Ancient DNA Tells Tales from the Grave

By Nancy Touchette


July 25, 2003
DNA from a 2,000-year-old burial site in Mongolia has revealed new information about the Xiongnu, a nomadic tribe that once reigned in Central Asia. Researchers in France studied DNA from more than 62 skeletons to reconstruct the history and social organization of a long-forgotten culture.


Ancient grave in the Egyin Gol necropolis.
Courtesy E. Crubezy, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France

The researchers found that interbreeding between Europeans and Asians occurred much earlier than previously thought. They also found DNA sequences similar to those in present-day Turks, supporting the idea that some of the Turkish people originated in Mongolia.

The research also provides glimpses into the Xiongnu culture. Elaborate burials were reserved for the elite members of society, who were often buried with sacrificial animals and humans at the time of burial. And relatives were often buried next to each other.

“This is the first time that a complete view of the social organization of an ancient cemetery based on genetic data was obtained,” says Christine Keyser-Tracqui of the Institut de Médecine Légale in Strasbourg, France. “It also helps us understand the history of contacts between the Asiatic and European populations more than 2,000 years ago.”

The necropolis, or burial site, was discovered in 1943 by a joint Mongolian-Russian expedition in a region known as the Egyin Gol Valley of Mongolia. Skeletons in the site were well preserved because of the dry, cold climate. The researchers estimated that the site was used from the 3rd century B.C. to the 2nd century A.D.

The researchers were able to figure out how various skeletons may have been related by analyzing three different types of DNA. They used mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited only from the mother, Y-chromosome DNA, which is passed from father to son, and autosomal DNA (that is, everything but the X and Y chromosomes), which is inherited from both mother and father.


Egyin Gol region of Mongolia with detail from a map of the Egyin Gol burial site. View full
© 2003 American Journal of Genetics

Most scientists had previously thought that people from Asia mixed with Europeans sometime after the 13th century, when Ghengis Khan conquered most of Asia and parts of the Persian Empire. However, Keyser-Tracqui and her coworkers detected DNA sequences from Europeans in the Xiongnu skeletons.

“This suggests that interbreeding between the European and Asian people in this part of the world occurred before the rise of the Xiongnu culture,” says Keyser-Tracqui.

The oldest section of the burial site contained many double graves. This may reflect the ancient practice of sacrificing and burying a concubine of the deceased along with horses and other animals. This practice, reserved for the more privileged members of society, was apparently abandoned—later sections of burial site revealed no double graves.

The most recent sector of the necropolis contained only the remains of related males, a burial grouping that had never been seen before.

Skeletons from the most recent graves also contained DNA sequences similar to those in people from present-day Turkey. This supports other studies indicating that Turkish tribes originated at least in part in Mongolia at the end of the Xiongnu period.

http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/...3/ancient.shtml

i think are this mean turkish are the descendant of the xiong nu ,are the hun and mongol are descendant of xiongnu too ,it mean they are all mixed race ,how about the finnic and magyar people .

I wonder what this study means for the super Altaic language family theory.

Is there any such theory?

What race was Xiongnu? Mongoloid or caucasian? The modern Hungarians have nothing to do with them, right?

The European admixture probably from Scythians who got conquered or joined the Hun confederation.

I know some Turkish nationals do claim Mongol Xiongnu ancestry.

However,modern Turkish population has gone through phases of intermixing with NON-Mongol stock.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin...=1&SRETRY=0

Apparently, the Wanggu tribe also had some Caucasoid admixture. Again, the question is how much. According to a web post by one who claims to have analyzed the whole paper, only one out of the 12 samples has some European DNA, and the overall genetic vector of the Wanggu is still much closer to that of the Han and the Mongolians.

What is WANGGU tribe... How did the people call themselves

Rudeboy asked a question on the Wanggu tribe on this thread, but no one has answered it yet: http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=12671



That's the funny thing about national history. The national myth of the Hungarian Magyars is that their ultimate forefathers were the Huns, even though they speak a Finno-Ugrian language and their founding father Arpad is said to have migrated to the Hungarian Plain with his followers in 896, long after the Hun period. There is a long tradition in Hungary of claiming that Arpad was descended from Attila.

^Arpad was actually a Khazar prince who banded a group of Magyar horsemen to head west to Europe. Khazar and Bulgar are said to be remnant tribes from the original Huns. It is highly likely that the Magyars were reinforced by Turkic/Hunnic elements before they entered Europe as well as absorbing the remaining Hun and Avar nomads in Hungary. There are lot of Turkic loanwords in their modern Magyar vocabulary.

Magyars came to nowadays hungary "much" later then the huns came, after them there came some Turkic tribes along with such as cumans, pechenegs, bulgars and khazars. They where called "onogur" wich means "ten tribes" by Turkic people the name "hungary" comes from that IIRC.

Huns - avars - pechenegs - bulgars are the Turkic tribes who settled down in Balkans or had estabilished an "khanate" there (balkans).

To compare Hungarian history its like the Korean history, Koreans think they are mongolian descent, hungarians think they are "Huns" descent. Bulgarians got shocked when they learn that medieval bulgars arent slavs but a Turkic tribe (bcuz they hate Turks), they also think Arpad is an slav bulgar (with blond and blue eyes lol and they have alot of "fights" with hungarians think they stole their history), etc etc...

Hmmm didnt knowed that, also the founder of Seljouk khanate (seljouk beg) whas also an soldier who served for the Khazars. So the conclusion is that Khazars did have many good soldiers or where able to educate/train good soldiers...

Hua if you look at the "loanwords" then serbians are in the absolute first place, they have above 8 000 Turkic loanwords in their modern vocabulary...

^The Turkic words in Serbian must have came from either Avars or Bulgars. There were many Avars who assimilated with Croatian Slavs after their defeat by the German king Charlemagne.

yea i believe that also, local dresses of "some" croatians and serbians does look almost the same as the Turkish/Turkic ones. An example you see in this clib of an Croation folk song, the dresses (and the looks ) of the men are much similar to the Turkish/Turkic ones http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf0Z_JiGrWc

The Xiongnu were not Mongols.

Yes - lots of peoples lived in 'Mongolia' before the Mongols did: Xiongnu, Xianbei, Rouran, Turks, Uyghurs. But Mongolian nationalists now tend to claim the Xiongnu, Xianbei, and Rouran as their ancestors, on the argument that these people spoke a 'Mongol' language.

That's actually a little similar to the Magyars claiming the Huns as their ancestors.

I hope you are not going to label the scholars as nationalists. Hunnic language question is still open and it is real subject to study

It is very clearly stated in Weishu that the Xiongnu and the Gaoche spoke the same language. The Gaoche were the ancestors of the Tiele who were themselves Turkic. Besides, many Chinese sources show links between the Xiongnu and the Tujue. Just show us any evidences for the Mongolness of the Xiongnu.

Han IS just a name, ethnic groups are only partially determined by race, but motly by culture.

I'm not surprised (though I wish they'd give some numbers). Caucasian penetration into Central Asia was much stronger in the ancient times, as a result of the Indo-European expansion. Sogdians and Bactrians were, for example, Iranian tribes. At the time of Han, Central Asia was predominantly Indo-European. When Tang reached Central Asia, they found the Indo-European population being slowly but steadily displaced by the Turkish tribes.

Xiongnu, or Huns, lived roughly between China and then-Indo-European Central Asian states, such as Sogdiana and Bactria. So they must have had a very mixed ethnic composition.

Leo

It is very clearly stated in Weishu that the Xiongnu and the Gaoche spoke the same language. The Gaoche were the ancestors of the Tiele who were themselves Turkic. Besides, many Chinese sources show links between the Xiongnu and the Tujue. Just show us any evidences for the Mongolness of the Xiongnu

Gaoche are said to have high bridge nose and deep eye socket, a facial feature of caucasoid peoples. So what suggested here is Xiongnu are caucasoid. But, do early Turkic peoples of Central Asia look caucasoid or mongoloid? Speaking the same language does not necessary mean the same race?

I don't think there is any record of this. The features you describe were associated with the Kiat/Jie people of the Age of Fragmentation, who are believed to be related to the Iranian Sogdians or Tocharians.

Regarding the language of the Xiongnu, the debate remains split between Proto-Mongolic and Proto-Turkic, with a few others (notably Pulleyblank) favouring Yeniseian Kettish.

Does the Turkic peoples of Han/Tang times look any similar to the Turkic people of Central Asia today? Are Kazakh, Uygur, Uzbeks, Kirghiz, Turkmen Turkic?

Kazakhs, Uygur, Uzbeks, Kyrgyz and Turkmen are Turkic yes, however they certainly do not look like each other.

By the time of the Tang dynasty, Turkic groups already ranged in physical features, depending on their location. The Karluks were probably similar in physical feature to Kyrgyz and Kazakhs of today.

The Tang Huiyao describes the Khirgiz as "of large stature, fair complexioned, with red hair and green eyes". There is no such description of other contemporary Turkic-speaking peoples like the Turkut or Uyghurs. It is important to remember that Turkic is a language group that does not imply genetic or racial commonality among its speakers.

Ironically, the Khirgiz later tried to claim descent from the Han general Li Ling who had surrendered to the Xiongnu, for political reasons (this gave them a relationship of kinship to the Tang dynasty, which claimed descent from Li Ling's uncle Li Gan), and the Tang dynasty recognized this claim - again for political reasons (the Tang supported the Khirgiz in their destruction of the Uyghur Kaghanate, because the Uyghurs had gotten too powerful).

I don't think there is any record of this. The features you describe were associated with the Kiat/Jie people of the Age of Fragmentation, who are believed to be related to the Iranian Sogdians or Tocharians.

I erred, you are right, Jiehu are recorded with high nose bridge.

And peoples of the ancient Gaochang Statelet (Turpan) to the west also possessed the features of high nose bridge and deep socket eyes. Xi Di (the Tanguts) of Xixia Dynasty too (or are they Xianbei)?

My question is, do you think the Huns are more Mongoloid or Caucasoid? Who are the descendants of the Huns? the Ruruans? Xianbei? Khitans?

Is Xiongnu (or Hun) a particular ethnic group or are they a group of peoples of different ethnicities bonded together by a specific culture lifestyle of the nomads? The reasons why I am asking is because many northern/western nomadic peoples like Xianbei, Khitans, Mongols, Turks claim Hunnic ancestry. Can someone shed light on this? thanks

Xiongu > Huns > Attile is the King of the Huns

Attila is most vividly described individual from any Xiongnu/ Hun people.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila

The Tanguts/Dangxiang were of Qiang, or proto-Tibetan, descent.



Why do you assume that the Huns were genetically the same people as the Xiongnu? That link is far from proven, even if there is similarity in the names (the Sogdians did call the Xiongnu 'xwn' = 'Huns' in the 4th century).

For example, the Indians also called the Ephthalites 'Hunas', even though these seem to have been a different people from the 'Huns' of Europe. 'Hun' could have been as generic a label as the Chinese 'Hu' (which some have indeed theorized is derived from 'Hun').

It is way too confusing... too many ethno-nyms..

If posssible, can someone pls give birds eye view of where the following nomadic people orginated from around what time and how did they spread, migrate ?

-- Iranian nomads ( a.k.a. Scythians, Saka, ** list all other known ethno-nyms ** )

-- Turanian nomads ( a.k.a. Turks, ** list all other known ethno-nyms ** )

-- Mongolian nomads ( a.k.a. Xienbei ** list all other known ethno-nyms ** )


What about some of the mixed nomadic groups?

Hsing-nu ( nomads who fought with Han dyn., probably mixed , who were they )

Huns ( attila )

Tatars ( genghis Khan )


etc

There are another theory for the origin of word HUN- is Mongolian word for PEOPLE/MAN/ HUMANE is HUN ( cyrillic. mongolian ХYН.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

from Mongolian -English dictionary
http://www.dicts.info/dictionary.php?k1=1&k2=236

хYн = man
Man = ХYН
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dicts.info/2/german-mongolian.php?e=mc2

Mann = хүн; эрэгтэй хүн;

Mongolian word -XYH for Man/humane, its latin transcryption is HUN (letter U is like german ü )

Why do you assume that the Huns were genetically the same people as the Xiongnu? That link is far from proven, even if there is similarity in the names (the Sogdians did call the Xiongnu 'xwn' = 'Huns' in the 4th century).

Really I don't know, that's why I am asking if Xiongnus or Huns are terms that describe one ethnic group or a group of ethnicities bonded together by similar culture / language. Whether Xiongnu or Hun are the same, I don't know. Does history record both groups at the same point in time? Or historians record either Xiongnu or Hun, and never two names together? Xiongnu is in Chinese, what is Hun in Chinese? And what is Xiongnu in romanised or english term if there is one?

As for Attila the Hun, there is still much debate about origins of the Huns of Europe and Huns of Central Asia, not to mention him being Xiongnu, i think

I have a wild theory about that name "hun", cant that name largely accepted by Turkic tribe's like the later name of "Turk/Turuk"? And IIRC "hun" meand "peoples", so it could include any kind of people because they where ruling over a large territory.

Isnt Hun the same as Xiongnu? whasnt xiongnu the way that chinese called the huns?

The Turkic and Proto-Turkic nomads all were kind of Kazakhs and Noghays, Kyrgyzes and Turkmens - by language, by culture, by customs, by race (mixed Eurasian type), etc. They ruled all over Eurasia for 2 thousands years or so, mostly fighting with each other because of frequent dynastic claims. It is already proven by DNA analysis that ancient Hunnu, Sarmatians, Scythians are direct ancestors of modern Kazakhs.

I had been in the Mongolia several times! Apparently Zorigo is Mongolian name.So I don't wonder why he is rude! You Guys even can't imagine how they all are over hostile toward Chinese people.I think myself it is maybe was Russian way to supress nomad peoples in Central Asia and the Far East?

I don't understand what you are trying to say.


you assume Zorigo is Mongolian name, but not exactly same as original mongolian name, There are lots of different variation of this name. Hostility is there it existed thousands years. you know history. When chinese stop calling Mongols any name and stop ridiculing....then mongols might stop. Plus what it has to do with russian by the way. Poor connection


Mongolians are friendly to foreigners including chinese. But term chinese is regarded only PRC citizens.
Singaporean is Singa hun, honkongers are hongkong hun, american chinese are amerik hun...

.... anyway that is not relevant to topic..


Since you were in Mongolia you know well that word mongolian HÜN means person, humane, mankind in general.
It is like Alaskan native people call themselves the Iniut (meaning: "the people") tribe.
Cinese word Xiongnu can not be considered as original name. Xiongnu is just chinese transcyption similar sounding and not exact pronunciation of the name HÜN ..

I agree that 'Xiongnu' is only a transcription, and so is 'Hu', the other name that the Xiongnu are said to call themselves in Chinese sources.

But what should they be called then, if HÜN is such a common name for people speaking a Mongolic language? Calling them Huns would be as imprecise as calling the Chinese the 'Ren' (which is their word for 'person').

NationMaster Encyclopaedia - Sarmatians "Recent research":

In a recent excavation of Samarian sites by Dr. Jeannine Davis-Kimball, a Ph.D. in archaeology from the University of California, a tomb was found in which female warriors were buried thus lending some credence to the myths about the Amazons. Following the excavation in 2003 by Dr. Davis-Kimball, she and Dr. Joachim Burger compared the genetic evidence from the site with the nomadic Kazakhs in Mongolia and have found a striking genetic link. This finding was verified later by the University of Cambridge.


---
http://www.thirteen.org/pressroom/release.php?get=1272

JEANNINE DAVIS-KIMBALL
Archaeologist

After raising six children and working as a nurse and a cattle rancher, Dr. Jeannine Davis Kimball received a Ph.D. in archaeology from the University of California. She soon became fascinated with the nomads of the Eurasian steppes, spending decades in the field unearthing the remains of the Sarmatians, herders who lived on the steppes in the fourth to second centuries B.C. Finding female skeletons buried with weapons and other articles of war, Davis-Kimball hypothesized that the Sarmatians may have inspired the ancient legend of the Amazons. In Mongolia, she found remnants of this ancient culture among the nomads presently living in the region, the Kazakhs. In 2003, working with geneticist Dr. Joachim Burger, she discovered a genetic link between the Kazakhs and the ancient Sarmatians.

Meiramgul, die kleine Amazone
Identische DNA-Strukturen

http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/3/0,1872,2132483,00.html
http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/5/0,1872,2133061,00.html
http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/16/0,1872,2133072,00.html
http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/25/0,1872,2133081,00.html

DNA analysis of Kazakhs and others:
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/jour...0714503524Guest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saka

...DNA analysis conducted at the Novosibirsk Institute of Cytology and Genetics has found Kazakhs and Altaic peoples to be the nearest relatives among competing Mongol-Turkic clans of a Scythian from the Pazyryk burial in Siberia...

(who the heck are these "Mongol-Turkic clans"?!)

Ashinas developed far later from Proto-Mongol Xianbeis. The Northern people was Mongols and is to be.

I understood Qing whenever one said China. I included my Southern Mongolian brothers and Han Chinese cousins. You are being so rude yourself. What if I say Han Chinese are dirty and nobody likes them.

^Of course, that's why people should be more educated and stop calling each other bad names and discuss scholarly things honorably.

If you are a Manchu... I understand "Mongolian brothers" part(barely) but why are "Han Chinese" your cousins?

Weren't you saying these in figurative sense?

Xiongnu tribe was genetically Haplogroup N, a northern Asian marker. This marker is also found in Hungary, Turkey and Finland.

Presence of Tat-C in Ancient Mongolia
International Congress Series
Volume 1261 , April 2004, Pages 325-327

Does the Tat polymorphism originate in northern Mongolia?

C. Keyser-Tracqui et al.

It has been suggested that the Y-chromosomal T→C transition arose in Mongolia ~2400–4000 years ago. To test this hypothesis, we screened 2300-year-old Mongolian male specimens and ancient Yakut male specimens for this Y-chromosomal marker. Our results demonstrate that the mutation was present in Asia 2300 years ago.

In the past few years, a large number of polymorphic markers have been identified on the Y chromosome. Among these is the T→C transition (locus RBF5) reported by Zerjal et al. [1] and later called the Tat-polymorphism. The C allele of this biallelic marker has so far been observed only in populations from Asia and northern Europe. It reaches its highest frequency in Yakuts, Buryats, northeastern Siberian populations and Finns (Table 1).

In this study, we screened ancient Mongolian samples from the Egyin Gol necropolis for the Tat marker. The Egyin Gol necropolis, located in northern Mongolia, is ~2300 years old and belongs to the Xiongnu culture [3]. In addition, we genotyped the T→C mutation in ancient Yakut specimens excavated at two sites in the Sakha Republic (Yakutia) [4].

All of the seven ancient Yakut individuals tested showed the C allele, confirming that the mutation occurred most probably before their migration from southern regions. Concerning the Xiongnu people, two of them harboured the mutation suggesting that the Tat polymorphism already existed in Mongolia 2300 years ago.

In conclusion, our study showed that the C allele was present in parent populations to the modern inhabitants of Mongolia or Yakutia, suggesting that the mutation may have arisen in Mongolia more than 2400 years ago [1]. Moreover, our work suggests that the Xiongnu tribe under study may have been composed of some of the ancestors of the present-day Yakut population.