Scythian-Kyrgyz Ethnogenesis of Ancient Siberian Ashina-Turkophones
A quote from the scholarly work of the distinguished scholar Dmitry Glebovich Savinov: “States and Cultural Genesis in Southern Siberia during the Early Middle Ages," chapter: "The Dominion of Cigu — Tashtyk Culture.”
"Cigu (or Kigu) is one of the early phonetic transcriptions of the ethnonym 'Kyrgyz,' dating to the period before 700 A.D. [Yakhontov, 1970, p. 114]. Cigu, as the name of the northernmost domain founded by the Ashina Turks after their migration to the Altai in 460 A.D., is mentioned in one of the ancient Turkic genealogical traditions and has repeatedly drawn the attention of scholars [Aristov, 1897, pp. 4-8; Grum-Grzhimailo, 1926, pp. 208-213; Kiselev, 1951, pp. 93-494; Klyashtorny, 1964, pp. 103-106; 1965, pp. 278-281; Gumilev, 1967, pp. 23-24; Zuev, 1967; Potapov, 1969, pp. 54-55; Serdobov, 1971, pp. 53-55; Nesterov, 1979; Savinov, 1984, pp. 31-34; 1988a].
The significance of this mention for the early stage of ethnocultural genesis of the Yenisei Kyrgyz is hard to overestimate. Firstly, it points to an ancient (possibly genetic) kinship between the Kyrgyz and the Turkic Tukyu people; secondly, it is the first historically recorded evidence of the existence of an early Kyrgyz ethno-social union on the Middle Yenisei. In both respects, the mention of the Cigu dominion in ancient Turkic genealogical traditions deserves the closest attention.
According to one legend, recorded in the dynastic chronicle Zhou Shu, the ancestors of the ancient Turks, a "branch of the Xiongnu House by the name Ashina," were exterminated by warriors of a neighboring tribe, leaving only a boy alive. His enemies cut off his hands and feet and threw him into a swamp. There, a she-wolf found and nursed him. She later settled in the mountains north of Gaochang (the Turfan Oasis — D.S.).
Among the children born from the union of the she-wolf and this boy was Ashina — 'a man of great abilities.' One of his descendants, Asyan-shad, migrated to the Altai, where he came under the rule of the Rouran Khaganate, for whom the Turks smelted iron. The widespread nature of this legend in the ancient Turkic world was brilliantly confirmed by the discovery of the Bugut Stele with a Sogdian inscription dating to the First Turkic Khaganate (between 581 and 587 A.D.), where, in addition to texts, there was a bas-relief of a wolf (or she-wolf), with a human figure beneath her belly [Klyashtorny, Livshits, 1971].
Another legend states that "the ancestors of the Tugu House came from the ruling House of So, who lived north of the Xiongnu." The head of the tribe, Apanbu, had 70 (in another version, 17) brothers. One of the brothers, Izhinishi-tu, called 'the son of a she-wolf,' had several sons, each of whom received their own dominion.
The eldest, Nodulu-shad, who took the name Turk, ruled in Basychusishi; the second on the Chusi River; the third turned into a swan; and the fourth 'reigned between the Afu and Gyan rivers under the name Cigu' [Bichurin, 1950, pp. 221-222]. Nodulu-shad's son, Ashina, became the leader of the tribe and took the name Asyan-shad. His descendant (grandson or grandnephew) Tumin (Bumin) became the founder of the First Turkic Khaganate in 552 A.D.
The researcher S.G. Klyashtorny, who conducted the most comprehensive study of ancient Turkic genealogical traditions in comparison with historical accounts from the Sui Shu dynastic chronicles, noted 'the realistic basis in these accounts, whose historiographical value seems undeniable' [Klyashtorny, 1965, p. 278].
He proposed dividing the early history of the Turkic tribe into two periods: the Gansu-Gaochang period, when the ancestors of the Ashina Turks were formed from post-Xiongnu and local Iranian-speaking tribes in Eastern Turkestan (3rd century A.D. — 460 A.D.), and the Altai period, when the formed Turkic ethnos migrated to the Altai (460-552 A.D.) [Klyashtorny, 1965, p. 281], where the early Turkic dominions were established."
There are no further details about their history in written sources; however, it can be assumed that, since the Ashina Turks in the northern regions where they lived became dependent on the Rouran Khaganate, this likely led to the separation of the dominions they had established. The ancient Turkic legends preserved in the Zhou Shu are usually considered two versions of the same genealogical cycle.
Indeed, both legends describe the same events, but the time of their origin appears to differ. The first retains an ancient mythological, and to some extent, totemic foundation, and traces the story up to the migration of the Turks to the Altai. The second is more specific, filled with names, and concludes with the establishment of the First Turkic Khaganate.
In the first legend, the legendary origin from a she-wolf forms the main plotline, while in the second, Izhinishi-tu is only incidentally referred to as "the son of a she-wolf," which can be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to emphasize his continuity with the mythological tradition of the ruling Turkic dynasty. Most likely, both legends form two parts of a single legendary cycle: the first corresponds to the Gansu-Gaochang period in the history of the ancient Turks, and the second to the Altai period.
The time of the existence of the Cigu dominion in the dynastic chronology of the ancient Turks is determined as follows. From the first historical figure of ancient Turkic history, Tumin (Bumin), whose earliest recorded embassy is noted in the sources in 545 A.D. [Bichurin, 1950, p. 228], three Turkic rulers (Tuu — Ashina — Nodulu-shad) or four generations passed before the legendary Izhinishi-tu. Given that a generation is usually calculated at 25 years, this accounts for one century, corresponding to the period between the migration of the Turks to the Altai and the establishment of the First Turkic Khaganate (460-552 A.D.).
Moreover, if the migration of the Turks to the Altai, according to one legend, is associated with the name Ashina, then the entire chronology of Cigu becomes even more ancient. However, considering the legendary nature of the sources and possible breaks in the genealogical tradition, these discrepancies do not seem significant: the Cigu dominion was established (or existed) in the mid-5th century and became the first social formation of the Kyrgyz recorded in written sources.
The coordinates of the Cigu dominion mentioned in the Zhou Shu provide the earliest reliable ethnographic data on the peoples of Southern Siberia. N.A. Aristov suggested localizing it based on the names Afu (Abakan) and Gyan (Kem, Yenisei), where "the main settlement of the Kyrgyz" was located, though he did not specify the exact location of Cigu, but clearly referred to the Middle Yenisei Valley and the Minusinsk Basin [Aristov, 1897, pp. 5-6]. L.A. Evtyukhova most definitively placed Cigu "exactly in the ancestral lands of the Kyrgyz," that is, in the Minusinsk Basin [Evtyukhova, 1948, p. 4].
There is another viewpoint that identifies Cigu with the Chiks, mentioned in runic inscriptions, who lived in the 8th century in the territory of Tuva [Grum-Grzhimailo, 1926, p. 311; Kyzlasov, 1969, p. 51 (not in the bibliography); 1984, p. 32]. However, as N.A. Serdobov rightly notes, "today, after the publication of S.E. Yakhontov's research, the question of the term Kigu (or Cigu) has been conclusively resolved in the sense that this term is the ethnonym 'Kyrgyz'" [Serdobov, 1971, p. 56], and therefore, the localization of Cigu in the Minusinsk Basin is the most justified. Moreover, according to the sources, there is reason to place the Cigu dominion not just within the Minusinsk Basin but specifically on the left bank of the Yenisei, north of the confluence of the Abakan River.
The coincidence of chronology and the provided geographical data allow the identification of Cigu with the Tashtyk culture in the Middle Yenisei, which became widely known through the works of S.A. Teploukhov, S.V. Kiselev, L.A. Evtyukhova, L.R. Kyzlasov, M.P. Gryaznov, E.B. Vadetskaya, and other researchers who paid particular attention to questions of its origin, periodization, its role in the formation of the Yenisei Kyrgyz culture, and the identification of Central Asian components within the Tashtyk complex.
S.A. Teploukhov, who identified the Tashtyk culture (or the Tashtyk transitional stage), dated its existence from the turn of our era (ground burials) to the 3rd-4th centuries (Tashtyk crypts). Closely related to these are the stone mounds of the Chaa-Tas type (5th-7th centuries), which later became characteristic of the culture of the Yenisei Kyrgyz [Teploukhov, 1929, pp. 50-55].
In S.V. Kiselev's major work, the main Tashtyk burials (ground burials and crypts with various types of grave structures) were identified, and the dates of its existence were established as from the 1st century B.C. to the 4th century A.D., after which "the material culture of the Sayan-Altai tribes began to transform into a new one, which became characteristic of the period of the emergence of the Altai Turks and Yenisei Kyrgyz" [Kiselev, 1951, p. 472].
In the materials from the Tashtyk culture, S.V. Kiselev identified elements (such as ceramics, burial sculptures depicting animals, and structural details in the construction of the late Tashtyk burial site Uybat II) that later developed in the culture of the Yenisei Kyrgyz.
According to S.V. Kiselev, it was during the Tashtyk period that the ethnic composition of the population in the Middle Yenisei region changed.
This change is mainly reflected in the anthropological features of the Tashtyk masks, which, as is well known, combine both Europoid and Mongoloid traits. "In this regard," writes S.V. Kiselev, "it is impossible not to recall the version of the origin of the Khakas-Yenisei Kyrgyz from the Dinlins and their southern neighbors, the Gyan-Gun..."
This is confirmed by the legend of the origin of the Turkic peoples of the Sayan-Altai plateau [Kiselev, 1951, pp. 472-473], i.e., by materials from ancient Turkic genealogical traditions. L.A. Evtyukhova also draws attention to the common features of Tashtyk and Kyrgyz elements in the burials of the so-called "transitional stage," as evidence of the local origin of the Kyrgyz.
However, she notes that "their formation was part of a broader ethnogenetic process of the formation of Turkic peoples in the Sayan-Altai region." Therefore, "the early history of the Kyrgyz should not be considered in isolation but in connection with events in Central Asia" [Evtyukhova, 1948, p. 4].
The most detailed periodization of the Tashtyk cultural monuments was proposed by L.R. Kyzlasov, who divided it into several successive stages: the Izykh stage (1st century B.C. — 1st century A.D.), the Syr stage (1st-2nd centuries A.D.), the Uybat stage (3rd century A.D.), and the transitional or Kameshkov stage (4th-5th centuries A.D.) [Kyzlasov, 1960 (not listed in bibliography)].
In addition to providing a detailed description of each stage based on burial rituals and accompanying inventory items, L.R. Kyzlasov’s monograph contains several observations on Central and East Asian parallels to specific elements of the Tashtyk culture.
These include: the form of crypts under truncated pyramidal mounds with side entrances (dromos), certain types of ceramics and their ornamentation, animal burial figurines, and ceremonial umbrellas, which have analogies in Han Dynasty monuments in China (206 B.C. — 220 A.D.) and in the burials of the Xiongnu chanyu in Noin-Ula, Northern Mongolia (early 1st century A.D.) [Kyzlasov, 1960, pp. 28, 49-50, 63-64, 134-135 (not listed in bibliography)].
According to L.R. Kyzlasov, these elements appear in the early (Izykh) stage of the Tashtyk culture and are primarily characteristic of the left-bank crypts under truncated pyramidal earthen mounds, which differ from the right-bank crypts under “yurt-shaped” mounds, both in terms of ceramics and burial structure.
This distinction provided the basis for identifying two ethnic groups in the Middle Yenisei during the Tashtyk period, likely also speaking different languages. While they shared significant similarities in burial practices (primarily cremation with burial masks) and material culture, they exhibited different types of burial structures.
The dominant group was the left-bank tribes. It was here, on the left bank of the Yenisei, corresponding to the proposed location of Cigu, that the political center was located during the Tashtyk period, which possibly continued into the era of the ancient Khakas (Kyrgyz) state.
In the 3rd century (the Uybat stage), truncated pyramidal mounds appeared on the right bank, which L.R. Kyzlasov associates with the spread of “the customs of the left-bank population” [Kyzlasov, 1960, pp. 14, 18, 66-67, 191 (not listed in bibliography)].
An alternative dating of the monuments from the first half of the 1st millennium A.D. in the Minusinsk Basin was proposed by M.P. Gryaznov, who identified two successive stages based on materials from the Krasnoyarsk expedition excavations: the Batenyovsky stage (1st-2nd centuries A.D.) and the Tepsey stage (3rd-4th centuries A.D.).
The main basis for this was an analysis of ceramics—"both in shape and ornamentation, the ceramics of the Batenyovsky stage are very similar to the ceramics of the preceding Tesinsky stage and are genetically connected with it," whereas “in the monuments of the Tepsey stage, no analogies with the Tesinsky stage are observed.
However, some continuation of them can be seen in the monuments of the Kyrgyz period.” When examining the ceramics of the Tepsey stage, M.P. Gryaznov notes that “the same single, though varied, type of ceramics characterizes all the crypts reviewed by L.R. Kyzlasov” [Gryaznov, 1971, pp. 96-99].
It is easy to see that M.P. Gryaznov’s periodization, which dates the Tashtyk crypts to a single period (3rd-4th centuries A.D.), is a further development of S.I. Teploukhov’s earlier periodization on a new qualitative level. The Tepsey crypts, with their truncated pyramidal form of earthen mounds and side dromos entrances, are located on the right bank of the Yenisei, corresponding to the Uybat stage in L.R. Kyzlasov’s periodization.
A comprehensive summary of opinions on the periodization of the Tashtyk culture is provided in E.B. Vadetskaya’s work, who rightly notes that "the chronological schemes presented, despite their formal coherence, are highly debatable, especially regarding the dating of the earliest and latest groups of monuments.
This is largely due to the lack of consensus on the chronological relationship between ground burial sites and crypts, on the one hand, and late crypts with burials of the transitional Tashtyk-Kyrgyz type, on the other” [Vadetskaya, 1986, p. 145]. When focusing more closely on the characteristics of the Tashtyk cultural complex, it is important to note that the components of the Tashtyk culture were quite complex. Both local Tagar groups and incoming populations contributed to its formation.
Each of these components must be represented by certain types of monuments, but due to the syncretic nature of the culture as a whole, it has not yet been possible to identify them convincingly. It is evident that different types of burial structures, all referred to as "Tashtyk," existed in the Minusinsk Basin at various times.
By the turn of the era, burials in stone cists and ground burials with stone structures from the Tesinsky stage had completely disappeared, indicating the assimilation of their carriers into the local population. Additionally, large single mound-crypts also disappeared. However, Tagar traditions were preserved in Tashtyk culture, both in the details of burial rituals and in certain forms of accompanying grave goods [Vadetskaya, 1981].
The main type of burial in the Tashtyk culture at the beginning of the 1st millennium A.D. was shallow pit burials with square or rectangular wooden structures, directly continuing the tradition of Tesinsky ground burials in wooden frames, which, according to M.P. Gryaznov's periodization, belong to the Batenyovsky stage of the Tashtyk culture (1st-2nd centuries).
The burial ritual combined inhumation and cremation practices, but now the cremated remains were placed in specially made leather pouches, doll-like mannequins, sometimes with clay masks.
For some Tashtyk ground burial sites, radiocarbon dates have been obtained, dating them to the 1st century B.C. Based on this, it is concluded that "they are partly synchronous with the Tagar kurgans of the Tesinsky stage and 'Kamensk-type' graves (with stone structures — D.S.)" [Vadetskaya, 1986, p. 145].
However, the distinguishing characteristics that separate late Tesinsky burials with wooden frames from early Tashtyk burials remain unclear. Other radiocarbon analysis data points to the 1st century A.D. [Yermolova, Markov, 1983, p. 87]. It is still unknown how long the Tashtyk ground burial sites continued to exist in the Minusinsk Basin.
From the 3rd century A.D., the population practicing cremation became dominant in the Minusinsk Basin. From this time, the main type of burial became the Tashtyk crypts—small and large—found throughout the Minusinsk Basin.
On the left bank of the Yenisei, these include the Syr, Izykh, and Uybat cha-tas crypts [Kyzlasov, 1960, pp. 15-28 (not listed in the bibliography)]; on the right bank, the Tepsey crypts [Gryaznov, 1979, pp. 19-122] and the cha-tas crypt on the Dalnyaya Cheya River [Vadetskaya, 1981a]; in the north, Khyzylars, Kurgan 3 [Khudyakov, 1985, pp. 182-183] and four crypts near the village of Ayoshka [Vadetskaya, 1969 (not listed in the bibliography)]; in the south, Stepnovka II, Kurgan 2 [Savinov, 1987a], and others.
Despite differences in size, certain structural elements, the number of buried individuals, and burial rituals, the Tashtyk crypts represent a single cultural type of monument, indicating a relatively high level of social differentiation among the population that left them behind.
Many crypts contain burials according to inhumation rituals, evidently belonging to a dependent population. "The reason for the variety of Tashtyk crypts," notes E.B. Vadetskaya, "remains unclear. Does this reflect chronological stages of the culture, or its ethnic and social variations?" [Vadetskaya, 1981a, p. 59].
It seems that various factors were at play here—territorial and chronological—each requiring special consideration. However, the leading factor was undoubtedly the social development of the Tashtyk society, moving towards the ethnic integration of different population groups into a new ethno-social formation.
It is necessary to clarify the timing of the appearance of Central-East Asian elements in the materials of the Tashtyk crypts, which, as mentioned earlier, include the form of above-ground structures—crypts, certain types of ceramics and their ornamentation techniques, animal burial figurines, remnants of ceremonial umbrellas, and others.
An interesting observation was made by E.B. Vadetskaya: “The scattered remains of umbrellas, horse figurines, and horses found in the crypts were once part of complete models of carts, placed with the deceased, similar to the Chinese type” [Vadetskaya, 1986, p. 139]. According to L.R. Kyzlasov, the spread of these innovations dates back to the early Izykh stage of the Tashtyk culture (1st century B.C. — 1st century A.D.).
Now, thanks to the study of monuments from the Ulug-Khem culture in Tuva, the ground burial sites of the Tesinsky stage along the Yenisei, and other graves with stone structures, the specific elements of Central Asian (Xiongnu) origin from this time are becoming clearer: bronze openwork belt plaques with animal depictions, bow tips and central bow plates, bone arrowheads with split bases, various bone plates and bronze ornaments, spoon-shaped fasteners, horn pins, and more.
As A.M. Mandelstam noted, these items primarily represent “weapons and clothing accessories—specifically, belt parts and likely hangers. This makes sense, given that the Xiongnu state had a clearly defined military organization based on effective weaponry and clothing suited to their tactical needs” [Mandelstam, 1975, p. 235].
These elements were borrowed by the creators of burials with stone structures, tentatively identified with the Dinlins. However, such items have never been found in Tashtyk crypts, nor in the burials of the Batenyovsky stage (1st-2nd centuries), as identified by M.P. Gryaznov.
Therefore, the Central and East Asian elements found in Tashtyk materials must belong to a later period, although continuity with the earlier Han tradition in the original territory cannot be excluded.
The same can be said for the severed braids found in Tashtyk burials. It is perhaps no coincidence that the custom of wearing braids during this time was recorded among the ancient Tibetans and the people of Turfan, where significant events of ancient Turkic genealogical traditions took place. "Among the people of Turfan, this custom was abolished in 612 A.D. by an official decree of the ruler of Gaochang, Bo-ya" [Grach, 1961, p. 78].
The appearance of memorial structures in Tashtyk culture, associated with crypts, as well as anthropomorphic steles—precursors to ancient Turkic stone statues—also dates to this time. These steles had a long tradition in the monumental art of Central Asian nomadic tribes of the early nomadic era and were previously unknown in the Yenisei region [Savinov, 1981a, pp. 232-243].
Particularly noteworthy is the clear social distinction associated with all the Central and East Asian elements in Tashtyk culture, suggesting that the pyramidal crypts in which these elements were found belonged to a socially privileged population. This seems to answer the question about the differences between the left-bank and right-bank populations: the dominion of Cigu on the Middle Yenisei was essentially the first ethno-social union of the Southern Siberian tribes, emerging as a result of the influence of nascent ancient Turkic statehood.
The boundary between Tashtyk culture and the culture of the Yenisei Kyrgyz is usually drawn around the 5th century, largely due to general historical factors, primarily the formation of the First Turkic Khaganate in the mid-6th century, which marked the beginning of the early medieval period.
However, the traditional development of the Tashtyk culture was unlikely to have been interrupted by the political events occurring in Central Asia. A.K. Ambroz suggested that “the Tashtyk people (often with burial masks) were the Kyrgyz of the era of Emperor Taizong” [Ambroz, 1971, p. 120].
Although there is insufficient evidence from Siberian archaeology to support such a statement, it has clearly influenced the overall tendency to extend the dating of Tashtyk culture monuments, in some cases as late as the 7th century. The most well-argued position is that of E.B. Vadetskaya, who, based on the form of bronze buckles and belt fittings, establishes the upper limit for the existence of crypts (and, accordingly, the Tashtyk culture) as the 5th-6th centuries [Vadetskaya, 1986, p. 145].
This is also supported by the seemingly unexpected analogies between the Tashtyk culture and the Silla culture (Korea, 5th-6th centuries), which show several similar cultural elements [Vorobyev, 1961]. These include: saddles with wide arched bows (in Tashtyk culture—birch bark coverings of saddles from the Uybat cha-tas), belt sets with bronze openwork buckles and pendants, horizontally “lying” barrels with a stopper in the middle, iron wire bits, and depictions of riders with a cauldron attached to the horse’s croup (in Tashtyk culture—rock carvings on Khyzyl-Khaya), and others.
There are also more specific similarities. For example, on a ritual vessel in the form of a rider from the Silla culture [Vainshtein, Kryukov, 1984, fig. 12], there is an additional flap under the saddle, similar to the one on the image of a running saddled horse on one of the Tepsey plates [Gryaznov, 1979, fig. 61]. Individual analogies can also be found in monuments of the late Kofun period in Japan from the same time [Vorobyev, 1958].
Of course, from a territorial perspective, all of these sites are quite far from one another. However, such synchronization, given the very limited study of archaeological monuments in the intermediate territories, does not contradict the established understanding of the eastern elements that played a certain role in the formation of the Tashtyk cultural complex and, therefore, have chronological significance.
It is possible that the infiltration of eastern cultural elements into Southern Siberia was triggered by the formation of the Cigu dominion on the Middle Yenisei, which in turn adopted them from the Ashina Turks.
The early stage of the ethno-cultural genesis of the Ashina Turks, according to genealogical traditions, was closely connected with the eastern regions of Asia. In light of this evidence, the upper chronological boundary of the Tashtyk culture can be placed no earlier than the mid-6th century, and certain Tashtyk traditions may well have continued into the second half of this century.
The monuments of Tashtyk culture in the forest-steppe region of Southern Siberia occupy a unique position, being much more closely related to the late Tagar tradition. Analyzing the materials of the crypt near the village of Beresh, which combines Tashtyk and Tagar elements, E.B. Vadetskaya notes that “Tagar people were buried here, continuing to live in the forest-steppe part of the Minusinsk Basin at a time when the Tashtyk culture had already developed in the south” [Vadetskaya, 1984, p. 191].
Actual Tashtyk monuments [Martynova, 1967; 1984 (not listed in the bibliography); Kulemzin, 1969; 1980] here may also be dated to a later period than those in the Minusinsk Basin. This likely explains the finds of ornamented clay vessels of the "Kyrgyz vase" type and bone bow and quiver fittings in the Tashtyk burials at the Mikhailovsk burial ground [Martynova, 1976; 1985, pp. 108-112 (not listed in the bibliography)].
The existence of numerous common elements between the Tashtyk culture and the culture of the Yenisei Kyrgyz is undeniable. It is likely that the majority of these elements belong to the early stage of the Yenisei Kyrgyz culture, when earlier Tashtyk traditions still retained significance.
For example, L.R. Kyzlasov noted that “the early cha-tas of the Utin stage (according to L.R. Kyzlasov—the early stage of cha-tas culture, 6th-7th centuries) are always located at the sites of old Tashtyk burial grounds.” Clearly, the people who built these structures were well aware of their blood ties to the population of the preceding era [Kyzlasov, 1981, p. 48 (not listed in the bibliography)]. The main ethno-differentiating feature of the Yenisei Kyrgyz burials, as recorded in written sources, is the consistent cremation ritual, which was inherited from the Tashtyk culture and continued throughout their existence.
Connected to the Tashtyk past are such elements of the cha-tas burial rites as vertically placed slabs at the base of above-ground structures [Zyablin, 1965, pp. 282-286, fig. 3], the lining of burial pits with vertically placed posts, birch bark coverings over the superstructures, the abundance of domestic animal bones, and more [Evtyukhova, 1948, p. 8; Kyzlasov, 1955, p. 252; 1981, pp. 47-48 (not listed in the bibliography)].
Among the accompanying inventory items, bronze horsehead amulet plates crafted in the characteristic Tashtyk style were preserved, although they gradually lost their realistic appearance [Evtyukhova, 1948, fig. 3; Kyzlasov, 1955, fig. 40, 1 (not listed in the bibliography)], as well as round belt distributors and some other items.
Among the finds from the Abakan cha-tas, remnants of clay masks are mentioned [Kyzlasov, Kyzlasov I., 1985, p. 219]; however, these unique finds, if they indeed belong to this period, require special examination. Based on all this data, the Tashtyk culture, especially in its later—Tepsey?—stage, could be called early Kyrgyz.
The political history of Cigu is unknown to us. The name Cigu, used to designate the Yenisei Kyrgyz community, is mentioned once more in written sources in the description of the campaigns of the third ruler of the First Turkic Khaganate, Muqan Khagan (553-557 AD), who “conquered Cigu in the north and terrified all the dominions beyond the border” [Bichurin, 1950, p. 229].
There is no doubt that by this time the dominion of Cigu had already completely separated from the ancient Turkic ethno-social hierarchy. With some caution, this event can be synchronized with the end (or beginning of the end) of the Tashtyk culture, which corresponds to the archaeological materials mentioned above." - Dmitry Glebovich Savinov: “States and Cultural Genesis in Southern Siberia during the Early Middle Ages," chapter: "The Dominion of Cigu — Tashtyk Culture.”
🧬 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