This week is a very interesting one when it comes to access of ancient DNA coming from the eastern steppes. We got a 2-for-1 combo deal with ancient DNA from the Xiongnu period and the Goktürk period.
Ancient DNA from Xiongnu cemeteries in Western Mongolia
The other day raw data for an upcoming article headed by Choongwon Jeong, who also was the lead author of the 2020 article “A Dynamic 6,000-Year Genetic History of Eurasia’s Eastern Steppe” which currently is one of the most significant articles to have come out in relation to the topic of the eastern steppes during the metal ages was uploaded to Edmond (the Open Research Data Repository of the Max Planck Society).
Description:
This collection includes the EIGENSTRAT format genotype data of 17 ancient individuals for the 1240K SNP panel. The individuals are newly analyzed in the study "Genetic population structure of the Xiongnu Empire at imperial and local scales" and are from two Xiongnu-period archaeological sites in Mongolia: TAK(Takhiltyn Khotgor) and SBB(Shombuuzyn Belchir).
The raw data is accessible here:
Data for "Genetic population structure of the Xiongnu Empire at imperial and local scales" - Edmond
Davidski from the Eurogenes blog has converted these samples to Global25 coordinates, which you can access here.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PC-N4dJr3pWynJIYKdAYzZWwXhJug5e-/view?usp=share_link
This means that you can now utilize these samples with the various Vahaduo tools, which you can do here:
Visit the Eurogenes blog for the Global25 coordinates:
Eurogenes Blog: Getting the most out of the Global25
I will discuss the genetic aspect in a bit, but first I will go over the two sites these samples come from. Below is a map which showcases the two sites, Shombuuzyn Belchir and Takhiltyn Khotgor being site 1 and 2 on the map respectively [1].
Takhiltyn Khotgor is an interesting site because it is one of the few Xiongnu elite cemeteries which are present in western Mongolia, as most of the large cemeteries are in Central Mongolia and the Transbaikal region [2].
Now I think that due to the limited information we have about the Xiongnu empire a lot of opinions about “Xiongnu elites” have been pulled right out of thin air. Reading some historian’s works you’d get the impression that it is certain that the Xiongnu elites belonged to a singular ethnic group, whether it’s Yeniseian speaking, Turkic speaking, Iranian speaking. Personally I see no real evidence for this in primary sources, in fact I see no evidence that the founding tribes of the Xiongnu confederation themselves belonged to a single ethnolinguistic group, let alone the elites at an imperial or local level of the imperial period.
Nevertheless getting genomic data from such elite burials will be very informative and could help to confirm or debunk the many many claims that float around about the Xiongnu and the elite strata of their society.
The arrangement and components of tomb complexes at Takhiltyn Khotgor, as well as the
contents of the main tombs, closely resemble elite Xiongnu cemeteries found elsewhere. The
elite graves here are undoubtedly associated with the elite imperial culture of the Xiongnu
polity and thus may be considered within the limits of the empire. Despite the consistencies
in mortuary remains for the elite, evidence arises in the satellite burials of differentiation from
standard Xiongnu customs. Interments in stone cists such as THL-64-1 and THL-64-2 are
seldom found in other Xiongnu cemeteries, and the flexed legs of these two graves and THL25-1 deviate from the prevailing custom of fully stretched supine burials in Xiongnu graves
(Törbat 2004). The most significant difference is the surface demarcations. The small tight
cluster of stones over the grave pit differs greatly from the tradition of stone rings. It is not
clear what these variations indicate, but it may relate to either local variations of the Altai or
perhaps a social group not yet delineated within the greater corpus of Xiongnu remains. Further excavations of Xiongnu graves, especially outside the large elite cemeteries, will need to be
conducted in the area of Khovd aimag in order to further clarify this issue.
Crescent sun disc from grave 64 at Takhiltyn Khotgor
Shombuuzyn Belchir is a bit less extravagant than Takhyltin Khotgor. The burials here generally fall in line with the typical Xiongnu burial traditions of Central and eastern Mongolia.
The radiocarbon dates for these sites range in between 50 BC and 100 AD for Takhyltin Khotgor and Shumbuulzyn Belchir [3].
This is an interesting period during the Xiongnu empire as it falls in the range of the first Xiongnu civil war, where we see Zhizhi Chanyu making his base around the Altai region. Presumably, this was after the defeat of the rebelling Hujie Chanyu, the Hujie being one of the tribes of the Xiongnu most likely located in the southern Altai region.
Bernshtam interpreted the historical records as indicating that Zhizhi Chanyu made his base around the “celestial mountain” as Zhizhi making his base around the Tian Shan mountains, and that this migration was the movement of Huns into Central Asia. However, based on the description it seems far more likely that the “celestial mountain” refers to the Altai, and Zhizhi Chanyu’s army by the time of reaching the Kangju was only a few thousand men strong, he was also defeated in battle and slain in this area by the Han [4].
Later on the Xiongnu split into a Northern Xiongnu and southern Xiongnu, and the Altai region was a core territory of the northern Xiongnu. It is here where the Northern Xiongnu were defeated at the battle of the Altai with the Northern Chanyu fleeing, which more or less ended their role as a significant political factor in the steppes. Soon after the remnants of the Northern Xiongnu were defeated by the Xianbei and incorporated into their empire.
Using Vahaduo Admixture JS, here are some models for these samples, keeping it simple. Since there are several streams of ancestry which can overlap I turned on the ADC function at 0.25 to reduce overfitting.
My friend Altvred who some of you might know from our collaboration “When did the Western Steppe Herder genetic profile form?” also had taken a look at the Y-DNA of the samples. Unfortunately there is no data on mtdna available at the moment so Y-DNA will have to do:
A few things to note here:
One thing I have been quite convinced of lately is that Proto-Turkic speakers originally were present in central-eastern Mongolia and the Transbaikal region during the period circa 500 BC - 100 BC. This is based on a combination of archaeology, linguistics and ancient DNA.
I am also convinced that C-F1756 was one of the core y-chromosome haplogroup lineages amongst these early Proto-Turkic peoples (one of being key here). Now you might say “hold up, isn’t C-F1756 a Mongolic haplogroup?” and you wouldn’t be wrong as modern distribution certainly suggests that. Many cases of C-F1756 so far also have been found in samples with a Mongolic-like autosomal profile and/or in contexts such as Xianbei or Rouran sites. C-F1756 also shows up quite a bit in samples from central-eastern Mongolia during the Xiongnu period, predominantly in the area I just highlighted as what I consider the most likely location of a Proto-Turkic urheimat. And we do have samples with C-F1756 in early medieval Europe in Khazar, Avar and Hungarian conqueror period contexts which predate the presence of Mongols in Europe.
But the lineage is certainly not frequently found amongst medieval Turkic peoples. I think that there are multiple layers of y-chromosome haplogroup introgression that ultimately brought the C-F1756 frequency amongst Turks down by a significant margin, with one key event being the Xiongnu collapse and the interactions between native Altai Scythians and new eastern migrants in the ensuing periods. I am working on something regarding my opinions on the Turkic urheimat, which will cover this exact topic too but in more detail and with a lot more evidence for my claims. However it is not going to be published soon, there is still much I need to work out.
The fact that C-F1756 was quite significantly present amongst the males in this sampleset is interesting, and could indicate what I suggested earlier: C-F1756 was significantly present amongst early Turkic speaking peoples until they started mixing with local Scythian remnants around the Altai region, which lead to a replacement of C-F1756 by lineages such as R-Z93, Q1b, J2 etc. Later on as Turkic people started expanding more and more lineages introgressed into their population.
What I also wonder is if the C-F1756 samples are all related in the sense that we have sampled a dynasty or if we just have samples that arose from a common population where C-F1756 was a common lineage hence it being present at both sites. Given that Shombuuzyn Belchir doesn’t seem to be an elite site in particular, and that Han-related ancestry isn’t ubiquitous it might be the second scenario.
SB0001 and SB0010 are interesting samples because they highlight how quickly an autosomal profile can shift. For instance we have many samples with western/south siberian lineages that have a near entire east Asian profile. Here we have a sample which is over 50% Eastern Scythian related yet had C-F1756 as a paternal lineage.
Unfortunately since the article is not out yet we have no burial contexts for the samples and it is hard to figure out who is who exactly. When it comes to Takhiltyn Khotgor, there are apparently over a hundred burials present at the site and there are several square tombs with an elite connotation. Most of the information in articles seems to be in regards to the later excavations and if the TAK samples come from samples of those excavations, I think there is decent room to speculate about the burial context of the samples at Takhyltin Khotgor.
For instance it would be interesting to note that tomb 82 and tomb 64, which are the elite square-shaped tombs, both contained women, with burial 82 being dubbed “the princess tomb” [5].
Tomb 82 of Takhiltyn Khotgor
Tomb 64 contained an older woman which had given birth before based on her pelvis remains.
Tomb 64 of Takhiltyn Khotgor
Aerial view of Tomb 64 and tomb 82 respectively.
I suspect that the TAK002 sample might come from one of these elite burials as this sample belongs to a woman, and her autosomal profile suggests a significant amount of Han-related ancestry. A legacy of the Heqin policy perhaps?
The satellite burials around tomb 82 and tomb 25 contain people buried in standard Xiongnu period graves, although there is some deviation as their burial position is flexed. The people in these tombs are described as having robust muscle attachments, an osteological sign of performing significant physical labour. The anthropological type seems to be related to populations of Manchuria, Baikal and central-eastern Mongolia. Perhaps the significantly amur shifted sample TAK006 comes from one of these burial contexts. From a genetic perspective there seems to be a connection between TAK006 and the samples at Shombuuzyn Belchir.
Satellite burials of tomb 25 at Takhiltyn Khotgor
I wonder if TAK008 and TAK009 samples come from these aforementioned satellite burials with deviating burial rites, as the stone lining without coffins and flexed burial positions are quite reminiscent of Eastern Scythian burial rites.
Satellite burials at tomb 64 of Takhiltyn Khotgor
That said it might be that these samples come from completely different burials. We will find out eventually when the article comes out.
From a genetic perspective TAK008 and TAK009 are two samples which are highly interesting to me because they have a rather distinctive profile. In general you can divide “westerners” amongst the Xiongnu samples into three clusters:
Scytho-Siberian cluster.
The first one is the Scytho-Siberian cluster, which are samples with an autosomal profile similar to either Scythians from the Altai and Tian Shan regions. The steppes of the Altai mountain region were home to Scytho-Siberians during the first millennium b.c, and several of the eastern Scythian material cultures have full continuity into the first century BC, more than a century after being under Xiongnu rule. Some samples however resemble Saka from the Tian Shan region, which can be seen as a two-way mixture of Eastern Scythians and Southern Central Asians.
Southern Central Asian cluster
The second cluster are samples in which the dominant factor is southern Central Asian ancestry, although there is variable complex mixture with iron age steppe nomads going on as well. The source of this ancestry primarily seems to be the Tian Shan Saka kind but some samples do seem to have Sarmatian ancestry too, which is interesting. There really is only one area where all of this comes together, and that is the Kangju state. A state founded by a nomadic population centered around Sogdia. This state was also an ally of the Xiongnu, although the relation was loose at times so we have a historic precedent for their presence amongst Xiongnu sites in Mongolia.
East Xinjiang cluster
The third cluster is a rather unique one. Amongst Xiongnu period sites there is a consistent appearance of a population with partial ancestry from Scytho-Siberians, southern Central Asians, upper Yellow River inhabitants and also having quite a high amount of West-Siberian hunter-gatherer related ancestry. The samples with this profile also often had y-chromosome R1b-PH155, which was first found in the Xiaohe-Gumugou samples known for their Tarim Mummies. R1b-PH155 was also significantly present at Zaghunluq, an iron age site also known for their Tarim mummies, such as Cherchen man. The autosomal profiles of the samples in this cluster are reminiscent of those found in early iron age sites in Xinjiang such as Zaghunluq, although they can best be described as a mixture of Scytho-Siberians and Iron age Xinjiang. The most likely area for the development of this profile is the Eastern Xinjiang region as archaeology suggests the formation of a nomadic material culture of mixed Pazyryk-related and Yanbulak origin.
Shirenzigou burial site
The samples Tak008 and Tak009 clearly belong to this third cluster based on their autosomal ancestry and Y-dna ancestry. Other samples include the two “Central Asian'' Xiongnu samples DA38 and DA41, with the latter having Y-chromosome R1b-PH155 as well. The Shirenzigou samples from the Barkol steppes fit this profile too, and are actually the reason why I dubbed it the “East Xinjiang cluster” as the earliest phases of the nomadic presence at the Shirenzigou and Heiguoliang sites predate the Xiongnu empire, and thus the presence of this cluster within Xiongnu contexts comes through the populations of the Barkol-Yiwu region.
I also suspect that these East Xinjiang cluster samples are the Yuezhi (and Wusun) based on the historical records suggesting that prior to moving to the Ili valley and Bactria the Yuezhi were present in the regions steppes of Eastern Xinjiang and Western Ganu, as well as the archaeological presence of this material culture both predating and continuing through the Xiongnu period. We know from history that several “Xiao Yuezhi” groups rather than migrating away remained under the Xiongnu, and even founded city states in modern day Xinjiang.
A few months ago I started working on a blog post which covered several of the historical peoples of the Xiongnu period that could be linked to Scythian material cultures and it is something I still haven’t finished. I currently have over 40 pages of text on this topic and honestly I am not even close to wrapping it up. I am thinking of splitting it into pieces so that it would cover several blog posts. One of them will be about the Yuezhi and their origins, and my arguments about the Yuezhi being this “East Xinjiang cluster” will be explained more thoroughly. Look at me teasing around, I didn’t mean to but these samples are hitting the topic of two WIP blog entries I have been working on at a snail’s pace.
Noin-Ula tapestry, likely depicting Kushans from Central Asia
Yeniseian-related profiles however seem to be entirely lacking amongst these samples, which troubles the interpretation that “The Xiongnu” or their elites were Yeniseian speakers. Aside from proposed loanwords and etymologies, the most secure argument for a Yeniseian presence amongst the Xiongnu is an attested phrase of the Jié people, which were one of the tribes of the Xiongnu which formed a short-lived state called Later Zhao under Shi Le during the period of Sixteen Kingdoms of the Five Barbarians. The phrase was recorded by the Kuchean monk Foutudeng, in chinese characters, glossed with a chinese translation:
秀支 替戾剛 僕谷 劬禿當
army - go out - Liu Yao's barbarian title - capture
Which according to Pulleyblank should be rendered as the following in Middle Chinese [6]:
i̯u-ci̯e - tʰei-let/lei-kɑŋ - bok/buk-kuk/yo - ɡi̯u̯o-tʰuk-tɑŋ
The Yeniseian interpretation according to Vovin [7] is as following:
“Suke t-i-r-ek-ang bok-kok k-o-t-o-kt-ang”
“Armies have gone out. [They] will catch Bokkok.”
I think the linguistic arguments behind this phrase being Yeniseian in origin are quite sensible, because it correlates with linguistic developments in Southern Yeniseian in particular [8]. This is interesting because southern Yeniseian groups such as the Arints were nomadic pastoralists living in Yurts, although their language suggests adoption of this lifestyle by way of Turkic influence, probably through the Kyrgyz [9].
The proposed Turkic etymologies from a linguistic perspective are far less sound. However, to extrapolate that the “Xiongnu language” was Yeniseian or that their elites were Yeniseians (who later language-flipped into Oghuric Turkic) based on this one group is something I find a bit baseless. It didn’t make too much sense to me to begin with because the early Xiongnu confederations were attested just north of China, and the Proto-Yeniseian homeland was considerably further north.
Empress Ashina
Last month an article about Empress Ashina was published and the genomes of her ancestry were made public yesterday.
Ancient genome of Empress Ashina reveals the Northeast Asian origin of Göktürk Khanate
Abstract:
We have unveiled the first genomic profile of the ancient Türkic royal family and Chinese historical celebrities. Our genomic analyses of Empress Ashina revealed Göktürk's Northeast Asian origin (97.7% Northeast Asian ancestry and 2.3% West Eurasian ancestry), refuting the western Eurasian origin and multiple origin hypotheses. We found Ashina shared most genetic affinity with post-Iron Age Tungusic and Mongolic Steppe pastoralists, such as Rouran, Xianbei, Khitan, and Heshui_Mohe, and showed genetic heterogeneity with other ancient Türkic people, suggesting the multiple sources of the Türkic Khanate populations. Furthermore, the limited contribution from ancient Göktürk found in modern Turkic speaking Article populations once again validates a cultural diffusion model over a demic diffusion model for the spread of Turkic languages.
Tomb of Empress Ashina. Source.
Davidski too made coordinates of her genomes:
- A42801_scaled,0.026179,-0.41332,0.086738,-0.043928,-0.03416,-0.021196,0.00329,0.025845,-0.002454,0.012028,-0.029555,-0.01154,0.003865,-0.006881,0,0.008221,-0.002217,0.003674,-0.001257,0.02176,-0.01672,-0.00643,-0.012941,-0.005543,-0.000838
- A42801_unscaled,0.0023,-0.0407,0.023,-0.0136,-0.0111,-0.0076,0.0014,0.0112,-0.0012,0.0066,-0.0182,-0.0077,0.0026,-0.005,0,0.0062,-0.0017,0.0029,-0.001,0.0174,-0.0134,-0.0052,-0.0105,-0.0046,-0.0007
Unfortunately the coverage of the sample isn’t all too good, so I wouldn’t take the percentages of the samples too literally, using similar models as I had used for the Xiongnu samples earlier I get something like this:
Target: A42801_scaled
Distance: 3.8806% / 0.03880631
62.4 CHN_Amur_River_EN
30.4 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_LN
7.2 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
Target: A42801_scaled
Distance: 4.0703% / 0.04070271
38.0 MNG_Slab_Grave_EIA_1
26.8 CHN_Western_Liao_River_BA_o
26.2 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_IA
9.0 MNG_Sagly_EIA_4
I think it possible the authors probably underestimated the degree of western ancestry as they modeled the sample with MNG_North_N as the East Eurasian source. The issue is that the MNG_North_N samples have a small amount of ANE ancestry, which more or less lines up with the amount of Sintashta/Sagly ancestry you see pop up here.
Target: A42801_scaled
Distance: 6.5378% / 0.06537781
95.2 MNG_North_N
4.8 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
In any case it shows that the Early Turks of the Ashina clan at this time were undoubtedly significantly of eastern steppe origin. Furthermore they made rather weird claims about the spread of Turkic languages based on this sample:
“In summary, we have unveiled the first genomic profile of the ancient Türkic royal family. Our genomic analyses of EmpressAshina revealed Göktürk's Northeast Asian origin (97.7%Northeast Asian ancestry and 2.3% West Eurasian ancestry),refuting the western Eurasian origin and multiple origin hypotheses. We found Ashina shared most genetic affinitywith post‐Iron Age Tungusic and Mongolic Steppe pastoralists,such as Rouran, Xianbei, Khitan, and Heshui_Mohe, and showed genetic heterogeneity with other ancient Türkic people,suggesting the multiple sources of the Türkic Khanatepopulations. Furthermore, the limited contribution from ancient Göktürk found in modern Turkic‐speaking populations once again validates a cultural diffusion model over a demic diffusion model for the spread of Turkic languages.
Turkic languages did not spread due to a demic diffusion of Gokturks, Turkic languages spread due to the formation of the Gokturk empire which incorporated many Turkic peoples, by then undoubtedly having diverse genetic profiles, which then definitely had a demic diffusion across the central asian steppes. If it was merely a demic diffusion we would not see a consistent amount of significant east asian ancestry in European, Central Asian, south Siberian and Mongolian samples from Turkic contexts.
All in all, a very interesting week when it comes to ancient genetics of the steppes!
References:
Miller, Bryan & Makarewicz, Cheryl & Jamsranjav, Bayarsaikhan & Tüvshinjargal, Tömörbaatar. (2018). Stone lines and burnt bones: Ritual elaborations in Xiongnu mortuary arenas of Inner Asia. Antiquity. 92. 1-19. 10.15184/aqy.2018.136.
Miller (2009). Elite Xiongnu Burials at the Periphery: Tomb Complexes at Takhiltyn Khotgor, Mongolian Altai
U. Brosseder, J. Bayarsaikhan, Bryan K. Miller, Ts.Odbaatar (2011). SEVEN RADIOCARBON DATES FOR XIONGNU BURIALS IN WESTERN AND CENTRAL MONGOLIA
С.С. Сорокин (1956). О датировке и толковании Кенкольского могильника.// КСИИМК. Вып. 64. 1956.С.3-14.
Bryan K. Miller, Jamsranjav Bayarsaikhan, Tseveendorj Egiimaa, Christine Lee (2007). Xiongnu Elite Tomb Complexes in the Mongolian Altai Results of the Mongol-American Hovd Archaeology Project, 2007
Pulleyblank (1964). The oconsonantal system of old Chinese, part II.
Vovin, Alexander (2000) "Did the Xiongnu speak a Yeniseian language?". Central Asiatic Journal 44/1 , pp. 87-104.
Vovin, Alexander; Vajda, Edward J.; Vaissière, Etienne de la. (2016). "WHO WERE THE *KJET (羯) AND WHAT LANGUAGE DID THEY SPEAK?".
Тимонина, Людмила Георгиевна (1984). Тюркские заимствования в енисейских языках в сравнительно-историческом освещении
There are some ptifalls in the Empress Ashina study. One, it isn't clear that Empress Ashina was of Turkic parentage. While her father Muhan Qaghan was obviously a Turk, there is limited historical information available about who her mother was. But the Chinese sources are clear that she was not Turkic. This might explain the author's finding that she showed close affinities to the Khitan, Rouran, and lateXiongnu_Han, which is something I wouldn't expect from an Ashina tribe member of Altai origin with two Turkic parents. Thus there could have been a much stronger Western association in Ashina if this princess had a mother of Wei parentage.
ReplyDeleteTwo, the researchers didn't satisfy exactly how they determined that this specimen belonged to Empress Ashina. A radiocarbon dating does not exactly identify a specific person. So I felt this study really shortchanged us by not offering evidence of the specimen's identity. Its authors didn't even explain how or when the supposed Ashina remains were excavated, which is really unusual. Usually such undertakings are the result of projects and the studies explain a little bit about the why and when they excavated and analyzed the DNA. Yet that's missing here. The study seems like a discombobulated effort to discredit the research of Chuanming Rui and any other researchers who picked up on the Western connections of the Ashina Turks, which is supported by historical and DNA research. If you're not familiar, there has been a divide within Chinese academia with one camp supporting a "western origin" of the Ashina and another supporting an eastern origin. The Western sources, and some Chinese scholars, particularly the older generations and the expatriates, support a western origin, while newer Chinese scholars support the eastern one. The university where this study originates from is Fudan University which has been subjected to a complete ideological takeover by the CCP.
@Steven hsu
Delete1) Muqan reign started one or two years after his father, Bumin, married Princess Changle, this questions the Muqan being a half-chiense Prince itself. There is also no historical record of Muqan taking a Chinese wife, so you need to stop making up theories without evidence. The genetic compositon of the Ashina empress in qpAdm and G25 shows around 70% ancestry from Mongolia/inner Mongolia and almost 25% Han-related ancestry, which of course the Han part can be rather a tribal heritage than being genetic impact of a Chinese member in her family, as we can see almost similar amount of Chinese ancestry in some of Hunnic samples.
2) second part of your comment looks more like a consipary theory.
Dear Scythman,
DeleteI never said that Muhan married a Chinese woman. I said that he likely married a Western Wei (meaning Xianbei) woman. The point here is not who Muhan married, but only that his Turkic wife was childless. So none of Muhan's children were fully Turkic. If this had been acknowledged by these authors, they would have to temper their conclusion that the Ashina Turks had a northeastern Asian origin; since Princess Ashina was definitely an admixed person born to a non-Ashina mother. And if Muhan himself was half-Chinese, that would only strengthen my argument that Princess Ashina's DNA is not representative of the Ashina tribe, and that this study offers mistaken conclusions.
Of course Han-related ancestry was prevalent in Xiongnu and presumably Xianbei people. That's why I said: "This might explain the author's finding that she showed close affinities to the Khitan, Rouran, and lateXiongnu_Han, which is something I wouldn't expect from an Ashina tribe member of Altai origin with two Turkic parents."
Hi Steven,
DeleteIf I may ask, isn't it the case that the "western hypothesis" is that the Ashina clan had patrilineal origins from an ultimately not-Turkic but Iranian peoples, likely such as the Saka? The name Ashina having a likely Iranic etymology, them having R1a-Z93 based on alledged modern descendants etc. If so then I don't really see how this sample itself contradicts that hypothesis because it is a woman first of all, and secondly autosomal profiles can shift very rapidly. I found this another strange claim in that article.
Case in point take BRE014, a 3-4th century AD sample from the Xianbei-Hun period found at Berel:
Target: KAZ_Xianbei_Hun_Antiquity:BRE014
Distance: 2.3100% / 0.02310030
48.8 MNG_North_N
20.2 RUS_Argun_River_Meso
16.2 CHN_Yellow_River_LBIA
12.6 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
2.2 TKM_Gonur1_BA
Furthmore, let's run with your hypothesis that Empress Ashina was half Wei and that her Wei parent had 0% west eurasian ancestry, which probably is a bit unlikely. This would suggest that her father Muhan would be like 15-20% "western" at most (depends if you define western as Scytho-Siberian or purely west eurasian ancestry), and with every drop of western blood the Wei parent could have that figure would diminish.
Modeling Empress Ashina using the same setup as above but western ancestry replaced with BRE014 gets you this:
Target: A42801_scaled
Distance: 3.7463% / 0.03746268
38.2 RUS_Argun_River_Meso
36.8 KAZ_Xianbei_Hun_Antiquity:BRE014
18.6 CHN_Yellow_River_LBIA
6.4 MNG_North_N
As far as I know, the Ashina did not originate in the Altai either. They had migrated to the region in the 5th century AD due to the affairs of the collapsing Northern Liang, the Touba Wei and the Rouran Khaganate.
It seems to me that your search for proto-Turkic genetics will end in failure. The history of the ancient Turks is mainly hypotheses and speculation than real facts. Can we confidently say that the empress of the Ashina clan lies in the grave or Ashina has an Iranian etymology?
DeleteI know good turkic etymology: Chinese "Ashina" is the Turkic "Aishin" - moon-like. I think that the Ashina clan is related to the Yuezhi, which are translated from Chinese as "moon dynasty".
Copper Axe wrote:
ReplyDelete"If I may ask, isn't it the case that the "western hypothesis" is that the Ashina clan had patrilineal origins from an ultimately not-Turkic but Iranian peoples, likely such as the Saka? The name Ashina having a likely Iranic etymology, them having R1a-Z93 based on alledged modern descendants etc. If so then I don't really see how this sample itself contradicts that hypothesis because it is a woman first of all, and secondly autosomal profiles can shift very rapidly."
I agree. But unfortunately that did not prevent these authors from claiming to have refuted the multiple-origin hypothesis of the Ashina clan's origin, which they describe as "east‐central Asia (“Sogdian statelet”,索国) followed by eastward migration; and (iii) multiple origins around Pingliang (平凉) or Gaochang/Turfan (高昌)in northwest China, a process involving both eastern and
western Eurasian ethnic groups." In my opinion Princess Ashina is inadequate to refute this origin hypothesis because, aside from being just one person, she was mixed and her father may have been mixed as well.
Copper Axe wrote:
"let's run with your hypothesis that Empress Ashina was half Wei and that her Wei parent had 0% west eurasian ancestry, which probably is a bit unlikely. This would suggest that her father Muhan would be like 15-20% "western" at most (depends if you define western as Scytho-Siberian or purely west eurasian ancestry), and with every drop of western blood the Wei parent could have that figure would diminish."
This is where your analysis comes in handy. If indeed Princess Ashina was 2.7-3.9% west eurasian, it could imply Muhan was 15-20% west eurasian. But if she was 7%, that could push Muhan to near 30% west eurasian, closer to medieval Turks. If we are assuming that both of her parents were more than 50% East Eurasian, minor increases in her west Eurasian ancestry produce bigger potential ancestry for either parent.
Given the very high East Eurasian ancestry of the published medieval Khitan and Rouran individuals, it is doubtful that a Wei mother would have contributed any meaningful West Eurasian ancestry.
But this is really beside the point. What really matters here is not to prove Muhan's ratio of ancestry, but that the study's conclusion is based on a specific genetic link between Princess Ashina and the Mongolic/Tungusic tribes of eastern Mongolia. If that ancestry was introduced by a Wei mother, then the study is pretty much useless for determining the affinities of the Ashina, since an early Ashina Turk could very well have lacked such ancestry, but a Western Wei mother would be very likely to introduce it to Ashina.
Finally you wrote:
"As far as I know, the Ashina did not originate in the Altai either. They had migrated to the region in the 5th century AD due to the affairs of the collapsing Northern Liang, the Touba Wei and the Rouran Khaganate."
According to Zhikov's "Khazaria in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries", page 23, the Ashina tribe migrated to the Altai region in the year 460, and it is presumed that they moved there from "Eastern Turkestan or the Turpan Oasis", which explains the Iranian affinities of Ashina.
Princess Ashina was born in 551, so I don't find it inaccurate to describe her as being of "Altai origin" when the Ashina had been in the Altai region for about a hundred years. And I don't see how the Ashina tribe's earlier domicile in further south in Xinjiang is inconsistent with my contention that the original Ashina members are unlikely to have had Xianbei or Khitan ancestry, at least originally. If anything it reinforces it, because it would place them in an even more remote position from the Tungusic/Mongolic speakers in Eastern Mongolia.
Am I right in thinking this "East Xinjiang" cluster with its idiosyncratic genetic heritage is not only a reasonable candidate for the Yeuzhi/Wusun, but also by extension the Kushan/Jushi/Tocharian language speakers? Given the mooted influence of both Samoyedic and Yeniseic languages on Tocharian it seems logical that its speakers might carry a high level of Siberian HG ancestry. Of course the idea of Sintashta descended Tocharians is controversial, but it just seems an interesting coincidence that this population exists so close to their historically attested range.
ReplyDeleteYes and no. Tocharian genetics are going to be fairly complex, and I think they would be genetically quite influenced by their neighbours. Ultimately I think the Afanasievo > Chemurchek connection will hold up but I think that due to intermixing with Iranians with similar genetic substrates there is going to a lot of genetic overlap which might mask this a bit. For example Ning 2019 claimed this was Afanasievo ancestry but they did not take into account West-Siberian HG ancestry, and those samples are mainly steppe_mlba derived.
DeleteIf we take that eastern Tarim basin area generally proposed as the late Proto-Tocharian homeland, then you would have a scenario were to their west, north and probably east they
were neighboured by Iranian speakers. However in the north it would be Scytho-Siberians, and to their west more agricultural Iranians, and to the east agro-pastoral Yanbulak peoples. Personally I am not too sure whether the Yanbulak peoples would be Iranian or Tocharian, or perhaps both, Upper Yellow river types like Qijia were definitely a component in that culture too.
The anthropological classification of the people at Loulan were predominantly southern, indicating relationships with their western neighbours. I haven’t found good anthropological descriptions of Subeixi types beyond predominantly Caucasoid.
That said there are some samples that seem to model with an Afanasievo contribution on both qpadm and G25. This being possible through both programs is rather important because sometimes on G25 samples too can look Afanasievo/Chemurchek derived when they in fact steppe_mlba+wshg. Altvred provided some qpadm models here: https://musaeumscythia.blogspot.com/2022/04/discussion-thread-new-ancient-dna-from.html
Some quick models for these samples on G25:
Baiyanghe is just north of the Tian Shan, pretty much the area of the Jushi kingdom. I have been considering the Subeixi culture as a probable representative of early Tocharians just after the Proto-Tocharian divergence, or perhaps just late Proto-Tocharians. Agro-pastoralist people with a flair of Scytho-Siberian cultural influence yet having different burial forms, being quite unique in that regard. Although without ancient DNA to corroborate this it is far from a guarantee.
Target: CHN_Baiyanghe_IA2:C3616
Distance: 1.5437% / 0.01543675
26.6 KGZ_Aigyrzhal_BA
24.0 RUS_Afanasievo
23.8 MNG_North_N
18.2 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
4.8 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_LN
2.6 RUS_Tyumen_HG
Target: CHN_Baiyanghe_IA2:C3616
Distance: 2.6171% / 0.02617141
34.8 CHN_Chemurcheck_Chagangole_BA1
26.6 MNG_Pazyryk_EIA_6
24.2 TKM_IA
14.2 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_LN
0.2 CHN_Tarim_EMBA1
Another one is C4127 from Abusanteer in the Ili, which stands out a lot from the other samples there which have Saka profiles:
Target: CHN_Abusanteer_IA:C4127
Distance: 2.1975% / 0.02197498
39.4 RUS_Afanasievo
23.0 TKM_Gonur1_BA
12.4 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
9.4 RUS_Tyumen_HG
8.2 MNG_North_N
6.8 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_LN
0.8 KGZ_Aigyrzhal_BA
Target: CHN_Abusanteer_IA:C4127
Distance: 2.4578% / 0.02457785
49.0 TKM_IA
40.8 CHN_Chemurcheck_Chagangole_BA1
6.8 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_LN
3.4 MNG_Pazyryk_EIA_6
0.0 CHN_Tarim_EMBA1
This one needs extra southern central asian ancestry beyond what the other two have who can be fairly comfortably modeled with Aigyrzhal_BA, a mix of WSHG and Iranian-related populations and likely representative of the Pre-IE inhabitants of the Tian Shan. Perhaps from Loulan?
Shirenzigou F004 seems to fall in this as well, but unfortunately the sample quality isnt too good. The rest of the Shirenzigou samples seem to have steppe_mlba predominantly.
Target: CHN_Shirenzigou_IA:F004
Distance: 3.3351% / 0.03335057
36.4 RUS_Afanasievo
30.4 MNG_North_N
20.2 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_LN
12.4 KGZ_Aigyrzhal_BA
0.6 RUS_Tyumen_HG
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
Target: CHN_Shirenzigou_IA:F004
Distance: 3.5207% / 0.03520732
29.6 CHN_Chemurcheck_Chagangole_BA1
25.8 MNG_Ulaanzuukh_Slab_Grave
20.4 TKM_IA
16.8 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_LN
6.8 MNG_Pazyryk_EIA_6
0.6 CHN_Tarim_EMBA1
Thanks for that very thorough reply. How that language got to the Tarim Basin and survived there for so long has been a puzzle that's interested me for years and hopefully we'll get some samples from known/likely Tocharian speaking sites at some point which should clear it up a bit more.
Delete@Steven Hsu,
ReplyDeleteI think some of that "Xianbei-related" ancestry is just due to the early Proto-Turkic peoples having quite a bit of genetic overlap with Pre-Proto-Mongols, but not being as Amur river shifted as early Mongolic peoples. We see this first in some slab grave outliers and then during the Xiongnu period it is a profile which shows up fairly consistently. They probably share a common population from about 8000-5000 years ago that is responsible for their amur-like shift and C-F1756. Ties in nicely with propoals that Turkic, Mongolic and to a lesser degree Tungusic have relations with one another.
The Xianbei sample MGS-M7R near Hulun lake compared to to the Mongolian Xianbei sample on GLobal25 seems quite a bit MNG_North shifted especially when you keep in mind that the Mongolian sample has a chunk of west eurasian ancestry, and is quite similar to eastern shifted Slab Grave samples and early Xiongnu samples. MGS-M7R also had this subclade of C-F1756, which has a presence amongst Turkic samples:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/C-Y10420/
Whereas ZA002 and ZA004, labeled as Turk period samples although the burial site seems more late Xianbei related, matching their genomic profile, have a more Mongolic associated clade:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/C-F10085/
Some models:
Target: MNG_Xianbei_IA:I13175
Distance: 2.0850% / 0.02084981
52.4 CHN_Western_Liao_River_BA_o
18.4 MNG_North_N
12.8 CHN_Yellow_River_LBIA
9.8 MNG_Sagly_EIA_4
6.6 KAZ_Otyrar_Antiquity
Target: CHN_Amur_River_Xianbei_IA:MGS-M7R
Distance: 3.1905% / 0.03190518
49.2 CHN_Western_Liao_River_BA_o
48.4 MNG_North_N
2.4 MNG_Sagly_EIA_4
0.0 CHN_Yellow_River_LBIA
0.0 KAZ_Otyrar_Antiquity
Target: RUS_Late_Xiongnu:SAN001
Distance: 2.5178% / 0.02517808
49.2 CHN_Western_Liao_River_BA_o
44.2 MNG_North_N
4.4 MNG_Sagly_EIA_4
1.8 CHN_Yellow_River_LBIA
0.4 KAZ_Otyrar_Antiquity
Target: RUS_Late_Xiongnu:JAA001
Distance: 2.8213% / 0.02821264
54.0 MNG_North_N
39.0 CHN_Western_Liao_River_BA_o
7.0 MNG_Sagly_EIA_4
0.0 CHN_Yellow_River_LBIA
0.0 KAZ_Otyrar_Antiquity
Target: MNG_Early_Med_Turk:ZAA002
Distance: 1.8995% / 0.01899472
63.2 CHN_Western_Liao_River_BA_o
16.8 CHN_Yellow_River_LBIA
13.8 MNG_North_N
6.2 KAZ_Otyrar_Antiquity
0.0 MNG_Sagly_EIA_4
Target: MNG_Early_Med_Turk:ZAA004
Distance: 2.2276% / 0.02227615
67.4 CHN_Western_Liao_River_BA_o
15.8 MNG_North_N
10.2 MNG_Sagly_EIA_4
6.6 CHN_Yellow_River_LBIA
0.0 KAZ_Otyrar_Antiquity
So I am not too sure if MGS-M7R should be seen as a perfect representative of Mongolic/Xianbei ancestry to be honest because it matches samples found at more western locations in Xiongnu sites, is less amur-shifted than other Xianbei samples (relative to MNG_North) and together with the Y-DNA I think it is also possible that the sample was an early Turk. The Xianbei sites here are associated with the Tuoba before their migration southwards towards China and it is generally held that while mainly Mongolic they had absorbed Turkic elements as well. Could make sense right?
Gokturks (unlike Tiele) burned their dead so whatever available samples we have from them (which are all over the place) I think are not very indicative of the ancestry of Early Medieval Turks. Which is why if you compare them to Karluks, Oghuzes, Karakhanids and other contemporary samples from the steppes, there's barely any Upper Xiajiadian related ancestry.
DeleteTarget: ROU_Ploiesti_MA:I10495
Distance: 2.0762% / 0.02076152
44.4 RUS_Tagar
28.0 MNG_Slab_Grave_EIA_1
10.0 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
7.4 KAZ_Otyrar_Antiquity
6.8 CHN_Zaghunluq_IA
3.4 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_IA
Target: KAZ_Karakhanid
Distance: 1.3892% / 0.01389161
44.8 KAZ_Otyrar_Antiquity
19.6 RUS_Trans-Baikal_N
12.2 MNG_Khovsgol_BA
11.6 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_IA
5.8 CHN_Zaghunluq_IA
3.4 CHN_Western_Liao_River_BA_o
2.6 RUS_Tagar
Target: KAZ_Karluk
Distance: 2.4515% / 0.02451508
54.4 KAZ_Otyrar_Antiquity
22.2 RUS_Trans-Baikal_N
12.6 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_IA
5.8 CHN_Western_Liao_River_BA_o
5.0 CHN_Zaghunluq_IA
Target: KAZ_Kimak:DA87
Distance: 4.3230% / 0.04323043
31.0 KAZ_Otyrar_Antiquity
25.0 RUS_Trans-Baikal_N
22.4 RUS_Tagar
12.4 CHN_Zaghunluq_IA
8.2 MNG_Khovsgol_BA
1.0 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_IA
Target: TUR_Ottoman:MA2195
Distance: 2.9338% / 0.02933751
48.6 KAZ_Otyrar_Antiquity
34.0 RUS_Trans-Baikal_N
10.8 RUS_Tagar
5.0 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_IA
1.2 CHN_Western_Liao_River_BA_o
0.4 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
Target: RUS_VolgaOka_MA:SHK001
Distance: 2.5681% / 0.02568132
40.0 RUS_Tagar
29.2 RUS_Trans-Baikal_N
13.8 KAZ_Otyrar_Antiquity
6.2 MNG_Khovsgol_BA
4.2 MNG_Slab_Grave_EIA_1
3.6 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_IA
3.0 CHN_Western_Liao_River_BA_o
Target: RUS_VolgaOka_MA:SHK002
Distance: 2.1430% / 0.02143033
32.6 KAZ_Otyrar_Antiquity
31.4 CHN_Western_Liao_River_BA_o
24.0 RUS_Tagar
11.4 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_IA
0.6 RUS_Trans-Baikal_N
(This could be a Qay, not sure).
I think the Upper Xiajiadian/WLR_o related ancestry of Empress Ashina could suggest at least a partial Rouran origin for the Ashina clan. After all the earliest Gokturk inscriptions were written in Mongolic.
The Transbaikal_N samples seem partially Amur-like to begin with at least relative to the Mongolian neolithic samples, which makes sense because these came from a location geographically closer the Khingan and Lake Hulun than the shores of lake Baikal.
DeleteTarget: MNG_East_N
Distance: 2.0120% / 0.02012048
62.8 MNG_North_N
22.6 RUS_Argun_River_Meso
14.6 RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N
Target: RUS_Trans-Baikal_N
Distance: 2.3453% / 0.02345329
48.2 RUS_Argun_River_Meso
41.6 MNG_North_N
10.2 RUS_Yakutia_Ymyiakhtakh_LN
Target: CHN_Amur_River_EN
Distance: 3.2631% / 0.03263145
82.6 RUS_Argun_River_Meso
14.2 MNG_North_N
3.2 RUS_Yakutia_Ymyiakhtakh_LN
Target: CHN_Western_Liao_River_BA_o
Distance: 5.3692% / 0.05369167
100.0 RUS_Argun_River_Meso
I think there is something in G25 where the output of samples with considerable western input shifts the east asian side heavily towards MNG_North, this is something I've seen quite consistently. I doubt that is realistic given how an amur-like shift shows up consistently in Xiongnu period and early medieval samples with a high amount of east asian ancestry (also several slab grave samples had it), yet it is fully MNG_North like in more admixed samples from later periods. Logically that isn’t going to be a reflection of reality. Even if we say that it is due to Donghu, Wei or Rouran influence then it begs the question how this was so pervasive in actual ancient samples of various social classes across Mongolia but then did not contribute to later Turkic populations. And then why it does it appear in many samples with <20% west eurasian ancestry but then isn’t present or barely present in samples with more west eurasian ancestry.
I came across this short description of the area during the Xiongnu period by Brosseder and Miller:
ReplyDelete"CASE STUDY OF THE SOUTHERN ALTAI: THE XIONGNU PRESENCEIN THE SOUTHWESTERN PERIPHERY
Surveys and excavations in the southern reaches of the Mongolian Altai in present-day Khovd aimag reveal evidence of a significant Xiongnu presence during the later centuries of the empire.7 This stands in stark contrast to the adjacent northern Altai, in present-day Baian-Ölgii aimag , where an abundance of early Iron Age Pazyryk sites immediately preceding the Xiongnu empire (n=85) are followed by a very minimal presence of Xiongnu sites (n=4) (Törbat et al. 2009).
Despite greater evidence for Xiongnu imperial expansion into the southern Altai, this southwestern periphery shows slight variations from the Mongolian steppes and should not be considered a pure equivalent of other Xiongnu sites or seen as exhibiting imperial “dis-embedded centers” (Alconini 2008). Evidence at mortuary sites reveals that the Xiongnu presence in the southern Altai was indeed “embedded” in the local communities and local leaders were in turn“embedded” in macro-regional social and economic networks of the Xiongnu empire. The following case study utilizes data from type-sites in the core areas, as well as overall material patterns of Xiongnu sites in the Mongolian steppes, to conduct comparative analyses of site patterning, burial forms, and burial goods in the southern Altai in order to discern the extent to which the communities of the southwestern periphery were integrated into the Xiongnu empire."
I think the Xiongnu civil war was the context for this. Several leaders had proclaimed themselves to be Chanyu looking to secede, and for a while they were stationed in the northwest of Mongolia. One of these was a certain Hujie Chanyu, of the Hujie peoples which lived in the southern Altai and had been conquered in the 2nd century BC. Then as these rebellions were squashed you still had the had the situation between Zhizhi and Huhanye, ultimately leading to Huhanye being the uncontested leader of the Xiongnu. The cemeteries in the southwestern periphery seem to date to a period just after this affair, and could perhaps be the result of the Xiongnu elite consolidating their power in the region to prevent future uprisings.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adf3904
ReplyDeleteAs some of you might know, the actual article is out now. It seems like several predictions of mine were correct. TAK002 was one of the women buried in the “elite” tombs, in tomb 64. TAK006 came from the satellite burial THL-25, and is one of the skeletons seen in that image. TAK008 and TAK009 do not come from the stone lined burials around tomb 64 with flexed legs as these were satellite burials of tomb 82. TAK008 had a prone position and TAK009 had a straightened supine burial position. DA38 and DA39, the genetically similar samples of Damgaard’s article had supine positions as well. The remains at Shirenzigou had supine positions too. It is odd that TAK008 was buried in a prone position but maybe there were particular reasons for that, or the body got moved at a later period again.
ReplyDeleteBy the way let's have a look at the burials from the elite tombs.
Tomb 64:
Target: TAK002:TAK002.A0101
Distance: 1.9849% / 0.01984892
46.8 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_IA
46.2 MNG_North_N
4.0 CHN_Western_Liao_River_BA_o
2.0 RUS_Tyumen_HG
0.8 IRN_Tepe_Hissar_C
0.2 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
DA39 is the male buried in the “aristrocratic” Arkhangai tomb in eastern Mongolia with R-Z93:
Target: MNG_Xiongnu_East_Asian:DA39
Distance: 2.5957% / 0.02595681
50.0 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_IA
33.4 MNG_North_N
10.2 CHN_Western_Liao_River_BA_o
4.4 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
1.0 IRN_Tepe_Hissar_C
1.0 RUS_Tyumen_HG
TAK001 is the female sample which was buried in tomb 82.
Target: RUS_Late_Xiongnu:TAK001
Distance: 2.2874% / 0.02287388
52.0 MNG_North_N
23.6 RUS_Tyumen_HG
17.6 CHN_Western_Liao_River_BA_o
4.2 IRN_Tepe_Hissar_C
2.2 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_IA
0.4 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
Interestingly TAK001 had been on my list for suspected misdated samples, as there were several in Jeong 2020 which had odd profiles. TAK001 was on my list for similar reasons as SKT007, as both fo these look very similar to the Pre-Scythian late bronze age population of Northwestern Mongolia and South Siberia like those found in the Deer Stone khirigsuur complexes.
Target: MNG_Early_Xiongnu_SKT007:SKT007
Distance: 2.9320% / 0.02932031
58.4 MNG_North_N
21.6 RUS_Tyumen_HG
14.2 CHN_Western_Liao_River_BA_o
3.8 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_IA
2.0 IRN_Tepe_Hissar_C
Target: MNG_Khovsgol_BA
Distance: 1.8753% / 0.01875323
65.6 MNG_North_N
21.2 RUS_Tyumen_HG
4.8 CHN_Western_Liao_River_BA_o
4.2 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_IA
2.4 IRN_Tepe_Hissar_C
1.8 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
With Khovsgol as a source:
Target: RUS_Late_Xiongnu:TAK001
Distance: 2.5398% / 0.02539811
90.6 MNG_Khovsgol_BA
4.8 CHN_Western_Liao_River_BA_o
4.6 Saka_Tian_Shan
Target: MNG_Early_Xiongnu_SKT007:SKT007
Distance: 2.2511% / 0.02251068
91.8 MNG_Khovsgol_BA
8.2 CHN_Western_Liao_River_BA_o
I still am a bit skeptical about the sample actually. DA39 and TAK002 both have significant Han-related ancestry, undoubtedly due to the Heqin policy, TAK001 lacks this. The sample also lacks C14 dating unless they had retested this in the latest article which I missed. The authors seem to infer that the sample is legit.
I have yet to extensively read through the article but it seems they are painting these elites across broad strokes.I saw them talking about Slab grave ancestry being disproportioanlly linked to “elite status” while failing to take uniparentals into account. If there is an elite bias towards Slab Grave ancestry, then Q-M120 a lineage found in almost all Slab Grave males should not be missing amongst these samples, or be at a very low frequency amongst the Xiongnu in general.
I wrote out a response to the published article about the Xiongnu period samples, you can read it here:
ReplyDeletehttps://musaeumscythia.blogspot.com/2023/03/ancient-dna-from-xiongnu-period-elite.html
Hopefully I will get a response from the authors.
Also, I made simulated coordinates for DA39 and TAK002 with the Han-related (represented through CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_IA) ancestry removed, here are the scaled coordinates:
MNG_Late_Xiongnu_SIM:DA39_min_50%_UYRIA,0.031112,-0.3767603,0.083972,-0.0191647,-0.0679093,-0.0463897,0.025695,0.02023,0.0063393,-0.0004247,-0.0137483,0.004596,-0.0208623,-0.0096787,0.0251533,0.014407,0.005302,0.001014,-0.0069543,0.0049183,-0.0307367,-0.006472,-0.0149543,-0.004819,-0.002236
MNG_Late_Xiongnu_SIM:TAK002_min_46.8%_UYRIA,0.04148985,-0.41336526,0.0880486,-0.01689803,-0.08385668,-0.0518891,0.00809572,0.02460137,0.00286217,0.0186726,-0.02414986,-0.01002997,0.00301521,-0.00037039,0.00119417,-0.00646667,-0.01602989,0.00229015,-0.00026908,0.00582275,-0.0163146,0.00593364,-0.01940631,-0.00542065,0.0096055
Target: MNG_Late_Xiongnu_SIM:DA39_min_50%_UYRIA
Distance: 4.7597% / 0.04759651
85.2 MNG_Slab_Grave_EIA_1
13.6 MNG_Sagly_EIA_4
1.2 KAZ_Otyrar_Antiquity
0.0 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_IA
Target: MNG_Late_Xiongnu_SIM:TAK002_min_46.8%_UYRIA
Distance: 3.1511% / 0.03151109
96.0 MNG_Slab_Grave_EIA_1
4.0 MNG_Sagly_EIA_4
0.0 CHN_Upper_Yellow_River_IA
0.0 KAZ_Otyrar_Antiquity
You can now also find these coordinates on a new page I made for the various Global25 coordinates I have shared here and simulated coordinates I made with Genoplot:
https://musaeumscythia.blogspot.com/p/global25-coordinates.html