R1a1 in comparison to the southern Altaians. See Dulik et al.
(2012: 234).
On this issue, see Golden (1992: 404–6). For a study that acknowledges their connection,
see Bernshtam (1962: 119–28).
According to a major study of haplogroup R1a1, the Kyrgyz mostly carry the R1a1 subclade
R1a-Z2125, a subgroup of R1a-Z93 that is rare among the Khakass. See Underhill et al. (2014:
() –
haplogroups found among the Qirghiz (Kyrgyz) are C2 (12~20%), O (0~15%)
and N (0~4.5%). The lack of haplogroup Q among the Qirghiz (Kyrgyz) most-
ly distinguishes them from the Altaians.
The Western Yugurs residing in Gansu Province, China, are descended
from the remnants of the ancient Uighurs (Golden 1992: 409). Their major
Y-chromosome haplogroups are C2 (21.2~30%), D (19.2%), O3 (34.6%), and Q
(15%). Haplogroup D is the genetic marker of the Tibetans (Shi et al. 2008: 5,
table 2), while haplogroup O3 is that of East Asians (Xue et al. 2005: table 1).
Haplogroup O3 is also found among various Mongolic and Turkic groups at
moderate frequency. The low frequency of haplogroup R1a1 (1.9~7%) among
the Western Yugurs diferentiates them from the Qirghiz (Kyrgyz) and the
Altaians.
Haplogroup C2 (formerly known as C3) reaches its highest frequency among
the Kazakhs (66~73.7% among the Kazakhs of Kazakhstan, 75.47% among
the Kazakhs of Xinjiang (Zhong et al. 2010: gure 1), 78% among the Kazakhs
of Karakalpakstan (Balaresque et al. 2015: supplementary gure 1) and 59.7%
among the Kazakhs of the Altai Republic in Russia (Dulik et al. 2011, 2–3, tables
1 & 2)), whose ancestors include the Qipchaqs and other Turkic groups, and the
Mongols, among others. However, some Kazakh tribes, divided into the Senior
Horde (Ulu Jüz), the Middle Horde (Orta Jüz), and the Lesser or Junior Horde
(Kishi Jüz), have their own representative Y-chromosome haplogroups. Among
the Naiman, belonging to the Middle Horde, haplogroups C2 and O3 are the
most common. Among the Argyn, another Middle Horde tribe, haplogroup
table S4). This means that if the Khakass are the true descendants of the Yenisei Qirghiz,
the Kyrgyz may not be the direct descendants of the latter.
See Wells et al. (2001: 10245, table 1: M17, M130, M46, M175 and 122, and M48 correspond
to haplogroup R1a1, C2, N1c1, O, and C2b1b1, respectively); Zerjal et al. (2002 474, table 3:
haplogroups 3, 10, 13, 16, and 36 correspond to haplogroups R1a1, C2, O3, N1c1, and C2b1a2,
respectively); Balaresque et al. (2015: supplementary gure 1); Di Cristofaro et al. (2013:
gure S7).
See Zhou et al. (2008: 202, gure 2); Xu & Wen (2017: 69).
For the Mongols, see e.g. Katoh et al. (2005: 66, table 1). For the Kazakhs, see e.g. Dulik
et al. (2011: 2–3, tables 1 & 2).
Wells et al. (2001: 10245, table 1: M130 and M48 correspond to haplogroup C2); Zerjal et al.
(2002: 474, table 3: haplogroups 10 and 36 correspond to haplogroup C2).
For haplogroup C2, see Zhabagin et al. (2017: table S1). For haplogroup O, see Sabitov (2013:
35). A survey shows that haplogroup O3 accounts for over 50% of the tested samples. See
haplotypes 1–41, which make up 61.2% of all tested haplotypes in Tarlykov et al. (2013: 21,
table 2). An online haplogroup predictor has been used to determine the haplogroup of
the given Naiman haplotypes.
() –
G1-M285, which is believed to have originated in West Iran, is found at high
frequency (57.7%). The Qipchaq (Karakypshak) tribe, another Middle Horde
tribe, is characterised by the R1b subclade R1b1a1a1 (R1b-M73) (63.6%). This
is a rare haplogroup that appears at moderate to high frequency only among
this Kazakh tribe and some Turkic groups of the Altai Mountains region
(35.3% among the Kumandin: Dulik et al. 2012: 234, table 2), among others.
In general, the Kazakhs are characterised by a high frequency of haplogroup
C2 and a low frequency of haplogroup R1a1, which diferentiates them from
the Qirghiz (Kyrgyz) and the southern Altaians. The Karakalpaks, a Qipchaq
Turkic-speaking people residing in western Uzbekistan, exhibit a set of hap-
logroups similar to those of the Kazakhs with relatively lower frequency of
haplogroup C2 and higher frequency of haplogroups N and R1a1: C2 (31.5%), G
(26%), R1a1 (9.26%), and N1b and N1c1 (7.4%) among the On Tört Uruw group-
ing; R1a1 (29.6%), N1b and N1c1 (22.2%), C2 (20.4%), and Q (11.1%) among the
Qonghrat grouping (Balaresque et al. 2015: supplementary gure 1).
Compared to those of Inner Asian nomadic origins, the Turkic peoples who
descend from both the nomadic and sedentary populations of the Central
Asian oasis regions, i.e. Transoxiana and the Tarim Basin (which roughly cor-
respond to modern-day Uzbekistan and southern Xinjiang, respectively), have
more diverse sets of representative haplogroups. The Xinjiang Uighurs, who
descend from both the ancient Indo-Europeans and the ancient Turkic Uighurs
(Golden 1992: 409), exhibit haplogroups R1a1 (21~28.6%), J (18.4~27%), O3
(12.2~17%), C2 (6.1~18%), and N (0~4.1%). The modern Uzbeks, who also de-
scend from the ancient Indo-European (Iranic) populations and various Inner
Asian nomadic peoples (Golden 1992: 407), including the Shibanid Uzbeks,
exhibit a set of haplogroups similar to those of the Xinjiang Uighurs: R1a1
Haplogroup G, mostly its subclade G2, is found at low frequencies in Europe, North
Africa, the Middle East and South Asia, and at high frequency in the Caucasus region. G1
is mainly found in Iran and Kazakhstan. For a detailed study of haplogroup G1-M285, see
Balanovsky et al. (2015).
Sabitov (2013: 35). A diferent subclade of R1b, haplogroup R1b1a1a2 (R1b-M269), is the
genetic marker of Western Europeans, reaching 85.4% among the Irish people. For its
distribution among diferent European populations, see Balaresque et al. (2010: table 1).
Zhou et al. (2008: 202, gure 2). See Wells et al. (2001: 10245, table 1: M17, M130, M46, M172,
M175 and 122, and M48 correspond to haplogroups R1a1, C2, N1c1, J, O, and C2b1b1, respec-
tively); and see Zerjal et al. (2002: 474, table 3: haplogroups 3, 9, 10, 13, 16, and 36 corre-
spond to haplogroups R1a1, J, C2, O3, N1c1, and C2b1b1, respectively).
The Shibanid Uzbeks were a Turkic nomadic people who conquered the Turkic and sed-
entary Iranic populations of Transoxiana at the turn of the sixteenth century. Importantly,
the Shibanid Uzbeks and the Kazakhs were one and the same people inhabiting the
() –
(17.6~32%), J (5.9~21.4%), C2 (7~18%, 41.2%), O3 (0~12%) and N (0~5.9%).
Haplogroup J is a patrilineal lineage originating in the Middle East and prob-
ably reached Central Asia with Neolithic farmers from the Middle East. As
to haplogroup R1a1 among the modern-day Uzbeks and Xinjiang Uighurs, the
extent to which it originated from the Bronze Age Indo-European pastoralists
and from the Turkic and Turkicized Inner Asian nomadic groups, respectively,
remains open to speculation. Haplogroups O3, C2, and N were in all likelihood
brought to Transoxiana by various Turkic and Mongolic peoples.
The Qipchaq Turkic-speaking Volga Tatars and the Oghuric Turkic-speaking
Chuvashes inhabiting the Volga-Ural region are characterised by high fre-
quencies of haplogroups R1a1 (20.8~34.1% and 29.5~31.6%, respectively) and
N (both N1c1 and N1b subclades) (23.1~28.3% and 27~28%, respectively) ac-
cording to some surveys. Haplogroups J (15.1% and 15.9%, respectively), I
(4~13.2% and 11.4%, respectively), and C (1.6~5.7% and 0~1.3%, respectively)
are also found among the Volga Tatars and the Chuvashes (Tromova et al.
2015: table 1; Tambets et al. 2004: 667, table 3). The Bashkirs, another Qipchaq
Turkic-speaking people of the Volga-Ural region, are also characterised by the
high presence of haplogroups N1c1 (3~65%) and R1a1 (9~48%). R1b subclades
R1b1a1a1 (R1b-M73) (0~55%) and R1b1a1a2 (R1b-M269) (0~84%), C (0~17%), J
(0~8%), and I (0~2%) also make up the genetic composition of the Bashkirs.
Kazakh Steppe prior to their division in the sixteenth century. On this point, see Lee (2016:
121–39).
This high frequency of C2 is found among an Uzbek group residing in Afghanistan. We
are inclined to think that this group is descended from the nomadic Uzbeks from the
Qipchaq Steppe (Haber et al. 2012: table S4).
See Wells et al. (2001: 10245, table 1: M17, M130, M46, M172, M175 and 122, and M48 corre-
spond to haplogroups R1a1, C2, N1c1, J, O, and C2b1b1, respectively); Zerjal et al. (2002: 474,
table 3: haplogroups 3, 9, 10, 13, 16, and 36 correspond to haplogroups R1a1, J, C2, O3, N1c1,
and C2b1b1, respectively); Haber et al. (2012: table S4). According to another recent survey,
the Uzbeks of Afghanistan exhibit R1a1 (29%), J (18%), Q (8.6%), C (4%), N (4%), R1b1a1a1
(3%), R2 (3%) and O (2.3%): see Di Cristofaro et al. (2013: gure S7).
Zerjal et al. (2002: 476–7: haplogroup 9 in corresponds to haplogroup J). On the spread of
haplogroup J to Europe from the Neolithic period, see Semino et al. (2004).
The higher frequency of haplogroup O3 among the Xinjiang Uighurs may reect the con-
tribution of Han Chinese.
As mentioned above, R1b-M269 is the genetic marker of Western Europeans, whereas
R1b-M73 is a lineage found at moderate to high frequency only among some Turkic groups
in Inner Eurasia.
64 The frequency of each haplogroup varies depending on geographic regions. R1b1a1a1 (R1b-
M73) is found at high frequency (55% and 19%) in Abzelilovsky District and Burzyansky
District, respectively, but elsewhere it is virtually absent (Lobov 2009: 15, table 5; Tromova
() –
However, it is dicult to assess the extent of the Turkic and non-Turkic genetic
contributions to these groups with the given data. In the surveys discussed
above, haplogroup R1a1 has not been classied into its subclade R1a1a1b1a
(R1a-Z282), which prevails among East Slavs, and subclade R1a1a1b2 (R1a-Z93),
which spread across Eurasia by the Bronze Age Indo-European (Iranic) pasto-
ralists and is carried by various modern-day Turkic groups. One should also
note that haplogroup N, found among the Turkic peoples of the Volga-Ural re-
gion and Central Asia, has ‘a common Siberian genetic background of Finno-
Ugric and Turkic tribes’ (Khusnutdinova et al. 2008: 378).
Unlike the Turkic peoples of Kazakhstan, Tatarstan and Bashkortostan,
who speak the Qipchaq Turkic language, the Turkmens, the Azeris and the
Anatolian Turks speak the Oghuz Turkic languages. The Turkmens descend
from the Oghuz, a Turkic nomadic group that inhabited the Aral Sea and
Caspian Sea steppes during the ninth and tenth centuries . The founders
of the Seljuk and Ottoman empires belonged to this Turkic group. According
to testing of the Turkmens living in (Jawzjan) Afghanistan and north-
ern Iran, they belong to haplogroups Q (33.8~42.6%), J (14.3~17.6%), R1a1
(14.5~16.2%), L (4~5.8%), G (4~5.7%), N and O (2.9~9.45%), E (4.3~5.4%),
et al. 2015: table 1). The Y-chromosomes of the Crimean Tatars have not been studied in
detail. However, according to a survey, the Crimean Tatars residing in Uzbekistan exhibit
haplogroups I (5%), J (14%), R1a1 (32%), C (9%) and O (10%) (Wells et al. 2001: 10245, table
1: M17, M130, M46, M172, M175 and 122, and M48 correspond to haplogroup R1a1, C2, N1c1,
J, O and C2b1b1, respectively). According to Brian Glyn Williams (2001), most Crimean
Tatars of today descend from indigenous sedentary elements. While the nomadic Tatars
were closer to the Kazakhs in terms of physiognomy and spoke a Qipchaq Turkic dialect,
the sedentary elements in the Crimea, who descend from ancient Goths, Greeks, Italians,
Armenians and Alans, among others, exhibit West Eurasian physiognomy and speak a
mixed Turkic or an Oghuz Turkic dialect like the Turks of Anatolia. According to another
study, some Tatars of Mokhshi, the present-day Narovchat village in Penza Region, belong
to haplogroups J, L and Q (Sabitov & kchurin 2014: 5–13). Haplogroup L is mainly con-
centrated in South Asia.
65 As a matter of fact, according to the study of R1a1 by Underhill et al, the Tatars of
Bashkortostan and the Chuvashes do not carry R1a1a1b2 (R1a-Z93) at all. Concerning the
Tatars of Tatarstan, 64% of their R1a1 belong to R1a1a1b1a (R1a-Z282). See Underhill et al.
(2014: table S4). This implies that the source population of the Tatar and Chuvash R1a1 is
East Slavs.
66 It has been suggested that the Turkmens were formed from the Turkic groups who inter-
mixed with the Iranic peoples of Central Asia. See Barthold (1962: 80–81); Agadzhanov &
Karryev (1978: 171).
Haplogroup L is a South Asian lineage, found at signicant frequencies in South Asia, but
at low frequencies in the Middle East, Europe and Central Asia. For its frequency in India
and elsewhere, see Sengupta et al. (2006: tables 5, 6 & 7).
() –
and C (0~1.35%) (Grugni et al. 2012: 7, table 1; Di Cristofaro et al. 2013: 5–7, gure
S7). While one may attribute Inner Asian origin to haplogroups Q, N, C, and O,
it is dicult to determine to what extent haplogroup R1a1 (R1a-Z93) is from
Inner Asia, since it is also carried by Iranic-speaking peoples such as modern
Iranians (Persians) (4.5~20.3%) (Grugni et al. 2012: 7, table 1) and Pashtuns
(51.2~56.3%) (Di Cristofaro et al. 2013: 5–7, gure S7; Haber et al. 2012: table
S4). At any rate, haplogroup Q also dominates the gene pool of the Turkmens
living in Uzbekistan (Karakalpakstan). More specically, the Turkmens mostly
belonging to the Yomud tribe exhibit haplogroups Q (73%), H (7%), R1b1a1a1
(R1b-M73) (5%), R1a1 (4%), G2 (4%), N (2~4%), J (2~4%), and C2 (1~2%)
(Skhalyakho et al. 2016: 88). Therefore, one may assume that haplogroup Q is
the most prevalent lineage among the Turkmens.
Finally, the Turks of the Republic of Turkey, a successor state to the Ottoman
empire, show the highest haplogroup diversity according to an extensive sur-
vey of Anatolian Turkish Y-chromosome variation. Their major haplogroups
are those common in the Near East and Europe (Cinnioğlu et al. 2004: 130, g-
ure 2): J (33.5%), R1b (15.86%, including R1b-M73, which makes up 0.76% of
the Turkish R1b) (Cinnioğlu et al. 2004: 130), E (11.3%), G (10.9%), R1a1 (6.9%), I
(5.3%) and L (4.2%). Haplogroups I, more specically its subclade I2 (formerly
I1b), is most common in the Balkans, reaching its highest incidences among the
Croats and Bosnians. Importantly, haplogroups N (3.8%), Q (1.9%), C (1.3%),
and O (0.2%), which must have come from or via Central and Inner Asia, make
up less than 10% of the total population (Cinnioğlu et al. 2004: 135). The
One should note that among the Turkmen tribes, the Tekke, for instance, are of (captive)
Iranian origin. See Golden (1992: 400).
Haplogroup H is a South Asian lineage, found at signicant frequencies in South Asia.
Interestingly, another survey reveals that the Turkmens living in Karakalpakstan are
characterised by high presence of haplogroup R1a1 (72.5%) and minimal or non-exis-
tence of haplogroups N (3.9%) and Q (0%) (Balaresque et al. 2015: supplementary gure
1). A survey of the Afshar Turkmen villagers in Turkey ofers a diferent picture of the
Turkmen haplogroups. They are as follows: L (57%), J (13%), Q (13%), E (10%) and N (3%)
(Gökçümen 2008: 125–9). In another Turkish village, the frequency of haplogroup N is
23% (Gökçümen 2008: 134).
The most common Turkish I subclade is I2 (formerly I1b) (Cinnioğlu et al. 2004: 134). For
the frequencies of I2 in the Balkans, see Rootsi et al. (2004: 130, table 1).
According to the study of R1a1 by Underhill et al, about 57% and 43% of the Turkish R1a1
belong to R1a1a1b2 (R1a-Z93) and R1a1a1b1a (R1a-Z282), respectively. See Underhill et al.
(2014: table S4). One should note that many of the Turkish men belonging to R1a1a1b2
(R1a-Z93), as well as haplogroup J, may be of Central Asian origin. Then the Central and
Inner Asian contribution to the modern Turkish gene pool may be greater than suggested
in Cinnioğlu et al.’s study. According to an admixture analysis of modern-day Anatolian
Turks, Central Asian male contribution to the Turkish gene pool is 13% (see Berkman &
() –
Y-chromosome haplogroup composition of another Oghuz Turkic-speaking
nation, the Azeris, is somewhat similar to that of the Anatolian Turks: J (31%),
G (mostly G2) (18%), and E (6%) (Nasidze et al. 2003: table 2). The same holds
true for that of the Azeris of northeastern Iran: J (27.2%), R1a1 (19.0%), R1b
(17.5%), E (11.1%), G2 (8%), T (7.9%), Q (4.8%), and N (1.6%) (Grugni et al.
2012: table 1).
In sum, although they share certain haplogroups, modern Turkic popula-
tions exhibit dissimilar sets of Y-chromosome haplogroups with diferent rep-
resentative haplogroups. The most prevalent haplogroups among diferent
Turkic peoples are as follows: (1) N1c1 among the Sakhas residing in northeast-
ern Siberia; (2) N (both N1b and N1c1), C2, Q, and R1a1 among the Tuvinians
residing in the Sayan Mountains region; (3) R1a1 and C2 among the southern
Altaians and the Qirghiz (Kyrgyz) from the Altai Mountains and the Tien Shan
Mountains regions, respectively; (4) N and R1a1 among the Khakass from the
Yenisei River regions; (5) R1a1 (mainly R1a-Z282), N, R1b (mainly R1b-M269), J,
and I among the Turkic peoples of the Volga-Ural region; (6) R1a1, J, O3, and
C2 among the Xinjiang Uighurs and the Uzbeks residing in the Central Asian
oasis regions; (7) C2, O3, and G1 among the Kazakhs residing in the Inner
Asian steppes; (8) Q, J, and R1a1 among various Turkmen groups; (9) J, R1b (R1b-
M269), E, and G2 among the Turks and the Azeris residing in Anatolia and the
Caucasus region, respectively. Such diversity implies that the Turkic peoples
living in diferent regions have heterogeneous paternal origins and that they
include linguistically Turkicised indigenous elements. This also indicates that
the Turkicisation of many areas of Eurasia did not necessarily involve mass
migrations of Turkic peoples.
Analysis of Ancient
Importantly, studies of ancient extracted from human skeletal remains
reveal that the early and medieval Turkic-speaking peoples also possessed di-
verse sets of haplogroups. analysis of the remains of 62 specimens exca-
vated from a Xiongnu elite cemetery in the Egyin Gol valley reveals that the
Xiongnu possessed haplogroups N1c1, Q, and C (Petkovski 2006: 114, 138–40).
Togan 2009: 2344–5). A study of autosomal chromosomes shows that Central Asian con-
tribution ranges from 9% to 15% (see Hodoğlugil & Mahley 2012: 138–9).
Haplogroup T is a rare but geographically widespread lineage observed in the Middle
East, Europe, India and East Africa.
74 For haplogroup N1c1, see Keyser-Tracqui et al. (2004: 326). Analysis of the mitochondrial
, which is maternally inherited, shows that the Xiongnu remains from this Egyin
Gol necropolis consist mainly of Asian lineages (89%). West Eurasian lineages make
() –
According to the study of three human remains from another Xiongnu
cemetery in Duurlig Nars in northeastern Mongolia, one specimen belonged to
haplogroup C and the other to haplogroup R1a1 (Kim et al. 2010). Interestingly,
the Chinese geneticists who studied the in the human remains from the
pre-Xiongnu and Xiongnu periods conclude that haplogroup Q was the major
Xiongnu lineage: four male samples from the Eastern Zhou period (770–221 )
buried in Pengyang, China, carry haplogroup Q (Zhao et al. 2010: 218). However,
the authors do not clearly state that these samples were Xiongnu. Another
Chinese study found only haplogroup Q among the human remains from
Barköl, Xinjiang, China. The authors of this Chinese study suggest that the
Xiongnu spoke a Yeniseian language, since haplogroup Q is mostly found in
Yeniseian and Native American peoples (Kang et al. 2013). If the samples
studied by the Chinese geneticists are indeed Xiongnu remains, it appears that
haplogroups C and Q were the most common Xiongnu patrilineal lineages.
While it may be safe to assume that haplogroup R1a1 was not a major
Xiongnu lineage, it probably constituted the majority of the nomads residing
in the Altai Mountains during the Bronze Age. A study of 14 human specimens
excavated in the westernmost Mongolian Altai Mountains shows that the
Bronze Age nomads of the Altai Mountains belonged to haplogroups R1a1a1b2
(R1a-Z93) (44.45%), Q subclade Q1a2a1-L54 (44.45%) and C (11.12%) (Hollard
et al. 2014: 201, table 1).
One should note here that the above-discussed genetic makeup of the
Xiongnu and their neighbouring Altaian nomads, who were probably incorpo-
rated into the Xiongnu confederation, corroborates the Xiongnu phenotypical
characteristics depicted in Chinese histories. It is likely that the Inner Asian-
looking Xiongnu mostly belonged to Y-chromosome haplogroups C2, Q, and
N, while the West Eurasian-looking Jie probably belonged to Y-chromosome
up the rest (11%) (Keyser-Tracqui et al. (2003: 258). However, according to a more recent
study of ancient human remains from central Mongolia, the Xiongnu population in cen-
tral Mongolia possessed a higher frequency of western mitochondrial haplotypes
(37.5%) than the Xiongnu from the Egyin Gol necropolis (Rogers 2016: 78).
75 Kwang-Ho Lee, one of the main Korean authors of this work, commented in an interview
that the carrier of haplogroup R1a1 was a slave buried with his Xiongnu master. The same
author also revealed in another work published in Korean that haplogroups C (30%) and
O (33.3%) are the two major lineages to which the Xiongnu skeletons he studied belong
(Lee 2006: 129).
76 The Kets, who speak a Yeniseian language, exhibit the highest frequency of haplogroup Q
(93.7%) in Eurasia (Tambets et al. 2004: 667, table 3).
77 Analysis of mitochondrial shows that the ancient Altaian samples carried both West
and East Eurasian matrilineal lineages (Hollard et al. 2014: 203).
() –
haplogroup R1a1. Alternatively, if the Jie, ‘a separate branch of the Xiongnu’,
who founded the Later Zhao Dynasty (319–351 ), were indeed a Yeniseian-
speaking people, they may have been carriers of haplogroup Q and resembled
modern-day Kets of Siberia.
During the Bronze Age and early Iron Age, the Yenisei River region was in-
habited by Indo-Europeans. The study of 26 ancient human specimens
from the Krasnoyarsk area dated from the middle of the second millennium
to the fourth century shows that the Yenisei pastoralists mostly belonged
to haplogroup R1a1 (Keyser et al. 2009: 401, table 3). The high frequency of R1a1
among the modern-day Qirghiz (Kyrgyz) and Altaians may thus prove that
they are descended from the Yenisei Qirghiz. In addition, this may explain the
reason why medieval Chinese histories depict the Qirghiz as possessing West
Eurasian physiognomy.
The medieval Sakhas were characterised by haplogroup N1c1 like their mod-
ern descendants. The analysis of the Y-chromosome extracted from 58
mummied frozen bodies dating from the fteenth to the nineteenth centu-
ries shows that haplogroup N1c1 accounts for 61% of the Sakha male samples
(38% of the samples were unidentiable. See Crubézy et al. 2010: 2). This indi-
cates that the Turkic nomads inhabiting the west Baikal region around the
fteenth century and earlier were also characterised by haplogroup N, per-
haps like modern-day Tuvinians. If the Sakhas are indeed descended from the
Quriqan, a Tiele tribe, it may be that the ocial Chinese histories diferenti-
ated between the Yenisei Qirghiz and the Dingling/Tiele because the two were
distinct peoples, perhaps characterised by haplogroup R1a1 and haplogroup N,
repectively.
In turn, the Inner Asian physiognomy of the modern-day Qirghiz (Tien Shan Kyrgyz) may
be explained by their moderate frequency of Y-chromosome haploroups C2 (about 20%)
and N and their high frequencies of East Eurasian mitochondrial haplogroups (over
70%). The same may hold true for the modern Khakass, who are also considered to be
the descendants of the Yenisei Qirghiz. As discussed above, they exhibit high frequencies
of Y-chromosome haplogroup N (about 50%) and East Asian mitochondrial hap-
logroups (75.8%). For the Qirghiz, see Comas et al. (2004: 498, table 1); for the Khakass, see
Zakharov et al. (2004: 24, tables 1 & 2).
It has even been suggested that the Sakhas left their original area of settlement in the
Baikal region due to Mongol pressure: see Pakendorf et al. (2006: 350).
As high as 50% of the medieval Magyars belonged to haplogroup N1c1, according to a
Hungarian study of the extracted from tenth-century Magyar skeletons. Although
the Magyars were Ugric not Turkic, the fact that they were carriers of N1c1 shows that
N1c1 was one of the major Y-chromosome haplogroups of the horse-riding peoples of the
Eurasian steppes. For the Magyar N1c1, see Csányi et al. (2008: 526).
() –
The Y-chromosomes of the Kök Türks have not been studied. After the col-
lapse of the Second Türk Khaganate in 745 , the Kök Türks became dispersed
and it is dicult to identify their modern descendants. If they were indeed
descended from the Saka (Suo) or related to the Qirghiz, as the Zhoushu states
(Zhoushu 50.908), the Ashina may have belonged to the R1a1 lineage. Instead,
if the Kök Türks were related to the Muma Tujue (Türks), the former may have
been genetically close to the ancestors of modern Tuvinians and characterised
by high frequencies of haplogroups N, C2 and Q. As a matter of fact, Chinese
geneticists tested the extracted from the remains of a Yuan nobleman,
who was probably an Önggüt prince. The Y-chromosome haplogroup of this
person was Q (Cui et al. 2015: 3, 5–8). Since the Önggüt were probably descend-
ed from the Western Türks through the Shatuo tribe, as discussed above, one
may speculate that haplogroup Q was one of the Y-chromosome haplogroups
carried by the Western Türks.
Like the Kök Türks, the Y-chromosomes of the Tiele or the ancient Uighurs
have not been tested. Yet we may perhaps infer their genetic markers from the
testing of the medieval Sakhas, modern-day Western Yugurs, Naimans
and Buryats. As discussed above, the Western Yugurs and Naimans are the de-
scendants of the ancient Uighurs and are characterised by moderate to high
frequencies of haplogroups C2, O3, and Q and by the absence, or a low fre-
quency, of haplogroup R1a1. The Buryats are viewed by some historians as (at
least partly) descending from the Quriqan (e.g. Tokarev 1962: 106–7), a Tiele
tribe, like the Sakhas, and are characterised by the high frequencies of hap-
logroups C2 (40%) and N (48%) (Kharkov et al. 2014: 183, table 1). If the Western
Yugurs, Naimans, Sakhas, and Buryats, along with the Tuvinians, are the mod-
ern descendants of the medieval Tiele, one may assume that the Tiele (or at
least the Tiele who resided in Mongolia) were carriers of haplogroups C2, N,
O3, and Q, among others.
The mitochondrial extracted from the remains of the Qipchaqs
(Cumanians) has been tested by Hungarian geneticists. Interestingly, their
study reveals that the Qipchaqs possessed West Eurasian mitochondrial
lineages, even though analysis of their skulls shows that the Qipchaq speci-
mens possessed Inner Asian physiognomy (Bogácsi-Szabó et al. 2005: 642,
658). The Y-chromosomes of the Qipchaq specimens were not tested in this
study. However, the Y-chromosome haplogroup of the medieval Qipchaqs may
be inferred from those of their modern descendants among the Kazakhs. As
discussed above, the Qipchaq (Karakypshak) tribe belonging to the Kazakh
Middle Horde is characterised by a high frequency of R1b1a1a1 (R1b-M73)
(Sabitov 2013: 35). This may be the reason why the Zizhi tongjian houbian de-
scribed the medieval Qipchaqs (Qincha 欽察) as possessing ‘blue eyes and
() –
red hair’ (Zizhi tongjian houbian, chapter 141). Alternatively, we may assume
that the modern descendants of the Qipchaqs are the western Kazakhs, be-
longing to the Lesser Horde, who are characterised by a high frequency of C2
subclade C2b1b1 (formerly known as C3c1). This haplogroup may explain why
the Qipchaq crania excavated from the kurgans (burial mounds) of eastern
Ukraine possess Inner Asian physiognomy (Oshanin 1964: 24, 32).
The major Y-chromosome haplogroups of the medieval Turkmens may also
be inferred from those of their modern descendants, which are haplogroups Q,
R1a1, J and N, among others. The presence of haplogroups R1a1 and J among the
Turkmens may explain the reason why the medieval Turkmens were described
as having lost their original Turkic physiognomy and as becoming Tajik-
looking, i.e., sedentary Iranian-looking, by Muslim writers. At the same time,
haplogroups Q and N may explain why al-Masūdī wrote that the Oghuz Turks
residing in Yengi-kent had ‘slanted eyes’ and ‘dimunitive stature’ (al-Masūdī
1962–: Vol. 1:212).
In sum, like the modern-day Turkic peoples, the Xiongnu (who had hap-
logroups C2, Q, N and R1a1), the Sakhas (characterised by haplogroup N),
the Yenisei Qirghiz (characterised by haplogroup R1a1), the Tiele (who had
haplogroups C2, N, O3, and Q, among others), the Turkmens (who had hap-
logroups Q, J, R1a1 and N), and the Qipchaqs (who probably had haplogroup
R1b1a1a1 (R1b-M73) and C2, among others) possessed diferent representative
haplogroups and exhibited dissimilar haplogroup compositions. It is therefore
likely that the early and medieval Turkic peoples themselves did not form a
homogeneous entity and that some of them, non-Turkic by origin, had be-
come Turkicised at some point in history. Accordingly, one may also suggest
that many of the modern Turkic-speaking populations, who exhibit more di-
verse haplogroup compositions, are not direct descendants of the early Turkic
peoples (Table 3).
On a nal note, one should remember that medieval Chinese historians did
not classify the Inner Asian tribes into Turkic-speaking and Mongolic-speaking
groups. Likewise, Muslim writers generally viewed the Mongols and other non-
Turkic Inner Asian tribes as a branch of Turks. Genetic studies corroborate the
fact that drawing a clear line between the historical Mongolic peoples and the
Turkic peoples is unrealistic, since the two shared such haplogroups as C2, N,
Q, O3 and even R1a1. The geneticists who analysed the of the Xiongnu
specimens from the Egyin Gol necropolis and that of modern Mongolians sug-
gest that ‘the impact of the succession of Turkic and Mongolian confederations
on the territory of the current Mongolia was a cultural or linguistic process
rather than a migratory and/or genetic one’ (Keyser-Tracqui et al. 2006: 279).
Similarly, a comparative study of the autosomal of the Mongols and the
Tsaatan, a Turkic people residing in northern Mongolia, also concludes that
() –
the two, along with the Sakhas, form the same cluster and are genetically dis-
tinct from other world populations (Brissenden et al. 2015: 82). Finally, an ex-
tensive study of the genetic legacy of the Turkic nomads across Eurasia based
on autosomal analysis reveals that the source populations for the Turkic
nomads who spread ‘Asian genes’ to non-Turkic peoples were (the ancestors of
modern-day) Tuvinians, Mongols and Buryats, despite the fact that the latter
two are Mongolic (Yunusbayev et al. 2015). In sum, one should note that the
early eastern Turkic peoples were in all likelihood genetically closer to their
Russian physical anthropologists have already noted that the Xiongnu and Kök Türks,
among others, spread the ‘Mongoloid’ phenotype to Central Asia and beyond: see
Oshanin (1964: 16–25).
Ancient The - haplogroups of their possible modern
descendants
Xiongnu C, N, Q, and Ra,
among others
Sakha N
Dingling/Tiele/
Uighurs
C, N, O, Q, among others (if their modern
descendants are Western Yugurs, Naimans,
Tuvinians, Sakhas, and Buryats, among others)
Kök Türks Ra (if they were related to Yenisei Qirghiz)
Q, among others (if their descendants were
Önggüt)
N and C, among others (if their descendants
are/were Tuvinians/Muma Tujue (Türks))
Yenisei Qirghiz Ra (the Yenisei
Indo-European
pastoralists)
Ra (Tien Shan Qirghiz)
Önggüt Q, among others
Naiman C and O, among others
Qipchaqs Rb, among others (if their modern descen-
dants are the Kazakh Kypshak tribe)
C, among others (if their modern descen-
dants are the Kazakhs)
Turkmens Q, J, Ra, and N, among others
The - haplogroups of early and medieval Turkic peoples
() –
neighbouring Mongolic peoples than to various later Turkic peoles of central
and western Eurasia.
Conclusion
In this article, we conducted a comparative analysis of textual information
provided in Chinese histories and genetic survey data on the origins, identi-
ty and physiognomy of the early and medieval Turkic peoples. As discussed
above, the ocial Chinese histories do not view the Turkic peoples such as the
Tiele/Uighur, Kök Türks (Tujue) and Qirghiz as belonging to a single uniform
entity called ‘Turks’. Instead, they describe them as forming separate identi-
ties. The Chinese histories also depict the Turkic-speaking peoples as typically
possessing East/Inner Asian physiognomy, as well as occasionally having West
Eurasian physiognomy. studies corroborate such characterisation of the
Turkic peoples. While it is true that insucient amounts of ancient sam-
ples have been studied, one may still infer from the given genetic data that the
early and medieval Turkic peoples possessed dissimilar sets of Y-chromosome
haplogroups with diferent representative haplogroups, some of which were of
West Eurasian origin. This means that the various Turkic peoples did not have
a common patrilineal origin or uniform physiognomy. Notably, the Xiongnu
themselves, whether they were a Turkic-speaking entity or not, were a hybrid
We are not arguing that certain - haplogroups necessarily correlate to certain physi-
ognomies. Y chromosome is simply one of the two gender-determining chromosomes.
For instance, we are aware that even though both indigenous Australians and modern-
day Mongols are characterised by a high frequency of haplogroup C, the two groups do
not share common phenotypes. The physical traits of a certain people can change due to
the inuence of the environment in the long term and its intermixture with other ethnic
groups. However, a correlation can be observed between certain - haplogroups and
certain phenotypes during the formative period of the Turkic peoples in eastern Inner
Eurasia. In general, prior to their intermixture with indigenous peoples of eastern Inner
Asia, the carriers of West Eurasian - haplogroups (such as R1a1 and R1b) possessed
West Eurasian physiognomy, whereas the carriers of East/Inner Eurasian - hap-
logroups possessed East/Inner Eurasian physiognomy. It should be noted that, while a
medieval Turkic-speaking group possessing both West Eurasian - haplogroups and
East Eurasian mitochondrial haplogroups as the result of intermixture could have exhib-
ited ‘Inner Asian’ physiognomy, like modern-day Qirghiz and Altaians, it is highly unlikely
that the peoples (not individuals) described as being ‘blue-eyed and red-haired’ in the
Chinese histories were carriers of East/Inner Eurasian - haplogroups.
() –
people composed of carriers of both East and Inner Eurasian haplogroups C2,
N, and Q and West Eurasian haplogroup R1a1.
The analysis of genetic survey data on the Turkic peoples also allows us to
speculate on the Turkic Urheimat. We suggest that it was a geographical re-
gion where the carriers of haplogroups C2, N, Q and R1a1 could intermix, since
these haplogroups are carried by various past and modern-day Turkic peoples
in eastern Inner Asia and the Xiongnu. It has been suggested that the early
Turkic peoples probably had contact with Indo-European, Uralic, Yeniseian,
and Mongolic groups in their formative period (Golden 2006: 139). As non-
linguists, we are unqualied to discuss the origin of the Turkic languages.
However, drawing on the ndings of studies, we are inclined to think that
certain similarities that exist between the Turkic languages and the Mongolic,
Tungusic and Uralic languages are at least partly associated with haplogroups
C2 and N, among others. More specically, we conjecture that the Turkic lan-
guages came into existence as a result of the fusion of Uralic groups (charac-
terized by a high frequency of haplogroup N subclades) and Proto-Mongolic
groups (characterized by a high frequency of haplogroup C2) who also merged
with other linguistic groups, including Yeniseian speakers (characterized by
a high frequency of haplogroup Q like the Kets) and Indo-European speak-
ers (characterized by a high frequency of haplogroups R1a1). The best can-
didate for the Turkic Urheimat would then be northern and western Mongolia
and Tuva, where all these haplogroups could have intermingled, rather than
eastern and southern Mongolia or the Yenisei River and the Altai Mountains
regions in Russia.
Finally, we suggest that the Turkicisation of central and western Eurasia was
the product of multiple processes of language difusion that involved not
It is unlikely that the early Turkic speakers were characterised by a high frequency of hap-
logroup R1a1a1b2 (R1a-Z93), since the earliest carriers of this haplogroup in South Siberia
and Central Asia were Indo-European speakers. It was the carriers of haplogroup R1a1a1b2
who also spread the Indo-European language to South Asia and Iran. Therefore, one may
assume that an R1a1a1b2 dominant group were not the earliest Turkic speakers.
For a discussion of the Turkic Urheimat, see Golden (2006: 138–40).
This also implies that conquest and empire-building activities by various Turkic peoples
did not play a signicant role in the difusion of genes. The prevalence of indigenous
- haplogroups among the Turkic populations in central and western Inner Eurasia,
as shown in this work, clearly indicates this phenomenon. As a matter of fact, even the
Mongol empire, which is the most successful Inner Asian nomadic empire in history,
did not difuse haplogroup C2, the most common Mongol lineage, widely throughout its
realm. The famous Y-Chromosome haplotype dubbed ‘star cluster’, which is associated
with Chinggis Khan’s lineage, is also found at a noticeable frequency only among some
() –
only originally Turkic-speaking groups, but also Turkicised (Indo-European)
groups. That is, the earliest Turkic groups rst Turkicised some non-Turkic
groups residing in Mongolia and beyond. Then both Turkic and ‘Turkicised’
groups Turkicised non-Turkic tribes (who were mostly carriers of haplogroups
R1a1) residing in the Kazakh steppes and beyond. Through multiple processes,
including the Mongol conquest, the members of the extended Turkic entity
spread the Turkic languages across Eurasia. They Turkicised various non-
Turkic peoples of central and western Eurasia, including those in the Central
Asian oases (who were carriers of haplogroups R1a1 and J, among others).
Importantly, the Turkmens, who were themselves made up of both original
Turkic and Turkicised elements (carriers of haplogroups Q, J, R1a1 and N,
among others), reached Anatolia and Turkicised the local populations carry-
ing haplogroups J, R1b, G, E, R1a1 and T, among others, who have now become
‘Turks’.
Acknowledgement
We express our heartfelt gratitude to our University of Toronto colleague
Maryna Kravets for her indispensable feedback on this project.
References
Beishi = Li Yanshou (2003).
Hanshu = Ban Gu (1962).
Jinshu = Fang Xuanling (1974).
Jiu Tangshu = Liu Xu (2002).
Shiji = Sima Qian (2003).
Suishu = Wei Zheng (2008).
Weishu = Wei Shou (2003).
Xin Tangshu = Ouyang Xiu & Song Qi (2003).
Xin Wudaishi = Ouyang Xiu (1974).
Yuanshi = Song Lian (2005).
Zhoushu = Linghu Defen (2003).
Zizhi tongjian houbian = Xu Qianxue (..)
peoples of nomadic origin. For this haplotype, see Zerjal et al. (2003: 717–21). In all likeli-
hood, the same may hold true for the Kök Türk empire.
() –
Abd al-ayy ibn Zaāk Gardīzī. [1363] 1984. Tārīkh-i Gardīzī, tālīf-i Abū Saīd Abd
al-ayy ibn al-Zaāk ibn Mamūd Gardīzī; bi-taī va tashīyah va talīq-i Abd
al-ayy abībī (ed. Abd al-ayy abībī). Tehran: Dunyā-i Kitāb.
Alā al-Dīn Aā Malik Juvaynī. 1958. The History of the World-Conqueror (ed. & trans.
J.A. Boyle). Cambridge (): Harvard University Press.
Aboul-Ghâzi Béhâdour Khân. [1871–1874] 1970. Histoire des Mongols et des Tatares (ed.
& trans. Petr I. Desmaisons). Amsterdam: Philo.
Abu-l-Gazi. 1958. Rodoslovnaya turkmen: Sochineniye Abu-l-Gazi khana khivinskogo
[The genealogy of the Turkmens: The work of Abu-l-Gazi, the khan of Khiva] (ed. &
trans. A.N. Kononov). Moscow/Leningrad: Izd-vo Akademii nauk .
Agadzhanov, S.G. & A. Karryev. 1978. Some basic problems of the ethnogenesis of the
Turkmen, in W. Weissleder (ed.), The Nomadic Alternative: Modes and models of
interaction in the African-Asian deserts and steppes: 167–77. The Hague: Mouton.
al-Masūdī. 1962–. Les prairies d’or (trans. C. Barbier de Meynard et Pavet de Courteille).
Paris: Société asiatique.
Balanovsky, O., M. Zhabagin, A. Agdzhoyan, et al. 2015. Deep phylogenetic analysis of
haplogroup G1 provides estimates of and mutation rates on the human
Y chromosome and reveals migrations of Iranic speakers. PLoS One 10(4): e.0122968.
Balanovsky, O., S. Rootsi, A. Pshenichnov, et al. 2008. Two sources of the Russian patri-
lineal heritage in their Eurasian context. American Journal of Human Genetics 82(1):
236–50.
Balaresque, P., G.R. Bowden, S.M. Adams, et al. 2010. A predominantly Neolithic origin
for European paternal lineages. PLoS Biol 8(1): e1000285.
Balaresque, P., N. Poulet, S. Cussat-Blanc, et al. 2015. Y-chromosome descent clusters
and male diferential reproductive success: young lineage expansions dominate
Asian pastoral nomadic populations. European Journal of Human Genetics 23:
1413–22.
Ban Gu 班固. 1962. Hanshu 漢書 [History of the Han Dynasty]. Beijing: Zhonghua
shuju.
Barthold, V.V. 1962. Four Studies on the History of Central Asia. Vol. 3, Mīr ‘Alī-Shīr. A
History of the Turkman People (trans. V. Minorsky & T. Minorsky). Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Berkman, C.C. & İ. Togan. 2009. The Asian contribution to the Turkish population with
respect to the Balkans: Y-chromosome perspective. Discrete Applied Mathematics
157(10): 2341–8.
Bernshtam, A. 1962. On the origin of the Kirgiz people, in H.N. Michael (ed.), Studies in
Siberian Ethnogenesis: 119–43. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Bogácsi-Szabó, E., T. Kalmár, B. Csányi, et al. 2005. Mitochondrial of ancient
Cumanians: culturally Asian steppe nomadic immigrants with substantially more
western Eurasian mitochondrial lineages. Human Biology 77(5): 639–62.
() –
Bretschneider, E. 1876. Notices of the Mediæval Geography and History of Central and
Western Asia: Drawn from Chinese and Mongol writings and compared with the obser-
vations of western authors in the Middle Ages. London: Trübner & Co.
Brissenden, J.E., J.R. Kidd, B. Evsanaa, et al. 2015. Mongolians in the genetic landscape
of Central Asia: exploring the genetic relations among Mongolians and other world
populations. Human Biology 87(2): 73–91.
Canby, S.R., D. Beyazit, M. Rugiadi & A.C.S. Peacock. 2016. Court and Cosmos: The Great
Age of the Seljuqs. New York (): Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Chiaroni, J., P.A. Underhill & L.L. Cavalli-Sforza. 2009. Y chromosome diversity, human
expansion, drift, and cultural evolution. 106(48): 20174–9.
Cinnioğlu, C., R. King, T. Kivisild, et al. 2004. Excavating Y-chromosome haplotype
strata in Anatolia. Human Genetics 114(2): 127–48.
Comas, D., S. Plaza, R.S. Wells, et al. 2004. Admixture, migrations, and dispersals in
Central Asia: evidence from maternal lineages. European Journal of Human
Genetics 12(6): 495–504.
Crubézy, E., S. Amory, C. Keyser, et al. 2010. Human evolution in Siberia: from frozen
bodies to ancient . Evolutionary Biology 10. doi: 10.1186/1471–2148–10–25.
Csányi, B., E. Bogácsi-Szabó, G. Tömöry, et al. 2008. Y-chromosome analysis of ancient
Hungarian and two modern Hungarian-speaking populations from the Carpathian
Basin. Annals of Human Genetics 72(4): 519–34.
Cui, Y., L. Song, D. Wei, et al. 2015. Identication of kinship and occupant status in
Mongolian noble burials of the Yuan dynasty through a multidisciplinary approach.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, series B, Biological Sciences
370(1660). doi: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0378.
Derenko, M., B. Malyarchuk, G.A. Denisova, et al. 2006. Contrasting patterns of Y-chro-
mosome variation in south Siberian populations from Baikal and Altai-Sayan
regions. Human Genetics 118(5): 591–604.
Derenko, M.V., B.A. Mallarchuk, M. Wozniak, et al. 2007. Distribution of the male lin-
eages of Genghis Khan’s descendants in northern Eurasian populations. Russian
Journal of Genetics 43(3): 334–7.
Derenko, M.V., T. Grzybowski, B.A. Malyarchuk, et al. 2003. Diversity of mitochondrial
lineages in south Siberia. Annals of Human Genetics 67: 391–411.
Di Cristofaro, J., E. Pennarun, S. Mazières, et al. 2013. Afghan Hindu Kush: where Eur-
asian sub-continent gene ows converge. PLoS One 8(10): e76748.
Drompp, M.R. 1999. Breaking the Orkhon tradition: Kirghiz adherence to the Yenisei
Region after A.D. 840. Journal of the American Oriental Society 119(3): 390–403.
Duan Chengshi 段成式. You yang za zu 酉陽雜俎 [Miscellany of Youyang], chapter 4.
https://archive.org/stream/06047413.cn#page/n120/mode/2up (accessed 14 July 2017).
Dulik, M.C., L.P. Osipova & T.G. Schurr. 2011. Y-chromosome variation in Altaian
Kazakhs reveals a common paternal gene pool for Kazakhs and the inuence of
Mongolian expansions. PLoS One 6(3): e17548.
() –
Dulik, M.C., S.I. Zhadanov, L.P. Osipova, et al. 2012. Mitochondrial and Y chromo-
some variation provides evidence for a recent common ancestry between Native
Americans and Indigenous Altaians. American Journal of Human Genetics 90(3):
229–46.
Fang Xuanling 房玄齡. 1974. Jinshu 晉書 [Book of the Jin Dynasty]. Beijing: Zhonghua
shuju.
Fleischer, C.H. 1986. Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire: The historian
Mustafa Âli (1541–1600). Princeton (): Princeton University Press.
Frye, R.N. 1949. A new Arabic geographical manuscript. Journal of Near Eastern Studies
8(2): 90–98.
Gökçümen, Ö. 2008. Ethnohistorical and Genetic Survey of Four Central Anatolian
Settlements. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Golden, P.B. 1988. Cumanica : The Ölberli (Ölperli): the fortunes and misfortunes of
an Inner Asian nomadic clan. Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 4: 5–29.
Golden, P.B. 1992. An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples: Ethnogenesis and
state formation in Medieval and Early Modern Eurasia and the Middle East. Wies-
baden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Golden, P.B. 2006. Some thoughts on the origins of the Turks and the shaping of the
Turkic peoples, in V.H. Mair (ed.), Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World: 136–
57. Honolulu (): University of Hawaii Press.
Grugni, V., V. Battaglia, B. Hooshiar Kashani, et al. 2012. Ancient migratory events in the
Middle East: new clues from the Y-chromosome variation of modern Iranians. PLoS
One 7(7): e41252.
Gubina, M.A., L.D. Damba, V.N. Babenko, et al. 2013. Haplotype diversity in mtDNA and
Y-chromosome in populations of Altai–Sayan Region. Russian Journal of Genetics
49(3): 329–43.
Haber, M., D.E. Platt, M. Ashraan Bonab, et al. 2012. Afghanistan’s ethnic groups
share a Y-chromosomal heritage structured by historical events. PLoS One 7(3):
e34288.
ā Tanish Bukhārī. 1983. Sharaf-nama-ii shakhi: Kniga shakhskoy slavy [The book of
the Shah’s glory] (ed. and trans. M.A. Salakhetdinova). Moscow: Nauka.
Hammer, M.F. & S.L. Zegura. 2002. The human Y chromosome haplogroup tree: nomen-
clature and phylogeography of its major divisions. Annual Review of Anthropology
31(1): 303–21.
Han, E.B. 1975. Şecere-i Terākime [The genealogy of the Turkmens]Istanbul: Tercüman.
Hodoğlugil, U. & R.W. Mahley. 2012. Turkish population structure and genetic ancestry
reveal relatedness among Eurasian populations. Annals of Human Genetics 76(2):
128–41.
Hollard, C., C. Keyser, P.H. Giscard, et al. 2014. Strong genetic admixture in the Altai at
the Middle Bronze Age revealed by uniparental and ancestry informative markers.
Forensic Science International Genetics 12: 199–207.
() –
Jin, H.-J. K.-C. Kim & W. Kim. 2010. Genetic diversity of two haploid markers in the
Udegey population from southeastern Siberia. American Journal of Physical Anthro-
pology 142(2): 303–13.
Jobling, M.A. & C. Tyler-Smith. 2003. The human Y chromosome: an evolutionary
marker comes of age. Nature Reviews Genetics 4(8): 598–612.
Kai Kāūs ibn Iskandar. 1951a. A Mirror for Princes: The ‘Qābūs Nāma’ (trans. R. Levy).
London: Cresset.
Kai Kāūs ibn Iskandar. 1951b. The Naīāt-nāma, Known as ‘Qābūs-nāma’, of Kai Kā’ūs b.
Iskandar b. Qābūs b. Washmgīr [Qābūs-nāma] (ed. R. Levy). London: Luzac.
Kang, L., T. Jin, F. Wu, et al. 2013. Y chromosomes of ancient Hunnu people and its impli-
cation on the phylogeny of East Asian linguistic families. Evolutionary and Popu-
lation Genetics 2041F. Available at: http://www.ashg.org/2013meeting/abstracts/
fulltext/f130120577.htm.
Karafet, T.M., F.L. Mendez, M.B. Meilerman, et al. 2008. New binary polymorphisms
reshape and increase resolution of the human Y chromosomal haplogroup tree.
Genome Research 18: 830–38.
Katoh, T., B. Munkhbat, K. Tounai, et al. 2005. Genetic features of Mongolian ethnic
groups revealed by Y-chromosomal analysis. Gene 346: 663–70.
Keyser, C., C. Bouakaze, E. Crubézy, et al. 2009. Ancient provides new insights into
the history of south Siberian Kurgan people. Human Genetics 126(3): 395–410.
Keyser-Tracqui, C., P. Blandin, F.X. Ricaut, et al. 2004. Does the Tat polymorphism origi-
nate in northern Mongolia? International Congress Series 1261: 325–7.
Keyser-Tracqui, C., E. Crubézy & B. Ludes. 2003. Nuclear and mitochondrial anal-
ysis of a 2,000-year-old necropolis in the Egyin Gol Valley of Mongolia. American
Journal of Human Genetics 73(2): 247–60.
Keyser-Tracqui, C., E. Crubézy, H. Pamzsav, et al. 2006. Population origins in Mongolia:
genetic structure analysis of ancient and modern . American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 131(2): 272–81.
Kharkov, V.N., K.V. Khamina, O.F. Medvedeva, et al. 2013. Gene pool structure of Tuvin-
ians inferred from Y-chromosome marker data. Genetika 49(12): 1236–44.
Kharkov, V.N., K.V. Khamina, O.F. Medvedeva, et al. 2014. Gene pool of Buryats: clinal
variability and territorial subdivision based on data of Y-chromosome markers. Rus-
sian Journal of Genetics 50(2): 180–90.
Kharkov, V.N., V.A. Stepanov, O.F. Medvedev, et al. 2008. The origin of Yakuts: analysis of
the Y-chromosome haplotypes. Molecular Biology 42(2): 226–37. [In Russian].
Khusnutdinova, E.K., et al. 2008. Genetic landscape of Central Asia and Volga-Ural
region, in N. Dobretsov, N. Kolchanov, A. Rozanov & G. Zavarzin (eds.), Biosphere
Origin and Evolution: 373–81. New York (): Springer.
Kim, H-J. 2016. The Huns. Abingdon: Routledge.
() –
Kim, K., C.H. Brenner, V.H. Mair, et al. 2010. A western Eurasian male is found in
2000-year-old elite Xiongnu cemetery in northeast Mongolia. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology 142(3): 429–40.
Lappalainen, T., V. Laitinen, E. Salmela, et al. 2008. Migration waves to the Baltic Sea
region. Annals of Human Genetics 72(3): 337–48.
Lee, J.Y. 2016. Qazaqlïq, or Ambitious Brigandage, and the Formation of the Qazaqs:
State and identity in post-Mongol central Eurasia. Leiden: Brill.
Lee, K.-H. 2006. Hanminjog giwon mich idong-gyeonglo gyumyeong: Hangug-ingwa
mong-gol-in-eseo godae haeg, mitokondeulia dīenuē byeon-ie daehan bunjagyetong-
hagjeog bunseog [Unravelling the origin and migration of the Koreans: molecular
phylogenetic analysis of ancient nuclear and mitochondrial variations among
the Koreans and Mongolians]. Seoul: Guglib munhwajae yeonguso. [In Korean].
Li Yanshou 李延壽. 2003. Beishi 北史 [History of the northern dynasties]. Beijing:
Zhonghua shuju.
Li, C., H. Li, Y. Cui, et al. 2010. Evidence that a west–east admixed population
lived in the Tarim Basin as early as the Early Bronze Age. Biology 8:15. doi:
10.1186/1741-7007-8-15.
Linghu Defen 令狐德芬. 2003. Zhoushu 周書 [Book of the Zhou]. Beijing: Zhonghua
shuju.
Liu Xu 劉昫. 2002. Jiu Tangshu 舊唐書 [Old book of the Tang Dynasty]. Beijing: Zhon-
ghua shuju.
Lobov, A.S. 2009. Struktura genofonda subpopulyatsii Bashkir: Avtoreferat dissertatsii
na soiskaniye uchenoy stepeni kandidata biologicheskikh nauk [The structure of the
gene pool of the Bashkir subpopulations: Abstract dissertation for the degree of
candidate of biological sciences]. Ufa: Russian Academy of Sciences.
Malyarchuk, B., M. Derenko, G. Denisova, et al. 2011. Ancient links between Siberians
and Native Americans revealed by subtyping the Y-chromosome haplogroup Q1a.
Journal of Human Genetics 56(8): 583–8.
Martinez, A.P. 1982. Gardīzī’s two chapters on the Turks. Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi
2: 109–218.
Moriyasu, T., K. Suzuki, S. Saito, T. Tamura & Bai Yudong. 2009. Shineusu hibun yaku-
chu [Šine-Usu inscription from the Uighur period in Mongolia: revised text, transla-
tion and commentaries]. Nairiku Ajia gengo no kenkyu [Studies on the Inner Asian
Languages] 24: 1–92.
Muafā Ālī. 1860–68. Künhül-abār. Istanbul: Takvimhane-i Amire.
Nasidze, I., T. Sarkisian, A. Kerimov & M. Stoneking. 2003. Testing hypotheses of lan-
guage replacement in the Caucasus: evidence from the Y-chromosome. Human
Genetics 112(3): 255–61.
Okada, H. 1987. Origins of the Dörben Oyirad. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher (n.s.) 7: 181–211.
() –
Omeljan Pritsak, O. 1982. The Polovcians and Rus’. Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 2:
321–80.
Oppenheimer, S. 2012. Out-of-Africa, the peopling of continents and islands: tracing
uniparental gene trees across the map. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Soci-
ety of London, series B, Biological Sciences 367(1590): 770–84.
Oshanin, L.V. 1964. Anthropological Composition of the Population of Central Asia, and
the Ethnogenesis of its Peoples (trans. V.M. Maurin, ed. H. Field). Cambridge ():
Peabody Museum of Archaeology.
Ouyang Xiu 歐陽修. 1974. Xin Wudaishi 新五代史 [New history of the Five Dynasties].
Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
Ouyang Xiu 歐陽修 & Song Qi 宋祁 . 2003. Xin Tangshu 新唐書 [New book of the Tang
Dynasty]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
Pakendorf, B., I.N. Novgorodov, V.L. Osakovskij & M. Stoneking. 2007. Mating patterns
amongst Siberian reindeer herders: inferences from mtDNA and Y-chromosomal
analyses. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 133(3): 1013–27.
Pakendorf, B., I.N. Novgorodov, V.L. Osakovskij, et al. 2006. Investigating the efects
of prehistoric migrations in Siberia: genetic variation and the origins of Yakuts.
Human Genetics 120(3): 334–53.
Petkovski, E. 2006. Polymorphismes ponctuels de séquence et identication géné-
tique: Étude par spectrométrie de masse - [Sequence polymorphisms
and genetic identication: Study by - mass spectrometry]. PhD disserta-
tion, Université Louis Pasteur.
Rashīd al-Dīn Fażlallāh Hamadānī. [1367] 1988. Jāmi al-tavārīkh (ed. B. Karīmī). Teh-
ran: Intishārāt-i Iqbāl.
Rashiduddin Fazlullah. 1998–99. Jami‘u’t-tawarikh (Compendium of Chronicles): A his-
tory of the Mongols (trans. W.M. Thackston). Cambridge (): Harvard University,
Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations.
Rogers, L.L. 2016. Understanding Ancient Human Population Genetics of the Eastern
Eurasian Steppe Through Mitochondrial Analysis: Central Mongolian Samples
from the Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age and Mongol Empire Periods. PhD disserta-
tion, Indiana University.
Rootsi, S., C. Magri, T. Kivisild, et al. 2004. Phylogeography of Y-chromosome hap-
logroup I reveals distinct domains of prehistoric gene ow in Europe. American
Journal of Human Genetics 75(1): 128–37.
Sabitov, Z. 2013. Etnogenez kazakhov s tochki zreniya populyatsionnoy genetiki [The
ethnogenesis of the Kazakhs from the perspective of population genetics]. Russian
Journal of Genetic Genealogy 5(1): 29–47. [In Russian].
Sabitov, Z.M. & M.M. kchurin. 2014. The Tatar progeny of the Golden Horde Mokhshi
Ulus population. Russian Journal of Genetic Genealogy 6(1): 5–13.
() –
Semino, O., C. Magri, G. Benuzzi, et al. 2004. Origin, difusion, and diferentiation of
Y-chromosome haplogroups E and J: inferences on the Neolithization of Europe
and later migratory events in the Mediterranean area. American Journal of Human
Genetics 74(5): 1023–34.
Semino, O., G. Passarino, P.J. Oefner, et al. 2000. The genetic legacy of Paleolithic Homo
sapiens sapiens in extant Europeans: a Y chromosome perspective. Science 290:
1155–9.
Sengupta, S., L.A. Zhivotovsky, R. King, et al. 2006. Polarity and temporality of high-
resolution Y-chromosome distributions in India identify both indigenous and exog-
enous expansions and reveal minor genetic inuence of Central Asian pastoralists.
American Journal of Human Genetics 78(2): 202–21.
Sharaf al-Zamān āhir Marvazī. 1942. Sharaf al-Zamān āhir Marvazī on China, the
Turks and India: Arabic text (circa A.D. 1120) with an English translation and commen-
tary by V. Minorsky. London: Royal Asiatic Society.
Shi, H., X. Qi, H. Zhong, et al. 2013. Genetic evidence of an East Asian origin and
Paleolithic northward migration of Y-chromosome haplogroup N. PLoS One 8(6):
e66102.
Shi, H., H. Zhong, Y. Peng, et al. 2008. Y chromosome evidence of earliest modern
human settlement in East Asia and multiple origins of Tibetan and Japanese popu-
lations. Biology 6:45. doi: 10.1186/1741-7007-6-45.
Shīr Muammad Mīrāb Mūnīs & Muammad Rīżā Mīrāb Āgahī. 1988. Firdaws al-Iqbāl:
History of Khorezm (ed. Y. Bregel). Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Shīr Muammad Mīrāb Mūnīs & Muammad Rīżā Mīrāb Āgahī. 1999. Firdaws al-iqbāl:
History of Khorezm (trans. Y. Bregel). (Islamic History and Civilization 28.) Leiden:
Brill.
Silay, K. (ed.). 1966. An Anthology of Turkish Literature. Bloomington (): Indiana Uni-
versity Press.
Sima Qian 司馬遷. 2003. Shiji 史記 [Records of the Scribe]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
Sinor, D. 1982. The legendary origin of the Türks, in E.V. Zygas & P. Voorheis (eds.),
Folklorica: Festschrift for Felix J. Oinas: 223–57. (Indiana University Uralic and Altaic
Series 141.) Bloomington () Indiana University Press.
Sinor, D. 1985. Some components of the civilization of the Türks (6th to 8th century
A.D.), in G. Jarring & S. Rosén (eds.), Altaistic Studies. Papers Presented at the 25th
Meeting of the Permanent International Altaistic Conference at Uppsala June 7–11,
1982: 145–9. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Skhalyakho, R.A., M. Zhabagin, Y.M. Yusupov & E. Balanovska. 2016. Genofond turkmen
karakalpakstana v kontekste populyatsiy tsentralnoy azii (polimorzm y-khromo-
somy) [Gene pool of Turkmens from Karakalpakstan in their Central Asian context
(Y-chromosome polymorphism)]. Antropologiya 3: 86–96.
() –
Song Lian 宋濂. 2005. Yuanshi 元史 [History of the Yuan Dynasty]. Beijing: Zhonghua
shuju.
abarī. 1987. The History of al-abarī, vol. 2: Prophets and Patriarchs (trans. W.M. Brin-
ner). Albany (): Press.
Tambets, K., S. Rootsi, T. Kivisild, et al. 2004. The western and eastern roots of the
Saami—the story of genetic ‘outliers’ told by mitochondrial and Y chromo-
somes. American Journal of Human Genetics 74(4): 661–82.
Tarlykov, P.V., E.B. Zholdybayeva, A.R. Akilzhanova, et al. 2013. Mitochondrial and
Y-chromosomal prole of the Kazakh population from east Kazakhstan. Croatian
Medical Journal 54(1): 17–24.
Tekin, T. 1983. The Tariat (Terkhin) inscription. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum
Hungaricae 37(1): 43–68.
Tokarev, S.A. 1962. On the origin of the Buryat nation, in H.N. Michael (ed.), Studies in
Siberian Ethnogenesis: 102–18. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Tromova, N.V., S.S. Litvinov, R.I. Khusainova, et al. 2015. Genetic characterization of
populations of the Volga-Ural region according to the variability of the Y-chromo-
some. Russian Journal of Genetics 51(1): 108–115.
Underhill, P.A., G. David Poznik, Siiri Rootsi, et al. 2014. The phylogenetic and geo-
graphic structure of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a. European Journal of Human
Genetics 23(1): 124–31.
Underhill, P.A. & T. Kivisild. 2007. Use of Y chromosome and mitochondrial popu-
lation structure in tracing human migrations. Annual Review of Anthropology 41:
539–64.
Underhill, P.A., G. Passarino, A.A. Lin, et al. 2001. The phylogeography of Y chromosome
binary haplotypes and the origins of modern human populations. Annals of Human
Genetics 65(1): 43–62.
Vámbéry, A. 1865. Travels in Central Asia: Being the Account of a Journey from Teheran
across the Turkoman Desert on the Eastern Shore of the Caspian to Khiva, Bokhara,
and Samarcand Performed in the Year 1863. New York (): Harper & Brothers.
Vovin, A. 2000. Did the Xiong-nu speak a Yeniseian language? Central Asiatic Journal
44(1): 87–104.
Wei Shou. 2003. 魏收, Weishu 魏書 [Book of the Wei Dynasty]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
Wei Zheng 魏徵. 2008. Suishu 隋書 [Book of the Sui Dynasty]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
Wells, R.S., N. Yuldasheva, R. Ruzibakiev, et al. 2001. The Eurasian heartland: a conti-
nental perspective on Y-chromosome diversity. 98(18): 10244–9.
Williams, B.G. 2001. The ethnogenesis of the Crimean Tatars: an historical reinterpreta-
tion. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 11(3): 329–48.
Xu, Dan & Shaoqing Wen. 2017. The Silk Road: Language and population admixture
and replacement, in Dan Xu & Hui Li (eds.), Languages and Genes in Northwestern
China and Adjacent Regions: 55–78. Singapore: Springer.
() –
Xu Qianxue 徐乾學. (..) Zizhi tongjian houbian 資治通鑑後編, chapter 141. http://
skqs.guoxuedashi.com/wen_562r/11559.html (accessed 14 July 2017).
Xue, Y., T. Zerjal, W. Bao, et al. 2005. Male demography in East Asia: a north–south con-
trast in human population expansion times. Genetics 172(4): 2431–9.
Y Chromosome Consortium. 2002. A nomenclature system for the tree of human
Y-chromosomal binary haplogroups. Genome Research 12(2): 339–48.
Yu Ji. 1965. Gaochang wang shi xun bei 高昌王世勳碑 [The monumental inscription
of the king of Gaochang], in Su Tianjue 蘇天爵 (ed.), Guo chao wen lei 國朝文類
vol. 2: 259–70. Taipei: Taiwan shang wu yin shu guan.
Yunusbayev, B., M. Metspalu, E. Metspalu, et al. 2015. The genetic legacy of the expan-
sion of Turkic-speaking nomads across Eurasia. PLoS Genetics 11(4): e1005068.
Zakharov, I.A., M.V. Derenko, B.A. Mallarchuk, et al. 2004. Mitochondrial variation
in the aboriginal populations of the Altai-Baikal region: implications for the genetic
history of north Asia and America. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1011:
21–35.
Zerjal, T., R.S. Wells, N. Yuldasheva, R. Ruzibakiev & C. Tyler-Smith. 2002. A genetic
landscape reshaped by recent events: Y-chromosomal insights into Central Asia.
American Journal of Human Genetics 71: 466–82.
Zerjal, T., Y. Xue, G. Bertorelle, et al. 2003. The genetic legacy of the Mongols. American
Journal of Human Genetics 72(3): 717–21.
Zhabagin, Maxat, Elena Balanovska, Zhaxylyk Sabitov, et al. 2017. The connection of
the genetic, cultural and geographic landscapes of Transoxiana. Scientic Reports
7(3085): 1–11.
Zhao, Y.B., H.J. Li, D.W. Cai, et al. 2010. Ancient from nomads in 2500-year-old
archeological sites of Pengyang, China. Journal of Human Genetics 55(4): 215–18.
Zhong, H., H. Shi, X.B. Qi, et al. 2010. Global distribution of Y-chromosome haplogroup
C reveals the prehistoric migration routes of African exodus and early settlement in
East Asia. Journal of Human Genetics 55(7): 428–35.
Zhou, R., D. Yang, H. Zhang, et al. 2008. Origin and evolution of two Yugur sub-clans
in northwest China: a case study in paternal genetic landscape. Annals of Human
Biology 35(2): 198–211.
