"The territory of modern Khakassia is situated in the Minusinsk Basin. Surrounding its fertile steppes, which were once dotted with burial mounds and cemeteries from various eras before being turned into farmland, are mountain ranges, while rivers flow along the edges of the steppes. The Sayan Ridge encompasses a taiga zone.
In the Middle Ages, the natural area of formation for the Turkic-speaking ancestors of the Khakas was not confined to the territory of modern Khakassia; it also included parts of what are now Krasnoyarsk Krai and Kemerovo Oblast.
As early as the Bronze Age, conditions for the emergence of pre-state organizations appeared in the Minusinsk Basin. The rich mythology of the inhabitants of the Okunev culture, along with the presence of defensive structures and sanctuaries, indicates that the Okunev people, even at the dawn of the Bronze Age, were at a stage of forming state-like organizations.
The Tagar culture of the Early Iron Age is associated with the Dingling people, as mentioned in Chinese sources. Massive stone burial mounds, such as those at Barsuchy Log and the Salbyk Kurgan, could only have been constructed by large, well-organized communities with strong sacral authority. For this reason, the Tagar culture is considered to represent the Dingling State (Dingling-Go), as the Chinese hieroglyph go traditionally denotes a state. Archaeologist A.I. Martynov believes that state organizations had already formed in Southern Siberia during the Early Iron Age.
A new ethno-political situation emerged in the Minusinsk Basin during the Tashtyk period. The Tashtyk people are considered part of the Xiongnu tribes, who introduced the Turkic language to the Khakassia region. Researchers identify the Tashtyk people with the Gyangun-Kyrgyz. During this period, they are thought to have migrated to the land of the Dingling and intermingled with them, giving rise to the medieval Khakas. The Gyangun-Kyrgyz belonged to the Europoid anthropological type, and the term “Hyagas”—meaning “red-haired”—is believed to refer to them.
The myth of the blond Dingling was propagated by G.E. Grumm-Grzhimailo during the height of the theory of racial superiority of the Europoid race. Consequently, the Gyangun-Kyrgyz should be considered as the Tagar people, while the Dingling are likely descendants of the ancient Yenisei population that left behind the Karasuk culture.
The origin of the name Kyrgyz traces back to the Turkic word kyrgyz, which means “battle,” “war,” or “army.” It is also linked to the name of the Circassians, who were referred to as kerketi or kirgizi. Therefore, the Gyanguns—a northern ethnic group conquered by the Xiongnu ruler Maodun—may have been Turkic speakers. The Xiongnu, who subdued the Gyangun-Tagar people, might have belonged to a different branch of Turkic languages.
V.Ya. Butanaev, based on the folkloric self-awareness of the Khakas people, identifies the self-designation of the Turkic-speaking ethnic group of the Middle Yenisei region as Hongoray. This name is similar to the ethnonym Kungirat-Hongirat-Hungirat-Hungar. It may be derived from the name of the Xiongnu, suggesting that the Turkic-speaking population of the Middle Yenisei, referred to as kyshtym by the Yenisei Kyrgyz, used this name to identify themselves.
Modern Turkic-speaking peoples were historically known under various names, reflecting their state and ethnic affiliations. The Kazakhs split off from the Uzbek Horde, and some of their ancestors were part of the Nogai Horde and Moghulistan. The Russians referred to them as Kirgiz for a long time. The Tuvans were previously known as Uryankhai and were called Soyots by the Russians.
The Altaians—descendants of the Teleuts and Telengits—were referred to by their neighbors as Oirots and Kalmyks, as their ancestors were part of the Dzungar Khanate. Similarly, the self-designation of the Turkic-speaking population of the Minusinsk Basin plays a significant role in understanding their ethnic history and ethnogenesis.
In Tsarist Russia, the Khakas were commonly referred to as Minusinsk Tatars or Yenisei Tatars. In general, all Turkic-speaking populations of Western and Southern Siberia were labeled as Tatars. However, in everyday communication among the Khakas, it is evident that this ethnonym has become deeply ingrained in their identity.
The Khakas were also referred to as Tatars by their southern neighbors, the Tuvans. In a song recorded by N.F. Katanov, the singer is called “the son of the Beltirs” and “the son of the Tatar people.” In this context, Beltir and Tatar are used synonymously, as the Tuvans referred to all Khakas as Beltirs (just as the Shors called them Sagays). This example supports the idea that the ethnonym Tatar became deeply entrenched in the consciousness of the local population as an ethnic identifier [Torbostoyev, 2003, p. 24].
It is believed that, at the beginning of the 2nd millennium CE, the northern boundary of the Yenisei Kyrgyz’s domain extended to the confluence of the Angara and Yenisei Rivers, where the city of Kikas was located. “That city belongs to the Kyrgyz region,” according to historical records. Thus, the Kyrgyz’s domain extended to the lower reaches of the Angara, where, according to Rashid al-Din, the white-stone Kyrgyz city of Kikas was located [Savinov, 2008, p. 121].
However, the legend of the white-stone city on the Middle Yenisei is also mentioned by foreign travelers of the 16th–17th centuries [Alekseev, 1941]. Therefore, the story of a vast white-stone city near the Arctic Circle can be considered a wandering myth or mirage—at least until archaeologists uncover remnants of its walls and structures.
It is possible that the Alakchins or Tatars of the Angara region lived in the Northern Angara area or on the Middle Yenisei. In Rashid al-Din’s work, it is mentioned that their territories (presumably those of the Alakchins or Tatars) bordered… (the text has a gap, but it can be inferred that the reference is to the Kyrgyz). Modern Khakas, who use the self-designation Tadar Kiji, consist of the Kachin and Sagay tribes, which formed in the Middle Yenisei region near present-day Krasnoyarsk.
In 1976, L.R. Kyzlasov discovered a stele with a runic inscription near the Uybat River in Khakassia (the ninth Uybat monument). It was published by I.L. Kyzlasov and later reinterpreted by S.G. Klyashtorny [Kyzlasov, 1987, pp. 21–22; Klyashtorny, 1987, pp. 33–36].
In the first line of this inscription, a “hostile Tatar people” is mentioned, along with information about the payment of tribute or reparations by the Tatars [Klyashtorny, 1993]. This inscription may have been written significantly later and could indicate the subjugation of the Tatar tribe by the Khakas.
The Sagay people are considered descendants of the Mongol tribe Sakaid, and they may also be related to the Sog-Po Tatars. The same can be said of the Kachin clan Sokhky. Thus, they can indeed be classified as descendants of a unified Tatar people. The Saha Tatars may have contributed to the spread of the Turkic language among the Samoyedic and Yenisei clans of the Middle Yenisei and the taiga zone of the Kuznetsk Basin.
In this context, the origin of the traditional Khakas musical instrument, the chatkhan, is of particular interest. The Siberian version of a long zither was first described in historical chronicles in relation to the Uloheu people, who lived in the upper Amur and Transbaikal regions. The Uloheu zither had the shape of a wooden box with nine strings and a leather soundboard.
This zither resembles the Khakas chatkhan and the mythological “string drum” of the Saha [Sheikin, 2002, p. 353]. The Uloheu are identified with the southern Shivei, who later became the Buir-Nur Tatars. Additionally, the term Uloheu is reconstructed as Uryankhai, which was used to designate Turkic-speaking peoples of Southern Siberia.
By the early Middle Ages, the Yenisei Kyrgyz had established a state that lasted until their migration to Dzungaria in the early 18th century. The Khakas are considered their closest ethnic descendants. Therefore, in the 1920s, when the Khakas district (later transformed into a province and then an autonomous republic) was being established, there were proposals to rename the Minusinsk Tatars as Kyrgyz.
However, the existence of a people and republic with the same name in Central Asia prevented the creation of a people in Siberia with an identical name. As a result, scholars turned to Chinese sources and adopted the term Khakas, which, according to leading Sinologist S.E. Yakhontov, is merely a distorted Chinese transcription of the ethnonym Kyrgyz.
The term Khakas was used to describe the population of the Kyrgyz land by L.R. Kyzlasov. According to Kyzlasov, the Kyrgyz land was ruled by a princely lineage of the Kyrgyz, with the Kyrgyz acting as a seok (sub-tribe) among their subordinate kyshtyms. He based this conclusion on the historical realities of the 19th–20th centuries, when the seok Kyrgyz was represented among the Kachin and Sagay clans alongside other tribal groups [Kyzlasov, 1984]. Thus, in Kyzlasov’s interpretation, the name Khakas united both the kyshtyms and the dominant Kyrgyz lineage.
(KAF Supplementary Note):
“Attempts to deny the equivalence of the terms Gyangun (Jiankun) and Hyagyas (Xiajias), as well as the correspondence of the latter to the ethnonym Kyrgyz, undertaken at various times by N.N. Kozmin and L.R. Kyzlasov, were driven by the desire to legitimize the modern name of the indigenous population of Khakassia.
In ancient and medieval sources, there is no basis for distinguishing between the ancient Chinese terms Gyangun and Gegun and the medieval terms Gegu and Hyagyas. All these terms refer to the same ethnonym—Kyrgyz.” – Yu.S. Khudyakov.
Folkloric sources can provide valuable insights into the study of ethnogenesis. However, they often abstract themselves from earlier ethnic realities and are unlikely to be directly related to the ancient history of an ethnicity. Based on fragmentary Khakas folklore, a version has been proposed about a unified ethno-political organization of the Khakas people called Kooray, referred to in Russian documents as Hongoroy, corresponding to the concept of “Kyrgyz Land.” It is suggested that the Kyrgyz and their subordinate kyshtym population formed a community known as Kooray [Butanaev, 1992].
S.G. Klyashtorny believes that the ethnonym Tatars has existed in the Sayan-Altai region since the late 14th century, when the Oirat territories (including Khakassia) were officially called Dadan. Later, in the 1730s, G.F. Miller classified the indigenous population of the Khakas-Minusinsk region as part of a single large Tatar people, residing in the area from the Tobol to the Yenisei [Miller, 1999, pp. 1–2].
During this period, the Turkic-speaking population was divided into two main parts: the majority, and several smaller tribes of non-Turkic origin—Arin, Kamashin, Kot, and Koibal—who paid yasak (tribute) to the Kyrgyz. Additionally, it was noted that “even now, the Tatars refer to them with the derogatory term kyshtyms” [Miller, 1999, p. 66].
In Chinese sources from the Tang dynasty, the name of the Gyangun (Jiankun) tribe, known from the Han dynasty and the era of the ruler Maodun, became associated with the medieval term for the Kyrgyz—Hyagyas, Hagas (Xiajias): “The Khakas is the ancient state of Gyangun.”
Runic inscriptions also mention the Kyrgyz, and their identification with the Hyagyas (Xiajias) and Gyanguns (Jiankuns) from Chinese chronicles has become indisputable [Khudyakov, 2001].
N.A. Serdobov considered it inappropriate to call the Yenisei Kyrgyz Khakas or to classify the Kyrgyz as a separate lineage [Serdobov, 1971]. N.V. Kyuner had a different view, arguing that the ethnonyms Khakas and Kyrgyz in the Mongol era of the 13th century referred to different groups (or parts) of the same people [Kyuner, 1958, p. 203]. Earlier transcriptions of the name Kyrgyz—such as Gyegu, Gyegun, and Gyangun—indicate that the term Hyagas has an independent origin [Kyuner, 1954, pp. 120–121].
In the original Chinese, it is noted that the word Hyagas—meaning “red-haired”—was used by their neighbors, the ancient Uyghurs, to describe the Kyrgyz. To this day, the Yakut language retains the word kugas with the same meaning: “red-haired.” The sources also mention that the Gyanguns (Kyrgyz) intermingled with the Dingling, and their descendants had red hair and blue eyes.
According to I.L. Kyzlasov, the modern derivative of the historically real pre-Mongol ethnonym Khakas is the name Khaas. One group of the Khakas, the Kachins, indeed refers to themselves as Khaas or Khaash. Written sources indicate that until the early 18th century, people bearing this name lived on the northern periphery of the Middle Yenisei valley near Krasnoyarsk, where the Kacha River still flows.
According to G.F. Miller, the Russian name Kachi or Kachins appeared in the 17th century and is associated with the largest seok (clan) Hashkha (Khashkha). The Russian term Kachi was later adopted by the Khakas as Khaash (Khaas), but in the broader sense of referring to the livestock breeders of the Kachin Steppe Duma [Butanaev, 1992, pp. 52–76].
K.G. Kopkoev believed that the Yenisei Kyrgyz were Kachins in tribal terms. He suggested that the name of the Yzyr Principality originated from the Kachin seok “Yzyr” and that the Kachins constituted the majority of the principality’s population [Kopkoev, 1960, pp. 146–158].
L.I. Sherstova argued that there was no mass inclusion of the Kyrgyz into the Kachin community. The Kachins, Kyzyls, Sagays, and Beltirs were descendants of kyshtyms, and their ethnic consciousness reflects a clear distinction from the Kyrgyz. By the early 20th century, three ethno-territorial communities were forming in the Minusinsk Basin: the Kachins, Kyzyls, and Sagays [Sherstova, 2008, pp. 177–180].
After the mass deportation of the Kyrgyz to Dzungaria, a process of kyshtymization occurred. The term “Tatars,” imposed from the outside, became widespread, and even today, the Khakas refer to themselves as Tadar. For example, the Kyzyls recount that they once lived along the Tobol and Irtysh Rivers, were part of the Khanate of Kuchum, and, after its collapse, migrated eastward.
N.A. Tomilov identifies cultural elements connecting the Kyzyls with the Siberian Tatars [Sherstova, 2005, p. 173]. L.I. Sherstova also considers the Sagays to have been latecomers to the Abakan valley, as they still lived in the Upper Tom region and along the Balyk-Su River in the late 17th century [ibid., p. 170].
K.M. Torbostoev similarly believes that after the Yenisei Kyrgyz left for Dzungaria in 1703, the vacated territories were settled by inhabitants of the taiga regions of Northern Altai, the Irtysh area, the Eastern Sayans, and other non-Kyrgyz tribal groups previously referred to as kyshtyms.
However, in his view, these groups should not be opposed to the population of the “Kyrgyz Land” (Hongoroy). The returning Yenisei Kyrgyz reintegrated into new ethno-territorial groups (Kachins, Sagays, Koibals, Kyzyls, and Beltirs).
There was also assimilation of small Keto- and Samoyedic-speaking ethnic groups into the Turkic-speaking population of the Minusinsk region [Torbostoev, 2003, p. 24]. For example, the Arins, Kots (Baykots), and Kamashins were absorbed into the Khakas. The formation of the Kachins also included many Mongolic-speaking Dzungar families who fled genocide under the Qing dynasty.
According to Turkological research, the word Hongoroy originates from a geographic designation for the steppe-mountain expanses of the Minusinsk Basin. In the late medieval era, during the revival of Kyrgyz statehood, the name Hongoroy became a political symbol under which diverse ethnic groups of different origins but unified by residence in the same region came together.
According to V.Ya. Butanaev, among the newly formed Hongor ethnos (in Khakas, Hooray), the descendants of Kyrgyz clans played a leading role [Essays on the History of Khakassia, 2008, p. 194].
The ethnonym Hooray / Hongoroy is thought to have a Mongolic origin, suggesting the participation of Mongolic-speaking tribes such as the Hori or Hongirat / Kungirat in the ethnogenesis of the Khakas after the Mongols’ conquest of the Yenisei Kyrgyz lands [Mainogasheva, 2008, pp. 111–116].
According to B.I. Tatarintsev, the Tuvan term Hooray (“city”) traces its origin to an ancient Turkic word that functioned both as an ethnonym and as a general term for a people.
In Tuvan materials, Hooray and its variants were used as names for a region (or country) located to the north of Tuva, in the Middle Yenisei area, as well as for its population [Tatarintsev, 2009, p. 118].
We must first consider whether this term has parallels in Chinese and other Eastern sources, given its wide usage in the Middle Ages to refer to the union of Khakas tribes. Notably, such a tribal union did exist in the Middle Yenisei and Northern Angara regions.
This is supported by references in Arab-Persian sources from the 10th century about the Kuri tribe, mentioned in connection with the land of the Yenisei Kyrgyz and their kyshtyms (tributaries).
Modern Khakas are undeniably descendants of the Yenisei Kyrgyz in both political and historical terms. Therefore, they have every right to identify as both Khakas and Kyrgyz. Moreover, the term Khakas has firmly established itself as an administrative and scholarly designation for the Turkic-speaking population of the Minusinsk Basin, reflecting ethnic continuity and historical persistence in the region.
Archival documents reveal a distinction between the Tatars and Kyrgyz, with separate mentions of the Kyrgyz. Before their incorporation into the Russian state, these groups were perceived as distinct ethnic entities. The process of yasach (tribute payment) in favor of Moscow marked the destruction of the Kyrgyz elite and principalities. Consequently, the newly formed administrative units, created in place of the Kyrgyz principalities, were named after the clans of the kyshtyms.
It is important to note that there was no separate ethnic group called Kyshtym. Although medieval Eastern sources mention a tribe called Kishdem or Kushtemi, described as being enslaved by the Kyrgyz, this term likely referred to the ancestors of the Northern Altaians and Shors. The kyshtyms (sometimes called Furi-Kuri) were described as part of the Kyrgyz people. Thus, the distinction between kyshtyms and Kyrgyz was not ethnic or linguistic but rather social.
According to the research of Tomsk ethnographer L.I. Sherstova, the self-designation Tatar (Tadar) never existed among the peoples of Southern Siberia in the past or present. The ethnonym Tatar became a designation for the Turkic-speaking population of Siberia only after the arrival of the Russians. This change is closely tied to the ethnic processes and the ethno-political situation in Southern and Western Siberia after the 13th century.
The inclusion of the Yenisei Kyrgyz into the Mongol Ulus marked a new stage in the ethnogenesis of the Khakas people. Similarly, their later incorporation into the Russian state led to the formation of an entirely new ethnos in the Minusinsk region.
It is also essential to emphasize that Siberian Tatar ethnic groups had no significant connection with the Mongol-Tatars and only weak ties with the Volga Tatars and other Western Tatar groups. However, the term Tatar came to symbolize Turkic-Mongol intermingling in Southern Siberia, the participation of Turkic groups in Mongol campaigns, and the formation of new territorial structures within the Tatar khanates. As such, the term Tatar signifies the ethno-political unity of Siberian Turks during the post-Mongol period.
The fragmentation of Siberian Tatar unity into smaller groups named after rivers and streams where they lived (e.g., Abinsk, Chulym, Abakan, Baraba) coincided with the collapse of the state formations led by the Chinggisids. In the Middle Yenisei region, the descendants of the medieval Kyrgyz managed to reclaim power after the expulsion of Mongol forces and even re-established five principalities that had existed during the pre-Mongol period.
The term Hongoroy, derived from folkloric sources by V.Ya. Butanaev, is used as an alternative to the Chinese-derived term Khakas. There are both supporters and opponents of this renaming. Over the nearly 90 years of its existence, the term Khakas has become firmly established as a self-designation for modern Khakas, just as the word Tadar—a name given to the Minusinsk Turks by the Russian administration—has become deeply ingrained among the people. Whether Hongoroy will similarly be adopted as a self-designation remains a question of time.
V.Ya. Butanaev, in his numerous scholarly works, has convincingly demonstrated the continuity between modern Khakas and the medieval Kyrgyz. Using folkloric, linguistic, and ethnographic materials, he has shown that the Khakas are descendants of the Yenisei Kyrgyz.
L.R. Kyzlasov also highlighted the greatness and power of the Kyrgyz Khaganate, discovering the remains of cities in the Minusinsk region and proving the influence of the Askiz culture, which extended as far as Eastern Europe and the Far East. In this sense, the Khakas are fortunate to have their ancient history studied by such prominent scholars. Unfortunately, this level of attention has not been given to the Tuvans, Altaians, or Yakuts.
The folklore of the Khakas supports their historical continuity with the Kyrgyz. The most revered hero in Khakas legends is Ir Tokhchyn. He lived at the mouth of the Abakan River near Mount Yzykh, was a great warrior, and a skilled khaiyzhi (singer or storyteller). His name derives from ancient Turkic words: ir meaning “man, warrior,” and the title tokhchyn (tukhsin), meaning “a person occupying the third rank after the khan in the Turkic administrative hierarchy” [Butanaev, 2008, p. 159].
In the early 17th century, Russian envoys referred to the ruler of the “Kyrgyz Land” as the “Kirbitsky Tsar,” recognizing his sovereignty. N. Kozmin argued that the Kyrgyz union of the 17th century “was indeed a state, but one in decline.” V.I. Ogorodnikov stated that “the Kyrgyz state survived into the 17th century only as fragments” [Essays on the History of Khakassia, 2008, p. 197].
In the 17th century, the Kyrgyz and Tubins were united with the Mator and other tribes who were considered kyshtyms (tributaries). Through persistent warfare, the Kyrgyz gradually extended their power far beyond the Yenisei steppes. Furs were essential to the Kyrgyz economy, and they obtained them by imposing yasach (tribute) on taiga hunters.
The Tubins successfully contested the Kan River basin—connected to the Tuba (Upsa) River basin—with the Russians throughout the 17th century, collecting tribute from the Kan Tatars and the Kamashins. The Kyrgyz and Tubins also ventured further northeast, as far as the Uda fortress, collecting tribute from the Buryats.
To the west, the Kyrgyz extended their control to the headwaters of the Ob River—Chulym, Kondoma, Mrassu, and Biya. Before the founding of Tomsk, even the distant Eushtins (“Prince Toyan with all his Toyan people”) paid tribute to the Kyrgyz, serving as their “best vassals.” Even after the establishment of Russian military centers in Tomsk and Kuznetsk, the Kyrgyz continued to visit the Meletsk and Achinsk regions to collect tribute [Bakhrushin, 1955].
The strong political traditions of the Kyrgyz long delayed the Russian conquest of the Minusinsk region. According to V.Ya. Butanaev, the Khakas folkloric hero Odzhen-Bek reflects the historical figure of the Kyrgyz prince Erenak Isheev. He notes that titles used for Kyrgyz princes included Yayzan-Bakhshi, Tarkhan-Yayzan, Mergen-Taishi, and Yayzan-Kashka. However, the title Bek does not appear in any Russian documents from the 17th century [Butanaev, 2008, pp. 175–176].
Other terms were used in the early Middle Ages to unite the Turkic-speaking population of the Minusinsk region, including the ruling Kyrgyz tribe and the conquered Dingling. One such term is Hyagas, which in Russian transliteration became Khakas. Sources also mention a larger group, the Kuri, who were part of the Yenisei Kyrgyz. This name may correspond to the term Hongoroy. Another shared designation for the Kyrgyz across both the Sayan-Yenisei and Tien Shan regions is Burut.
The term Khakas is equivalent to the name Kyrgyz. Moreover, the name Kyrgyz referred not only to the aristocracy but also to the entire population within the Kyrgyz Khaganate and later in its constituent principalities. The term kyshtym was used for tribes living on the periphery of the state, from whom yasak (tribute) was collected. The name Hooray or Hongoroy may have referred to the entire Turkic-speaking population of the Sayan-Yenisei region. Kongurey—the “land of cities,” a lost state of their ancestors—is celebrated in the songs of the Tuvans and Altaians.
This reflects the shared historical destiny of the Turkic peoples of the Sayan-Altai region, who established powerful states such as the Kyrgyz Khaganate and the Dzungar Khanate.
The Khakas and Kyrgyz are both descendants of the Yenisei Kyrgyz. The Kyrgyz may have left the Sayan-Altai highlands only after Jochi’s campaign in 1224. In this context, the information in the Yuan Shi about the migration of the Kyrgyz, Kuli-Angu-Heshe, and Usuhan tribes to Nayan (Manchuria) is of particular interest.
It is possible that after the fall of the Yuan Empire, the ancestors of the modern Kyrgyz migrated through Mongolia to the Tian Shan. Like the Yenisei Kyrgyz in the early 13th century, the Oirats were a small “forest” people, yet they were able to significantly increase in number and establish a powerful khanate.
A similar process likely occurred with the Kyrgyz who migrated into the vast territories of Central Asia. The Yenisei Khakas and the Tian Shan Kyrgyz can be regarded as two branches of the same large tribe, much like the Volga and Danube Bulgars. However, intermingling with local peoples led to significant differences in mentality, language, and tribal composition."
— Vasily Ushnitsky
🧬 DNA Science Data:
“Haplogroup R1a1, more specifically, its subclade R1a1a1b2 (defined by mutation Z93), is the genetic marker of the Indo-European pastoralists, who migrated from modern-day Ukraine to modern-day Iran, India, the Kazakh steppes, the Tarim Basin, the Altai Mountains region, the Yenisei River region, and western Mongolia during the Bronze Age.
Naturally, R1a1, more specifically, its subclade R1a1a1b2 (R1a-Z93), occurs at high frequency among the Turkic peoples now residing in the Yenisei River and the Altai Mountains regions in Russia.
Compared to the Tuvinians, the Khakass (whose name was created by the Soviets from Xiajiasi (黠戛斯), a Chinese name for Kyrgyz, since they were regarded as descending from the Kyrgyz have noticeably higher percentages of R1a1 (35.2%) and much lower percentages of haplogroups C (1.1%) and Q (4%). However, N is also the most prevalent haplogroup (50%) of the Khakass (Gubina et al. 2013: 339; Shi et al. 2013)
As for the Altaians, the Altai-Kizhi (southern Altaians) are characterised by a high percentage of R1a1 (50%) and low to moderate percentages of C2 (20%), Q (16.7%) and N (4.2%) (Dulik et al. 2012: 234).
The major differences between the Khakass and the southern Altaians are the lower frequency of haplogroup N (in another study, haplogroup N is found at high frequency (32%) among the Altaians in general: see Gubina et al. 2013: 329, 339) and the higher frequencies of haplogroups C2 and Q among the latter.
The descent of the Kyrgyz (Kyrgyz) of the Tien Shan Mountains region (Kyrgyzstan) from the Yenisei Kyrgyz is debated among historians.
However, among the modern Turkic peoples, the former have the highest percentage of R1a1 (over 60%). Since the West Eurasian physiognomy of the Yenisei Kyrgyz recorded in the Xin Tangshu was in all likelihood a reflection of their Eurasian Indo-European marker R1a1a1b2 (R1a-Z93), one may conjecture that the Tien Shan Kyrgyz received their R1a1 marker from the Yenisei Kyrgyz. That is, the former are descended from the latter.
The other Y-chromosome haplogroups found among the Kyrgyz (Kyrgyz) are C2 (12~20%), O (0~15%) and N (0~4.5%).50 The lack of haplogroup Q among the Qirghiz (Kyrgyz) mostly distinguishes them from the Altaians.
During the Bronze Age and early Iron Age, the Yenisei River region was inhabited by Indo-Europeans. The dna study of 26 ancient human specimens from the Krasnoyarsk area dated from the middle of the second millennium bc to the fourth century ad shows that the Yenisei pastoralists mostly belonged to haplogroup R1a1 (Keyser et al. 2009: 401)
The high frequency of R1a1 among the modern-day Kyrgyz and Altaians may thus prove that they are descended from the Yenisei Kyrgyz. In addition, this may explain the reason why medieval Chinese histories depict the Kyrgyz as possessing West Eurasian physiognomy.
The Y-chromosomes of the Kök Türks have not been studied. After the collapse of the Second Türk Khaganate in 745 ce, the Kök Türks became dispersed and it is difficult to identify their modern descendants.
If they were indeed descended from the Eastern Scythians aka Saka (Suo) or related to the Kyrgyz, as the Zhoushu states (Zhoushu 50.908), the Ashina (royal Türkic dynasty, possibly related to the Turko-Jewish Khazar Khaganate, according to Peter B. Golden of Rutgers University) may have belonged to the R1a1 lineage.” - Joo-Yup Lee and Shuntu Kuang, University of Toronto, Canada
Source: “A Comparative Analysis of Chinese Historical Sources and Y-DNA Studies with Regard to the Early and Medieval Turkic Peoples’
Authors: Joo-Yup Lee and Shuntu Kuang from, the University of Toronto of Canada
“Kyrgyz are an admixed population between the East and the West. Different patterns have been observed in the patrilineal gene pool of the Kyrgyz. Historically, ancient Kyrgyz were considered to be the Yenisei Kyrgyz that may perhaps be concerned with the Tashtyk culture.
Extremely low Y-diversity and the presence of a high-frequency 68.9% Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a1-M17 (a diagnostic Indo-Iranian marker are striking features of Kyrgyz populations in central Asia. It is believed that this lineage is associated with Indo-Europeans who migrated to the Altai region during the Bronze Age and mixed with various Turkic groups.
Among the Asian R1a1a1b2-Z93 lineages, R1a1a1b2a2-Z2125 is quite common in Kyrgyzstan (68%) and Afghan Pashtuns (40%), and less frequent in other Afghan ethnic groups and some Caucasus and Iran populations (10%). Notably, the basal lineage R1a1a1b2-Z93* is commonly distributed in the South Siberian Altai region of Russia.
According to the published ancient DNA data, we found that, in Middle Bronze Age, Haplogroup R1a1a1b2a2a- Z2125 was mainly found in Sintashta culture population from Kamennyi Ambar 5 cemetery, western Siberia, in Fedorovo type of the Andronovo culture or Karasuk culture population from Minusinsk Basin, southern Siberia, and in Andronovo culture populations from Maitan, Ak-Moustafa, Aktogai, Kazakh Mys, Satan, Oy-Dzhaylau III, Karagash 2, Dali, and Zevakinskiy stone fence, Kazakhstan.” (Wen, Shao-qing; Du, Pan-xin; Sun, Chang; Cui, Wei; Xu, Yi-ran; Meng, Hai-liang; Shi, Mei-sen; Zhu, Bo-feng; Li, Hui (March 2022)
Source: "Dual origins of the Northwest Chinese Kyrgyz: the admixture of Bronze age Siberian and Medieval Niru'un Mongolian Y chromosomes", Nature
Authors: Wen, Shao-qing; Du, Pan-xin; Sun, Chang; Cui, Wei; Xu, Yi-ran; Meng, Hai-liang; Shi, Mei-sen; Zhu, Bo-feng; Li, Hui (March 2022)
“The modern-day descendants of the Yenisei Kyrgyz, the Kyrgyz people, have one of the highest frequencies of haplogroup R1a-Z93. This lineage believed to be associated with Indo-Iranians who migrated to the Altai region in the Bronze Age, and is carried by various Türkic groups. The Zhoushu [the book of the Zhou Dynasty] (Linghu Defen 2003, Chapter 50, p. 908) informs us that the Ashina, the royal clan of the Kök Türks, were related to the Kyrgyz.
If so, the Ashina may have belonged to the R1a1 lineage like the modern-day Tienshan Kyrgyz, who are characterised by the high frequency of R1a1 (over 65%). Haplogroup R1a1, more specifically, its sub- clade R1a1a1b2 defined by mutation Z93, was carried by the Indo-European pastoralists, who reached the Kazakh steppes, the Tarim Basin, the Altai Mountains region, the Yenisei River region, and western Mongolia from the Black Sea steppes during the Bronze Age (Semino et al. 2000, p. 1156, Lee, Joo-Yup (2018)
Source: Lee, Joo-Yup (2018). "Some remarks on the Turkicisation of the Mongols in post-Mongol Central Asia and the Kipchak Steppe ''. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. 71 (2): 121–124. doi:10.1556/062.2018.71.2.1. ISSN 0001-6446. S2CID 133847698.
Kazakh DNA researcher Zhaxylyk Sabitov states: “Until the 9th century, the Kyrgyz lived along the Yenisei River in the Minusinsk Basin. In the 9th century, the Yenisei Kyrgyz migrated to the Altai and Irtysh regions.
“From 1326 to 1329, some Altai Kyrgyz moved to Semirechye and the territory of modern Kyrgyzstan.” He also published DNA sample data from the Sintashta culture, which he claims “is related to the Altai and modern Kyrgyz, while the Arban-1 samples from the Karasuk culture are ancestral to modern Kyrgyz. Genetic data from Arzhan complex (8th century BCE) also show parental genes of the Kyrgyz.”
It is known that the structure of Arzhan has similarities with the Sintashta-Andronovo kurgans (M.P. Gryaznov). It is known that Saka tribes lived in the territory of Kyrgyzstan, and later the Wusun tribe arrived from the east. The high percentage of R1a1 among the Kyrgyz appeared through three routes: from the Saka tribes, from the Wusun Sakas, and from the Dingling tribes. There is also a theory about the migration of part of the Yenisei Kyrgyz to the territory of modern Kyrgyzstan.” (Zhaxylyk Sabitov)
Source: “Historical-Genetic Approach in the Study of the Ethnogenesis and Material Culture of the Ancient Kyrgyz” - International Journal of Experimental Education
“The land of Modern Kyrgyzstan, populated at the turn of the eras by the Saka and Wusun tribes, was overrun by the Yenisei Kyrgyzes (Khakasses) in the 8th c. AD.
Since Kyrgyzstan is a natural mountain fortress of the Tian Shan mountains, it is an island similar to the Lithuanian Tatars, with high genetic inertia and limited influences. Essentially, all four are Scythians, the Saka Scythians, Wusun Scythians, Yenisei Kyrgyz Scythians, and the Lithuanian Tatar Scythians.”
Source: “The Lithuanian Tatars: DNA Ancestry Traced To The Eurasian Steppes”, Academy of DNA-Genealogy, Tsukuba, Japan, Igor Rozhanski
"Samples from the burials of the Andronovo, Tagar, and Tashtyk cultures were identified using Y-STR analysis, which allows for the comparison of these samples with each other and with samples from representatives of different populations, both ancient and modern.
The Andronovo haplotypes S10 and S16 have the following structure:
ANDRON S10, S16:
13-25-16-11-11-14-10-14-11-18-15-14-11-16-20-12-23
The greatest number of matches is observed with the Tian Shan Kyrgyz and the Southern Altaians. Complete matches of haplotypes in populations that are geographically close and share a common history are possible only in cases of genetic relationship; random matches are unlikely.
Thus, the Southern Altaians and the Tien Shan Kyrgyz are likely descendants of close relatives of the Yenisei Andronovites, most likely the descendants of the Altai Andronovites. It is well established by linguists and ethnographers that there is close linguistic and ethnic kinship between the Kyrgyz and the Southern Altaians (Baskakov, 1966: 15-16).
These peoples share the same names for their clan divisions (Mundus, Telos-Doolos, Kipchak, Naiman, Merkit, etc.). Kyrgyz legends refer to Altai as the ancestral home of their people. Several historians believe that the Kyrgyz and Southern Altaians once formed a single community and that the migration of the Kyrgyz from Altai to Tien Shan occurred relatively recently (Abramzon, 1959: 34; Abdumanapov, 2007: 95, 114).
Source: Volkov V.G., Kharkov V.N., Stepanov V.A. Andronovo and Tagar cultures in light of genetic data."
Comments