历史真相
古今中外历史政治
考古新发现：欧洲匈奴(Huns)和中国匈奴无关
关于中国的汉族和少数民族，现在人有很多错误的看法，比如，汉族是纯血统的，这不对，汉族是无数个民族融合起来的。汉族是内容不断变化的“民族”，其实，古代没有“民族”这个说法，都是天子的子民，所谓“汉族”是近代革命党搞出来的，有政治化的意味。生活在中国版图上的所有民族都是中华民族的一部分。从以下16个主要民族结局看，尽管古代有杀戮，但他们都没有消失，比如“党项”没有蒙古族灭绝，羯在16国时代也没有被灭族。流传最大的谎言是匈奴，原来说匈奴被西汉打败后，部分成了欧洲的“匈奴帝国”，但近年通过95俱古代匈奴尸体的DNA 分析，欧洲匈奴(Huns)和中国的匈奴(Xiongnu)毫无关系，这个重大考古和生物研究成就，不知道为什么被国内媒体忽略了。
位于蒙古北部Egyin Gol峡谷，发现一处墓地，是一处匈奴时代尸骸遗址，共挖掘出属于不同时期的90多具尸骸。三名法国学者Christine Keyser Tracqui，Eric Crubezy和Bertrand Ludes对这些古代尸骨进行了DNA测试，测试共分Nuclear DNA细胞核DNA和MitochondrialDNA（mtDNA）线粒体DNA两部分，最后确定了匈奴人的人种类型，他们是典型的亚洲人，和今天的蒙古、西伯利亚、中国人、朝鲜人、日本人有比较近似的人类发生学关系，而且没有发现欧洲人血统的影响。
他们的论文发表在最权威的遗传学学术刊物《American Journal of Human Genetics》上（《美国人类遗传学杂志》），发表于2003年。
写此文的目的，主要是我对民族和历史感兴趣，另一方面，网上某些别有用心的人又在叫嚣汉族血统最纯，说某某少数民族被谁谁灭族了，试图挑拨民族矛盾。看看《史记》，最早的“汉族”就是多个民族融合而成的，根据人类考古学，最早的人类出自东非，匈奴和“汉族”来自同一个祖先。 希特勒这个狂热的日耳曼民族种族主义者的下场大家都知道。美国有大量的移民人口，也没有怎么害怕污染了他们本民族的血统。个人认为，中国的某些极端民族主义者是中了儒教的毒害，儒教的所谓“夷夏”之分，对今天的民族和谐团结非常不利，某个国学大师在媒体上甚至公然指责纪大才子，是服务于清朝的汉奸。
匈奴
在秦汉时期称雄中原以北的一个强大的游牧民族，前215年被逐出黄河河套地区，历经东汉时分裂，南匈奴进入中原内附，北匈奴从漠北西迁，中间经历了约三百年。中国古代的匈奴和欧洲的匈人（匈奴）没有血缘关系，不是同一民族。近年来使用DNA等测试手段已经回答了这个问题。
匈奴人是夏朝的遗民。《史记·匈奴列传》记载：“匈奴，其先祖夏后氏之苗裔也，曰淳维。”。《山海经·大荒北经》称：犬戎与夏人同祖，皆出于黄帝。《史记索隐》引张晏的话说：“淳维以殷时奔北边。”意即夏的后裔淳维，在商朝时逃到北边，子孙繁衍成了匈奴。还有一说认为，移居北地的夏之后裔，是夏桀的儿子。夏桀流放三年而死，其子獯鬻带著父亲留下的妻妾，避居北野，随畜移徙，即是中国所称的匈奴。
王国维在《鬼方昆夷猃狁考》中，把匈奴名称的演变作了系统的概括，认为商朝时的鬼方、混夷、獯鬻，周朝时的猃狁，春秋时的戎、狄，战国时的胡，都是后世所谓的匈奴。
真正与匈奴进行大规模战斗是在汉朝。汉初前201年，韩王刘信投降匈奴。次年，汉高祖刘邦亲率大军征讨，在白登（今山西大同东北）被匈奴冒顿单于30余万骑兵围困七昼夜。后用计逃脱，之后开始与匈奴和亲。其后的文、景诸帝也是沿用和亲政策以休养生息。前57年匈奴分裂，郅支单于获胜据漠北，呼韩邪单于前51年南下投靠汉朝。前33年呼韩邪单于娶王昭君与汉修好。
48年，东汉初年，匈奴分裂为两部，呼韩邪单于之孙日逐王比率4万多人南下附汉称为南匈奴，被汉朝安置在河套地区。留居漠北的称为北匈奴。89年到91年南匈奴与汉联合夹击北匈奴，先后败之于漠北和阿尔泰山，迫使其西迁，从此北匈奴就从中国古书中消失。
187年，东汉末年黄巾起义、董卓专权之际，南匈奴发生内讧。195年，南匈奴参与了中原混战，东汉蔡邕之女蔡文姬被掳掠去匈奴。202年，南匈奴首领归附汉丞相曹操，蔡文姬归汉。曹操将南匈奴分成五部。
4世纪初，匈奴族的五部大都督刘渊在成都王司马颖手下为将。乘西晋八王之乱之后的混乱时期，刘渊起兵占领了北中国的大部分地区，自称汉王，311年刘渊子刘聪攻占洛阳，316年攻占长安，灭西晋。史称前赵或汉赵。
匈奴与鲜卑的混血后代称为铁弗人。铁弗人刘勃勃被鲜卑拓跋氏击败后投奔羌人的后秦。后自认为是末代的匈奴王，改姓赫连，在河套地区创立夏国，史称胡夏。425年赫连勃勃卒，子赫连昌继位。428年北魏俘赫连昌。赫连昌弟赫连定在平凉自称夏皇帝。431年北魏俘赫连定，夏亡。夏国的国都统万城是作为游牧民族的匈奴在东亚留下的唯一的遗迹。
匈奴融入靠近高丽的鲜卑的宇文氏部落，进入朝鲜半岛。后来宇文氏篡西魏建立的北周政权，后被汉族外戚杨坚所篡。杨坚创立隋朝，统一中原。
以上是五胡十六国及南北朝时期，匈奴在中国历史舞台上进行了最后一场演出。之后匈奴作为一个独立的民族从中国历史中消失，和其他一些民族一起融入华夏族。匈奴后裔汉化后，所改汉姓有刘、贺、丛、呼延、万俟等，很多生活在今天的陕西、山西和山东等地。
附1：网友的质疑
An unfortunate, backward Eastern European with a racist agenda. The whole concept of Indo-European is archaic in nature. Unfortunately, he's reading from a History books that's 20 years out of date.
The Romans themselves described him as having Mongoloid features. End of story. There's nothing about the Huns that's Indo-European in nature or origin, or whatever that means. History Channel had a nice feature on the Barbaric Hoards, and they talked about the recovered skulls of the Huns which clearly showed marked Mongoloid features:
"The main source for information on Attila is Priscus, a historian who traveled with Maximin on an embassy from Theodosius II in 448. He describes the village the nomadic Huns had built and settled down in as the size of the great city with solid wooden walls. He described Attila himself as:
"short of stature, with a broad chest and a large head; his eyes were small, his beard thin and sprinkled with gray; and he had a flat nose and a swarthy complexion, showing the evidences of his origin."
Attila's physical appearance was most likely that of an Eastern Asian or more specifically a Mongol ethnicity, or perhaps a mixture of this type and the Turkic peoples of Central Asia. Indeed, he probably exhibited the characteristic Eastern Asian facial features, which Europeans were not used to seeing, and so they often described him in harsh terms."
附2：2003年 美国人类遗传学杂志的原文
Am. J. Hum. Genet. 73:247–260, 2003
Nuclear and Mitochondrial DNA Analysis of a 2,000-Year-Old Necropolis
in the Egyin Gol Valley of Mongolia
Christine Keyser-Tracqui,1 Eric Crube′zy,2 and Bertrand Ludes1,2
1Laboratoire d’Anthropologie Mole′culaire, Institut de Me′decine Le′gale, Strasbourg, France, and 2Anthropobiologie, Universite′ Paul Sabatier,
CNRS, UMR 8555, Toulouse, France
DNA was extracted from the skeletal remains of 62 specimens excavated from the Egyin Gol necropolis, in northern
Mongolia. This burial site is linked to the Xiongnu period and was used from the 3rd century B.C. to the 2nd
century A.D. Three types of genetic markers were used to determine the genetic relationships between individuals
buried in the Egyin Gol necropolis. Results from analyses of autosomal and Y chromosome short tandem repeats,
as well as mitochondrial DNA, showed close relationships between several specimens and provided additional
background information on the social organization within the necropolis as well as the funeral practices of the
Xiongnu people. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study using biparental, paternal, and maternal
genetic systems to reconstruct partial genealogies in a protohistoric necropolis.
Introduction
In recent years, molecular studies have become widely
employed to investigate parentage relationships within
burial groups (Fily et al. 1998; Stone and Stoneking
1999; Schultes et al. 2000; Clisson et al. 2002), because
morphological indicators of kinship are much less precise than the genetic data potentially available by analysis of ancient DNA. Understanding genetic relationships within and between burial sites helps us to
understand the organization of sepulchral places and the
origin of human remains recovered (e.g., unrelated individuals or members of a single or a limited number of
family groups). This should be the first step of any work
devoted to the history of settlement based on the investigation of remains from a cemetery, because every external inclusion in a group of subjects sharing a common
parentage may introduce a bias (Crube′zy et al. 2000).
In the present study, we examined biological kinship
in a necropolis from the Xiongnu period, a culture
known mainly through the graves discovered in 1943
by a joint Mongolian-Russian expedition in the Noin-
Ula Mountains in northern Mongolia (Rudenko 1970)
but also through other funerary sites of the Selenge Basin (Konovalov 1976). The Xiongnu were an ancient
nomadic Turkomongolian tribe who were first described
in Chinese manuscripts as early as the 4th century B.C.
Received February 26, 2003; accepted for publication May 7, 2003;
electronically published July 10, 2003.
Address for correspondence and reprints: Dr. Christine Keyser-
Tracqui, Laboratoire d’Anthropologie Mole′culaire, Institut de Me′
decine Le′gale, 11, rue Humann, 67085 Strasbourg Cedex, France. E-
mail: [email]ckeyser@mageos.com[/email]
. 2003 by The American Society of Human Genetics. All rights reserved.
0002-9297/2003/7302-0004$15.00
(Minajev 1996). In the 3rd century B.C., Xiongnu tribes
rose to great power and created the first empire governed by Central Asian nomads. They ruled over a territory that extended from Lake Baikal in the north to
the Gobi desert in the south and from western Manchuria in the east to the Pamirs in the west. During the
newly established Han dynasty (206 B.C.to A.D. 220),
China expanded its borders, and the Xiongnu empire
lost ground (Marx 2000).
According to radiocarbon dating, the Egyin Gol site
was used from the 3rd century B.C. to the 2nd century
A.D. (i.e., over the whole Xiongnu period). It is located
in northern Mongolia, in a cold environment favorable
to a good preservation of the DNA (Burger et al. 1999;
Leonard et al. 2000). We studied genetic diversity at the
Egyin Gol site, first by use of autosomal STRs. Autosomal STRs consist of tandemly organized repeats of
short nucleotide patterns (2–6 bp), which are transmitted according to a Mendelian mode of inheritance.
These genetic markers took precedence in our study,
owing to their excellent power of discrimination for the
study of close parentage relationships. They also represent propitious markers for ancient DNA studies because of their small size and because they allow detection of sample contamination (Hummel et al. 2000).
Moreover, they can be simultaneously amplified, reducing to an absolute minimum the amount of sample material necessary for kinship analysis. Although both maternal and paternal genetic contributions can be assessed
with autosomal markers, such as STRs, we also studied
the genetic diversity by typing the nonrecombining part
of the Y chromosome, as well as the hypervariable region
I (HVI) of the mtDNA. We studied paternal and maternal
transmitted polymorphisms to complete the data ob
tained by autosomal STR analyses and, above all, to
confirm the authenticity of the molecular data obtained
from the ancient Egyin Gol specimens. These polymorphisms also provided additional information on the genetic history of the Xiongnu tribes.
Material and Methods
Site
The necropolis is located in the Egyin Gol valley near
the Egyin Gol river, ～10 km from its confluence with
the Selenge, a main tributary of Lake Baikal (fig. 1. The
valley’s position is 49. 27. N, 103. 30. E, and it has
a continental climate, with an average annual temperature of 1C. The winter (October to April) is
cold (with temperatures often dropping to 30Cin
January and February), whereas Summer (July to September) is pleasant (with temperatures sometimes as high
as 22C). Precipitation is light (300–400 mm per year).
Because of its relatively high altitude (885 m), the valley
floor is covered with snow from mid-November to April,
and ice thickness on the Selenge reaches 1.8 m during
this period. Permafrost was found in some areas by the
geologists who were present on the site.
From 1997 to 1999, the burial site was wholly excavated by a French-Mongolian expedition, under the
sponsorship of UNESCO, after preliminary boring revealed the excellent preservation of the graves (Crube′zy
et al. 1996). The necropolis comprised a total of 103
graves, among which 84 were excavated by the archaeological mission. The 19 remaining graves had been explored before the arrival of the mission in Mongolia,
and no data were available on these spots. Graves were
organized on both sides of a small depression on the
river valley, in four sectors that were designated “A,”
“B,” “C,” and “D” (figs. 2, 3, and 4). The southern
sector (A) was composed of four double graves (32/32A,
33/33A, 37/37A, and 38/38A), each of which contained
two sets of remains that were probably buried within
the same period (Murail et al. 2000). Grave 27 was
surmounted by a standing stone and was found to conceal exceptional furniture. In eight graves (18, 47, 49,
54, 59, 69, 83, and 85), secondary deposits (bones of
very young children) were found beside the deceased.
The associated funeral material was of great interest
and allowed us to link the necropolis to the Xiongnu
culture (Crube′zy et al. 1996). Bone samples from 31
specimens scattered across the necropolis were dated by
carbon 14 (14C) determinations. The projection of the
31 mean values corresponding to each radiocarbon
datum were linearly extrapolated, by use of UNIRAS
software, to establish clines, which are represented by
shades of gray on the necropolis map (fig. 5). This diagram suggests a topographical development of the bur-
Am. J. Hum. Genet. 73:247–260, 2003
Figure 1 Location of the Egyin Gol site
ial ground, with a progressive expansion from south to
north. Indeed, grave 28, slightly remote in the southern
sector, was found to be the oldest of the necropolis,
followed by grave 27 and the double burials. Therefore,
sector A is probably the oldest, even though some graves
located around it appear more recent. Sectors B and C
seem more recent, although some graves situated near
the center of sector B might have been implanted earlier.
The graves were at a depth of 2–5 m and were delimited by stones set in circles with diameters of several
meters. They were protected by several layers of stones
included in a loessial sediment. Chests and coffins were
perfectly visible and relatively well preserved, as were
most of the artifacts made of perishable matter (e.g.,
horn and bone) that were found in the graves.
Samples
Excavation of the 84 unexplored graves resulted in
the recovery of 99 human skeletons (including double
graves and secondary deposits). In most instances, complete and articulated skeletons were recovered, but, in
some cases (e.g., secondary deposits or looted graves),
numerous bones were missing or severely damaged.
Most of the skeletal material was in an excellent state
of preservation, as was confirmed by the mineral/organic
composition of the bones, which did not differ significantly from that of contemporary bones. For instance,
the mean . SD crystallinity index was 0.07 . 0.02,
close to that of ice-preserved ancient bones (Person et
al. 1996). Mean . SD percentages of carbon and nitrogen were 13.8% . 0.8 and 4.2% . 0.2, respectively,
Keyser-Tracqui et al.: Genetic Analysis of a Xiongnu Population
Figure 2 Map of the necropolis showing the autosomal STR data. Graves are represented by circles. Letters A, B, C, and D refer to the
four sectors distinguished in the present study. Dotted lines define the boundary of these sectors.
quite similar to those of reference material obtained from
surgical samples.
Sex was established according to the methodology
developed by Murail et al. (1999). Age at death was
estimated using dental calcification for the children and
epiphyseal fusion for the adolescents (Crube′zy et al.
2000). The age distribution of the skeletons did not correspond to expected human mortality patterns (for a 30year life expectancy), since the 0–9-year-old group was
underrepresented. Moreover, the total number of subjects was surprisingly low for such a long period of use
(at least 400 years). These findings suggest that only
specific members of the Xiongnu community were buried in this necropolis.
Samples for DNA analysis were collected from such
skeletal elements as astragalus, calcaneus, rib, verteb??,
and teeth during the first year of the excavation; samples
from more substantial long cortical bones, such as femur,
tibia, and humerus, were collected during the next 2
years. After authorization from the Mongolian authorities, bone samples from 80 skeletal remains (taken,
when possible, in duplicate) were transferred to Strasbourg, France, under appropriate storage conditions. On
arrival in the laboratory, highly damaged bones (showing extreme fragility and porosity) and severely deteriorated teeth were excluded from the genetic analysis.
DNA Extraction and Purification
DNA was extracted from 79 bone samples corresponding to 62 individuals (some individuals were typed
from two independent samples).
To eliminate surface contamination, the outer surface
of the bones was removed to almost 2–3 mm of depth
with a sanding machine (Dremel). Powdered bone was
generated by grinding bone fragments under liquid nitrogen in a 6800 Freezer Mill (Fischer Bioblock) or with
a drill fitted with a surgical trepan to avoid overheating.
Am. J. Hum. Genet. 73:247–260, 2003
Figure 3 Map of the necropolis showing the Y chromosome STR data. Graves containing specimens of the same patrilineage are represented
by an identical geometric figure.
DNA was carefully extracted according to a published
protocol (Fily et al. 1998). In brief, 2 g of the pulverized
material was incubated at 50C overnight in 5 ml of a
solution containing 5 mmol EDTA, 2% SDS, 10 mmol
Tris HCl (pH 8.0), 0.3 mol sodium acetate, and 1 ml
proteinase K/ml. A phenol/chloroform/isoamyl alcohol
(25/24/1, v/v) extraction was performed on the supernatant. The aqueous phase was then purified with the
Cleanmix kit (Talent), which relies on the strong affinity
of DNA to silica in the presence of guanidium thiocyanate. After the elution step with 400 ml sterile water,
the DNA was concentrated by passing through a Microcon YM30 filter (Millipore).
To ensure the accuracy and reliability of the results,
all samples were amplified (for each marker) at least six
times (more when apparent homozygotes were found by
autosomal STR analysis) from three independent DNA
extracts and, when possible, from two different bones
of the same individual.
Autosomal STR Analysis
Autosomal STRs were amplified using the AmpFlSTR
profiler Plus kit (Applied Biosystems). Nine STRs
(D3S1358, vWA, FGA, D8S1179, D21S11, D18S51,
D5S818, D13S317, and D7S820) and the sex determination marker amelogenin were simultaneously
amplified.
PCRs were performed according to the manufacturer’s
protocol (Applied Biosystems), except that 37 cycles
were used instead of 28 in a reaction volume of 10 ml,
thereby reducing the volume of the DNA samples and
improving the amplification yield.
For three samples (57, 58, and 59), further analyses
Keyser-Tracqui et al.: Genetic Analysis of a Xiongnu Population
Figure 4 Map of the necropolis showing the mtDNA sequences data. Graves containing specimens of the same matrilineage are represented
by an identical geometric figure.
were performed using the AmpFlSTR SGM Plus kit (Applied Biosystems), which allows the simultaneous amplification of 10 STR loci (4 more than with the previous
kit). The genetic relationships between individuals were
tested by pairwise comparison of the profiles.
Y Chromosome STR analysis
The DNA of male individuals was analyzed at eight
Y chromosome STR loci. Six of them (DYS19, DYS389II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS393, and DYS385) were
coamplified in a multiplex reaction, using the Y-Plex6
kit, according to the manufacturers’ recommendations
(ReliaGene Technologies). The two others (YCAII and
DYS392) were amplified by singleplex PCR. Primer sequences were those described by de Knijff et al. (1997).
For PCR amplification (using a Biometra thermocycler),
the following conditions were used: predenaturation at
94C for 3 min; 30 annealing cycles at 94C for 30 s,
56C for 30 s, and 72C for 90 s; and a final extension
at 72C for 7 min. The allele nomenclature was the one
recommended by the International Society of Forensic
Genetics (Gill et al. 2001).
mtDNA Analysis
The HVI of the mitochondrial control region was amplified and sequenced from nucleotide positions 16009
to 16390 (Anderson et al. 1981), using primers L15989
and H16410 (Gabriel et al. 2001). When no amplification was obtained with these primers, presumably
because of DNA degradation, the additional primers
H16239 (Ivanov et al. 1996) and L16190 (Gabriel et al.
2001) were used to amplify the HVI fragment in two
steps. PCR was performed with AmpliTaq Gold polymerase, as follows: predenaturation at 94C for 10 min;
38 annealing cycles at 94C for 30 s, 48Cor51Cfor
30 s, and 72C for 45 s; and final extension at 72Cfor
Figure 5 Radiocarbon dating map
10 min. Amplification products were checked on a 1%
agarose gel and purified with Microcon-PCR filters (Millipore). The sequence reaction was performed with the
same primers on each strand with the ABI Prism BigDye
Terminator Cycle Sequencing kit (Applied Biosystems).
Amplification Product Analysis
PCR products were analyzed on an ABI Prism 3100
(Applied Biosystems) automated DNA sequencer. Fragment sizes were determined automatically by use of
GeneMapper software and were typed by comparison
with allelic ladders (provided in the kits or obtained by
the mixture of previously sequenced samples for the
most common alleles). mtDNA sequences were analyzed
using the Sequencing Analysis and Sequence Navigator
software packages.
Measures Taken to Avoid Contamination
Because the possibility of performing genetic analyses
had been considered before beginning the archaeological
work, precautions were taken to reduce contamination
during excavation and curation, for example, samples
were handled with gloves by a reduced number of anthropologists wearing face masks. To check for possible
modern contamination, the DNA extracted from saliva
samples of all people handling the material or working
in the laboratory was genetically typed and then compared with the profiling results of all ancient samples.
The entire process of DNA extraction and PCR amplification was performed in an isolated laboratory dedicated to work with ancient DNA, where all staff wore
lab coats, face masks, and gloves and where strict clean-
Am. J. Hum. Genet. 73:247–260, 2003
ing procedures were respected (frequent treatment with
DNAse Away and UV light and frequent change of
gloves). Autoclaved disposable plasticware, dedicated reagents, and pipettes with aerosol-resistant tips were
used; extraction and template blanks were included in
every PCR assay; and positive PCRs were never performed. Multiple extractions from the same samples
were undertaken at different times, and PCR products
were never brought into the ancient DNA laboratory.
Results
Autosomal STR Analysis
Of the 62 individual remains analyzed by multiplex
amplification, 8 DNA samples (from graves 32, 34, 51,
60, 78, 83bis, 84bis, and 85 [fig. 2]) appeared severely
degraded, since no amplifiable product could be obtained (from at least three independent extracts). One
sample (from grave 18) was excluded from further analyses, because it was considered a likely case of contamination (the multiallelic profile matched that of one of
the staff, despite multiple independent extractions of this
vertebral sample). Four other DNA samples (from graves
26, 27, 67, and 81) were found to contain too few template DNA molecules to provide reproducible results
(data not shown). The remaining extracted samples gave
49 more or less complete allelic profiles. Consensus data
are reported in table 1. In most cases, these 49 DNA
profiles were obtained from diaphyses, but verteb??
provided the genetic profiles in 4 cases, calcaneus in 1
case, and clavicle in 1 case. Long cortical bones (such
as femur, tibia, and humerus) thus appeared to be good
sources of ancient DNA, whereas rib samples and other
thin bones did not. When apparent homozygotes were
obtained, amplifications were repeated as many as eight
times to avoid the possibility that one allele of an heterozygote was not detected.
Morphological and molecular typing results for sex
determination were in accordance with each other,
which is indicative of authentic ancient DNA extracts.
We used the amelogenin locus to deduce the sex of six
juvenile skeletons for which morphological indicators of
sex were absent: three were male (graves 18A, 36, and
84.1), and three others were female (graves 41, 83, and
91). For three other adolescent remains (graves 74, 75,
and 76), even molecular determination of sex was ambiguous, despite nearly complete STR profiles.
Comparison of the profiles in pairs allowed us to identify a family composed of the father (grave 57), the
mother (grave 59), and one child (grave 58). For these
three specimens, all nine STR loci were amplified; and,
at each locus, alleles of the child profile could have been
assigned to the genotypes from either grave 57 or grave
59 (table 1). To confirm this result, further analysis was
Keyser-Tracqui et al.: Genetic Analysis of a Xiongnu Population
Table 1
Consensus Allelic Profiles of 49 Specimens Recovered from the Egyin Gol Necropolis
ALLELE(S) AT MARKER
GRAVE AMELa D3S1358 VWA FGA D8S1179 D21S11 D18S51 D5S818 D13S317 D7S820
18A XY 15?/16 14/17 19/25 11/13 ? 14/17 12/12 8/11 ?
25A XY 15/16 16/17 20/21 13/13 30/31 14/19 10/11 10/11 10/11
28 XY 15/16 14/15 23/26 10/11 30/31 14/16 9/11 10/11 10/11
29 XY 15/16 19? 24/25 13/16 31.2/? 13/14 10/12 8/8 8/8
29bis XY 14/15 18/19 22/22 ?/14 30/32.2 14/15 11/13 11/12 8/11
32A XY 15/16 15/17 22/23 13/14 29/30 16/16 11/11 9/9 11/13
33 XY 15/15 17/18 22/23 13/13 28/30 12/16 11/11 9? 11?
35 XX 15/17 15/17 22/24 14/16 28.2/33.2 13/15 11/12 11/11 12/12
36 XY 15/16 15/17 22/25 14/16 28.2/31 13/15 11/11 8/11 8/12
37A XX 15/16 18/18 24/25 13/14 29/30 ?/21 8/11 9/? 10/12
39 XX 16/17 17/19 22/23 13/14 28/30 14/15 8/11 8/8 8/12
41 XX 15/16 16/17 24/28 ? 29/32.2 16/16 10/11 8/12 8/8
46 XY 16/18 16/18 23/24 12/13 29/30 13/14 10/12 9/13 10/12
47 XY 14/15 16/17 22/23 13/14 30/33.2 14/14 11/13 8/9 8/10
48 XX 15/16 16/17 22/24 10/13 30/31.2 14/14 11/12 9/12 8/12
49 XX 15/16 16/17 24/24 13/15 28/32.2 ? 11/11 8/11 10/11
50 XY 16/18 17/18 23/24 13/14 29/30 14/17 10/12 9/10 10/11
52 XY 16/18 16/18 24/24 14/14 29/29 13/14 11/12 9/11 8/10
53 XY 15/17 16/17 23/24 12/13 29/32.2 15/22 10/11 10/13 11/11
54 XY 15/16 16/18 20/24 12/13 29/29 13/17 11/12 10/13 8/11
56 XX 15/17 14/17 23/25 14/16 30/31 16/20 10/11 8/12 10/10
57 XY 16/16 16/17 23/24 13/14 30/30 15/16 11/11 10/11 8/9
58 XY 15/16 14/17 22/23 12/14 30/31 13/16 11/12 8/11 8/12
59 XX 15/15 14/18 22/22 12/15 30/31 13/15 12/12 8/10 10/12
61 XX 15/15 18/18 21/23 8/10 ?/30 12/21 11/12 8/13 8/11
63 XX 15/17 16/17 24/26 12/16 30/32.2 15/16 7/12 10/10 10/11
65 XY 15/16 17/19 21/26 14/16 29/32.2 14/15 12/13 10/12 8/10
66 XX 15/16 18/19 23/24 10/16 29/30 14/16 12/12 9/12 8/10
68 XX 15/16 17/18 24/24 13/15 30/32.2 21/22 11/13 9/11 11/13
69 XY 15/17 15/16 23/23 10/12 29/30 15/15 13/13 10/10 10/11
70 XY 15/16 16/17 22/23 13/14 30/32.2 17/19 9/11 8/10 8/10
72 XY 15/16 16/17 23/24 10/14 30/32.2 14/17 11/11 10/10 10/10
73 XY 16/17 17/19 18/22 13/13 30.2/32.2 14/19 10/13 8/8 11/11
74 ? 15/17 16/19 21/24 12/13 29/30 13/15 10/11 8/9 8/10
75 ? 16/18 14/16 22/26 14/15 29/31 16/17 9/11 10/11 9/12
76 ? 15/16 15/16 21/24 13/14 29/29 14/22 10/10 (8)/11b 8/10
77 XX 15/17 18/19 21/25 10/12 32.2/32.2 14/16 11/12 9/11 8/11
79 XX 16/18 18/19 21/24 14/14 31.2/32 14/15 11/12 8/9 8/12
82 XX 16/16 14/17 19/24 13/14 30/32.2 13/14 10/11 11/14 10/13
83 XX 16/17 16/17 23/? 12/14 29/30 18/? 10/10 10/14 10/10
84.1 XY 15/16 16/17 19/25 13/14 28/28 ?/17 11/12 10/11 11/12
86 XX 15/16 16/17 24/25 13/14 30/31.2 13/15 13/13 8/9 12/13
88 XY 15/17 15/17 23/24 12/14 29/30 14/14 10/11 8/10 8/12
90 XX 15/16 18/18 23/23 13/14 31/32.2 16/16 11/12 10/11 11/12
91 XX 15/16 16/17 23?/26 13/14 29/30 16/17 9/? 10/11 9/10
92 XY 16/16 15/16 21/25 12/16 29/30 19/20 10/11 10/11 10/11
93 XX 16/17 16/18 22/24 13/13 29/31.2 15/22 11/12 8/10 8/8
94 XY 16/17 14/17 18/24 12/14 30/31 14/15 11/11 10/10 10/12
95 XY 16/17 16/17 21/24 12/13 29/30 15/21 11/11 8/8 8/12
NOTE.—Question marks denote alleles that could not be clearly amplified for the locus in question.
a
AMEL p amelogenin.
b
Allele noted in parentheses to indicate that ambiguity could not be eliminated even after reiteration of the experimentation.
Am. J. Hum. Genet. 73:247–260, 2003
Table 2
Y Chromosome STR Haplotypes Determined for 27 of the Ancient Male Specimens
ALLELE(S) AT MARKER
GRAVE DYS19 DYS390 DYS391 DYS392 DYS393 YCAII DYS385 DYS389II
25A14– 11 14 14 – – –
26 14 24 10 11 14 18/22 12/19 –
27 – – 10 11 1422/22– –
28 15 24 10 11 1419/19 –
30
32A–23 10 – 14– – –
36 1623101113– – –
46 15 24 10 11 13 22/23 12/15 29
47 15 24 10 11 13 22/23 12/15 –
50 15 24 10 11 13 22/23 12/15 29
52 15 24 10 11 13 22/23 12/15 29
53 15 24 10 11 13 22/23 12/15 –
54 15 24 10 11 1322/23– –
57 17 23 10 11 14 22/24 11/20 29
58 17 23 10 11 14 22/24 11/20 29
65 1624111113– – –
69 14 23 11 13 13 18/21 11/13 –
70 16 25 11 11 13 19/23 11/14 31
72 16 25 11 11 1319/23– –
73 16 25 11 11 1319/23– –
76 14 – – 13 1323/23– –
811423–14 13 –– –
84.1 14 24 10 16 14 18/20 – –
84bis – 23 11 – 11 19/19 – –
88 14 25 – 14 15 18/23 14/14 –
94 14 25 10 14 15 18/23 14/14 –
92 13 24 10 15 13 19/20 15/17 29
95 15 24 11 14 12 19/21 13/20 28
NOTE.—Dash denotes that an allele could not be amplified for the locus in question.
performed on these three samples, using the AmpFlSTR
SGM Plus Kit (PE Biosystems). This additional analysis
confirmed and completed previous results, with one allele contributed from each parent (data not shown), and
proved the parental relationships.
It was also possible to determine other familial relationships; for instance, the child from grave 36 is probably the son of the female individual buried near him
(grave 35), since the genotypes of these two subjects
shared a common allele at each of the nine loci tested.
No putative father was found among the profiles of table
1. In the same manner, the genetic profile of the male
skeleton retrieved from grave 50 shared one allele at each
locus with individuals from graves 46, 52, and 54 and
is probably the father of these three individuals. It also
shared eight alleles with individuals from graves 48, 65,
and 66. Individual profiles from graves 46 and 48 and
from 47 and 48 also indicated a parent/child relationship, with one common allele at each locus, as did profiles from the following pairs of graves: 63 and 65, 32A
and 33, 70 and 72, 72 and 94, 88 and 94, and 93 and
95. Other individuals could have been closely related
parents: the two adolescents from graves 74 and 76
shared one allele at seven or eight of the nine STR markers, as did those from the following sets of graves: 46,
52, and 54; 53 and 54; 50 and 52; 82 and 83; 53 and
69; 65 and 66; and, finally, 94 and 95. The incomplete
genotyping of some samples probably hampered the
search for other familial relationships.
Y Chromosome STR Analysis
To identify male lineages, an analysis of polymorphic
STR systems located on the male-specific part of the Y
chromosome was performed. Eight Y-specific STRs were
typed and used to construct haplotypes. Of the 35 individuals who were male or whose sex could not be
determined, 27 could be typed at more than three loci
(table 2). Among them, 18 different haplotypes could
be identified (even when incomplete, most haplotypes
could be differentiated). The loci DYS385 and DYS389II
often could not be amplified, probably because they are
expressed in the higher molecular weight range. Such an
inverse dependence of the amplification efficiency on the
size of the segment to be amplified is typical of DNA
retrieved from ancient remains and results from damage
and degradation of the DNA.
The most common haplotype was observed in six male
specimens buried in the C sector (graves 46, 47, 50, 52,
53, and 54 [fig. 3; table 2]), suggesting a grouping of
Keyser-Tracqui et al.: Genetic Analysis of a Xiongnu Population
individuals belonging to the same paternal lineage. Three
of these individuals (graves 46, 52, and 54), shared, in
addition, the same mtDNA sequence (see below); they
were therefore considered to be brothers. Since their autosomal allelic profile showed one allele in common, at
each locus, with that of the male from grave 50, the
latter was considered to be their father. The others (from
graves 47 and 53) were probably more distant paternal
relatives (half-brothers, nephew and uncle, or grandfather and grandson).
The study of these uniparentally inherited STR markers also showed that the individual in grave 58 had the
same Y haplotype as his putative father in grave 57: all
seven regions of the Y chromosome tested matched, confirming the autosomal typing results (paternity). Three
other adult individuals, buried in the northern part of
the necropolis (graves 70, 72, and 73) were found to
share an identical six-locus haplotype (fig. 3; table 2).
Two of them (from graves 70 and 72), who shared at
least one common allele at each locus (see “Autosomal
STR Analysis” section), may be considered to be a father
and son. Close to them, two other specimens (graves
88 and 94) sharing an identical six-locus haplotype
(table 2) and half of their autosomal alleles (table 1)
were supposed to be genetically linked by a father/son
relationship.
Some DNA samples failed to yield any amplification
results. Among them were the DNA extracted from the
adolescent remains from graves 74 and 75. Since the sex
of both specimens could not be clearly established (either
morphologically or genetically), one can suppose that
these adolescents were female individuals. Conversely,
the individual from grave 76 gave incomplete but consistent results, suggesting that this specimen was a male.
mtDNA Analysis
Sequence variation in the HVI was investigated in 56
of the ancient specimens. Reproducible HVI sequences
were obtained for 46 of them. Among these 46 individuals, a total of 28 different sequences, defined by 44
variable positions, were identified (table 3). The most
frequent mtDNA type was scored in four individuals:
three of them (from graves 46, 52, and 54) belong to
the C sector and were considered to be brothers, since
they also shared an identical Y haplotype (table 2); the
fourth (from grave 57) was the father of the little family
identified in the middle of the necropolis. Twelve other
mtDNA types were shared by at least two individuals,
the remaining 15 mtDNA types being represented by
just one individual. Two of these unique mtDNA types
(from graves 48 and 61) differed from the most frequent
one (from graves 46, 52, 54, and 57) by a single mutation and may be considered to arise from the same
maternal lineage.
Differences between sequences could be mostly attributed to transitional substitutions (90%) and concerned mainly the pyrimidines; however, at position 183,
transversions occurred in several different sequences.
The CrT transition at position 16223 (nucleotide position in the reference sequence of Anderson et al.
[1981]) was shared by most of the ancient specimens
(35/46 individuals), as was the TrC transition at position 16362 (27/46 individuals). Two instances of a
transition and transversion at the same site were also
observed: position 16129 showed both GrA and GrC
mutations, and position 16232 showed both CrT and
CrA mutations, as previously reported by Kolman et
al. (1996). Insertion of a C residue was found once,
between positions 16193 and 16194.
Polymorphic sites shared by two individuals allowed
us to confirm or to reconsider close genetic affinities
between some specimens. For instance the individuals
from graves 59 and 58 showed an identical HVI sequence, confirming the maternal relationship deduced
from the autosomal STR typing. The child of grave 36
had the same mtDNA sequence as her presumed mother
(grave 35) and the female specimen from grave 37A
(double grave) (fig. 4). Other complete matches were
noted between individuals from graves 83bis and 91; 65
and 77; 32A and 72; 28, 73, and 74; 70, 88, and 94;
53 and 69; 83 and 82; and 76 and 86 (table 3), even
though autosomal STR data did not always clearly show
any parental relationship. The male individuals from
graves 88 and 94, who were thought to be a father-son
pair, since they share at least one allele at every locus
(see the “Autosomal STR Analysis” section) and an identical five-locus haplotype, may in fact be brothers, since
their mitochondrial haplotype is identical. Similarly,
the two adolescents from graves 74 and 76 who were
thought to be siblings are obviously not, since they do
not share an identical HVI sequence.
Heteroplasmies were found within the mtDNA sequences of individuals from graves 39, 41, and 18A.
Specimens from graves 39 and 18A were grouped, respectively, with individuals from graves 49 and 27, since
the remaining nucleotides perfectly matched each other;
a comparison with nuclear data to decide whether or
not graves 18A and 27 contained maternal relatives was
not possible, because of the incompleteness of the autosomal DNA profiles. Individuals from graves 39 and
49 were considered to be maternal relatives on the basis
of the genotyping results.
Although the mtDNA sequences obtained could not
be assigned with certainty to mtDNA haplogroups (since
they encompassed only the HVI of the control region),
three (A, C, and D) of the four major haplogroups observed in Native American (Torroni et al. 1993) and
Siberian (Starikovskaya et al. 1998; Schurr et al. 1999)
populations were detected in the ancient samples tested
Am. J. Hum. Genet. 73:247–260, 2003
Table 3
mtDNA HVI Sequences of the Egyin Gol Specimens
NUCLEOTIDEDIFFERENCESFROMTHEREFERENCESEQUENCE
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
000000111111112222222222222222222333333333
668899223788991122334445677789999001125666
69262369693923i3737293596104880138041977258
GRAVE SEX HAPa ACCTTTTGTCATC–GTCACCTCTCCCGCTCCATATTGCTTCT
68 F A ................T..TC...............A..C..
83bis I A .........T..T...T............T......A..C..
91 I A .........T..T...T............T......A..C..
93 F A ................T............T.C....A.....
37A F A ................T............T......A..C..
35 F A ................T............T......A..C..
36 I A ................T............T......A..C..
63 F A ..........GC....T.........A..T......A..C..
84.1 M B4b ...C....C.CC...C..........................
39 F C .....Y.A........T...............C....T....
49 F C .......A........T...............C....T....
50 M C ................T.............T.C....T....
56 F C ................T..T............CG...TC...
47 M C .....C..........T...........C...C....T....
66 F C .....C.A......A.T...............C....T....
61 M D4 ................T..................C...C..
41 M D4 ..Y.............T......................C..
65 M D4 ................T.........A............C..
77 F D4 ................T.........A............C..
32A M D4 .....C..........T....T.................C..
72 M D4 .....C..........T....T.................C..
48 F D4 ................T......................C.C
46 M D4 ................T......................C..
52 M D4 ................T......................C..
54 M D4 ................T......................C..
57 M D4 ................T......................C..
28 M D4 ................T.T..........T.........C..
73 M D4 ................T.T..........T.........C..
74 I D4 ................T.T..........T.........C..
70 M D4 ................T.........A........C...C..
88 M D4 ................T.........A........C...C..
94 M D4 ................T.........A........C...C..
95 M U2 .......C..C..C.........................C..
53 M D5/D5a ....C......C....T..................C...C..
69 M D5/D5a ....C......C....T..................C...C..
25A M G2a ................TG.........T...........C..
83 I F1b .....C....CC......................C.......
82 F F1b .....C....CC......................C.......
58 M F1b ..........CC......A...C...........CC......
59 F F1b ..........CC......A...C...........CC......
27 M J1 .T..C.C.................T.................
18A M J1 .T..C.C.................Y.................
92 M M G...............T..................C......
90 F M .......A........T.........................
76 F U5a1a .......................T.T..............T.
86 F U5a1a .......................T.T..............T.
NOTE.—PolymorphicnucleotidesitesarenumberedaccordingtothereportbyAndersonetal.(1981).Dots(.)indicateidentitywiththereference
sequence.Dash(–)indicatesnucleotideinsertionbetweennucleotidepositions16193and16194.
aHapp haplogroup.
(withhaplogroupDbeingthemostprevalent).Afew similartothosefoundinpreviousstudiesofthearea
sequencesbelongingtosubclustersB4b,D5orD5a,F1b, (Kolmanetal.1996;Comasetal.1998).
J1,G2a,U2orU5a1a—andsomethatprobablybelongedtoclusterM—werealsoobserved(Richardset Discussion
al.2000;Yaoetal.2002).Nomemberofthemajor
EuropeanclusterH,whichoccursin140%ofmostEu-Inthepresentarticle,partialgenealogicalreconstruction
ropeanpopulations(Richardsetal.1996)wasfound. wasobtainedusingbiparental,paternal,andmaternal
Interestingly,someofthehaplotypesreportedhereare geneticsystemsinasampleof62humanskeletalremains
Keyser-Tracqui et al.: Genetic Analysis of a Xiongnu Population
exhumed from a cemetery dating from 12,000 years ago.
To the best of our knowledge, no equivalent molecular
analysis has been undertaken so far. Such a study was
possible because the Egyin Gol necropolis was mainly
composed of relatively well-preserved skeletons. Indeed,
the climatic conditions (cold and dry) and the archaeological context (architectural structure of the graves)
encountered at this site had undoubtedly protected the
recovered specimens against DNA degradation. Regarding DNA retrieval, PCR amplification results showed
three kinds of samples, as described elsewhere (Burger
et al. 1999): (i) samples in which sufficient DNA molecules were preserved and for which definite and reproducible genotypes or haplotypes could be determined;
(ii) samples in which DNA could be detected sporadically but without reproducible results; and (iii) samples
in which no DNA (or almost none) was preserved.
The choice of autosomal STR markers as a first approach for analyzing individual remains of the Egyin
Gol necropolis was based on (i) their high discriminatory power, in comparison with mtDNA analysis, as a
means to investigate close familial relationship; (ii) their
small size, which facilitates amplifications in old or degraded DNA; (iii) the possibility of amplifying several
of them simultaneously from minute amounts of DNA;
and (iv) their ability to indicate a result’s authenticity
(notably by comparing amplified products to the profiles
of all persons involved in the investigation).
The multiallelic DNA profiles obtained for 49 of the
ancient specimens were compared with each other. A
direct parental link was considered plausible if a pair
shared an allele at each of the nine loci tested; in this
manner, a total of nine pairs were identified as representing possible parent-child relationships. Moreover,
we could identify three children thought to have a common parent (individuals from graves 46, 52, and 54,
fathered by the individual from grave 50). The traditional parentage trio, with both parents, was encountered only once. This is not surprising, considering that
not all profiles were complete and that the number of
inhumations that occurred throughout more than four
centuries (the duration of the necropolis’s use) is relatively small.
To verify the accuracy of the biological relationships
deduced from autosomal STR data and to gain a higher
power of discrimination, the study of nonrecombining
marker systems, such as Y chromosome STRs and
mtDNA was undertaken. These analyses confirmed the
child or sibling status of some individuals (graves 35
and 36; 57, 58, and 59; 50, 46, 52, and 54; 70 and 72;
and 88 and 94) and the close genetic relationship between some others (graves 53 and 54, 82 and 83, and
53 and 69). In one case, however, discordant results
between the biparental and the two uniparental systems
were observed. Indeed, the multiallelic profiles obtained
from the skeletal remains recovered from graves 94 and
95 supported a biological relationship between them.
Nevertheless, because these two “relatives” had neither
the same Y haplotype nor the same mtDNA sequence,
we had to consider the possibility that the two specimens were genealogically unrelated (unless each of the
two sets of parents were siblings). For other pairs of
individuals (from graves 47 and 48, 63 and 65, 65 and
66, and 93 and 95), the validation of a close parental
link was not possible without knowing which was the
parent and which was the child.
Among other results, the Y chromosomal STR analysis revealed that one of the defined topographical sectors was exclusively composed of males of the same
patrilineage (the individuals from graves 48, 49, and
51 were female, and no bone samples were available
for specimens from graves 43–46A). The other males
found to share the same Y haplotype (graves 57 and
58; 88 and 94; and 70, 72, and 73) were also buried
close to each other. Such a grouping of male relatives
has never been demonstrated before for ancient specimens and provides an insight into the funeral practices
of ancient Eurasian tribes.
The maternal genetic inheritance, which was tested
through sequencing of the mtDNA HVI, revealed some
biological links. For example, children from graves
83bis and 91 might be considered to be relatives, since
they share an identical HVI sequence (table 3). Other
maternal links were revealed, such as those between
individuals from graves 65 and 77; 32A and 72; 28, 73,
and 74; 70 and both 88 and 94; and 18A and 27. In
some cases, heteroplasmies were observed. The possibility that these heteroplasmies resulted from contamination was invalidated by the fact that identical results
were obtained from DNA samples extracted and amplified in triplicate at different time intervals.
Nevertheless, the pitfall of contamination from extraneous human DNA is a major concern for researchers
working with human remains (Handt et al. 1994; Kolman and Tuross 2000) and should not be underrated.
Since some erroneous ancient DNA results have been
published, a number of “criteria of authenticity” need
to be fulfilled before results from ancient DNA analyses
can be taken to be genuine (Handt et al. 1994; Cooper
and Poinar 2000). In the present study, extensive precautions (described in the “Material and Methods” section) were taken to avoid the amplification of contaminating contemporary DNA molecules. Despite the fact
that not all reported criteria of authenticity could be
met, the possibility that our data arose from contaminating DNA was considered highly unlikely for the following reasons: (i) reproducible PCR results were obtained from multiple extractions and amplifications of
the same samples made at different times; (ii) multiallelic profiles were not mixtures of different individuals’
DNA and were not found to correspond to someone
involved in the present work (except once); (iii) the results of both sex typing methods (morphologic and genetic) were in accordance with each other; (iv) an inverse
relationship between amplification efficiency and length
of the amplification products was observed, especially
with STR markers; (v) the crystallinity index and the
carbon/nitrogen ratio determinations indicated no significant alteration of the bones (Nielsen-Marsh et al.
2000); (vi) a concordance was observed between data
obtained with the markers inherited biparentally, paternally, and maternally; (vii) mtDNA analysis of the
ancient sample revealed that most of the haplogroups
present were of Asian origin and that European maternal lineages identical to those of the excavators or
laboratory personnel (all of whom were of European
origin) were absent; (viii) the 16223 thymine-cytosine
transition was found in 76% of the ancient Egyin Gol
samples, a result close to that of Kolman et al. (1996),
who found it in 65% of Mongolian samples (compared
with 7% of European samples), and (ix) the level of
genetic diversity detected in the protohistoric population, as well as some of the haplotypes reported, are
similar to those obtained in modern Mongolian populations (authors’ unpublished data; Kolman et al. 1996).
Nevertheless, the test that confers the greatest level
of robustness is duplicate analysis by two independent
laboratories. This was not feasible in the present study,
because of the large number of subjects tested. Cloning
of the PCR products was not conceivable for the same
reason and is not really adapted to the study of STR.
Methods such as amino acid racemization and DNA
quantitation were not applied, mainly because they do
not allow the distinction between contaminated and
uncontaminated samples (Kolman and Tuross 2000).
Moreover, the proposed use of amino acid racemization
to estimate DNA survival in archaelogical bones is challenged by some authors (Collins et al. 1999). The fact
that the multiallelic profiles were repeatable from the
same—and different—DNA extracts of a specimen allowed us to consider that the number of starting templates was high enough to obtain reliable results and to
analyze mtDNA (for which the contamination problem
is worse). On the other hand, we subscribed to other
important criteria, such as the reiteration of the extraction and amplification steps, the sexing of the samples tested, and, foremost, the use of a molecular combined approach. Moreover, the bone samples studied
are not fossil remains and, consequently, are not prone
to high rates of DNA alteration.
A majority (89%) of the Xiongnu sequences can be
classified as belonging to an Asian haplogroup (A, B4b,
C, D4, D5 or D5a, or F1b), and nearly 11% belong to
European haplogroups (U2, U5a1a, and J1). This finding indicates that the contacts between European and
Am. J. Hum. Genet. 73:247–260, 2003
Asian populations were anterior to the Xiongnu culture,
and it confirms results reported for two samples from
an early 3rd century B.C. Scytho-Siberian population
(Clisson et al. 2002).
The genetic data obtained in the present study, in
addition to the topographical and radiocarbon data,
suggested hypotheses concerning the social history of
the necropolis. Around the 3rd century B.C., the grave
of an adult male (grave 28) had been dug on the southern part of the Egyin Gol valley (A sector). At a short
distance from him, a privileged man was also buried
(grave 27), as were other individuals, including those
found in double graves (graves 32/32A, 33/33A, 37/
37A, and 38/38A). Some of these surrounding graves
could be sacrificial burials, as has been reported elsewhere for one of them (Murail et al. 2000). This tradition of having double graves near an opulent one in
cemeteries containing individuals of high social class is
well documented, notably in the Sakka (another group
of nomadic people of the Eurasian steppes) and the Pazyryk cultures (Francfort et al. 2000). This ritual, at the
first developmental step of the cemetery, suggests that
the cultural influence of the “old Scythian spirit” was
already present in some nomadic families at the beginning of the Xiongnu empire. Although close genetic relationships could not be clearly established between ancient specimens of the A sector (because of the lack of
amplification results), a parent/child link was nevertheless shown between individuals in graves 32A and 33,
suggesting the possibility of burials based on familial
relationships.
Some years later, a new sector of interment seems to
have been created (sector B). In this second sector, some
individuals shared mtDNA sequences with individuals
from the most ancient graves. (Thus, individuals from
graves 73 and 74, 18A, and 72 were found to share
mtDNA sequences with those from graves 28, 27, and
32A, respectively.) This result suggests that maternal
relatives of the individuals first buried might participate
in the extension of a new cemetery area. It should be
noted that, except for individuals from grave 18A, these
maternal relatives were buried close to each other. Two
of them (from graves 73 and 72) were from the same
paternal lineage. We can imagine that the creation of
this new burial area could be the result of tensions
between members of the ruling family. The fact that no
double graves were built could reflect the cultural rupture with the “old Scythian spirit.”
From the 2nd century B.C. to the 1st century A.D.,
the social organization of the necropolis cannot be
clearly deduced from the genetic data. Male and female
individuals from different paternal and maternal lineages were buried from south to north in the A sector
and from north to south in the B sector. Genetic analyses
revealed several familial groups buried close to each
Keyser-Tracqui et al.: Genetic Analysis of a Xiongnu Population
other, notably, one consisting of a father, mother, and
son. Since these three individuals were probably not
buried at the same time (the son appeared to be as old
as his parents), the family grouping was organized at
least one generation earlier. From these results, it seems
reasonable to speculate that the Xiongnu buried relatives together although the practice was not systematic.
During this period the site might have been the cemetery
of a social group with a significant genetic diversity, of
which only certain members were buried (the small
number of inhumations that occurred throughout more
than three centuries suggests that this Xiongnu tribe
probably had other sepulchral places).
After the fusion of the A and B sectors, new graves
were dug in the west. These graves correspond to a
group of genetically linked individuals, since they belong to a single paternal lineage. Interestingly, this paternal lineage has been, at least in part (6 of 7 STRs),
found in a present-day Turkish individual (Henke et al.
2001). Moreover, the mtDNA sequence shared by four
of these paternal relatives (from graves 46, 52, 54, and
57) were also found in a Turkish individuals (Comas et
al. 1996), suggesting a possible Turkish origin of these
ancient specimens. Two other individuals buried in the
B sector (graves 61 and 90) were characterized by
mtDNA sequences found in Turkish people (Calafell
1996; Richards et al. 2000). These data might reflect
the emergence at the end of the necropolis of a Turkish
component in the Xiongnu tribe.
In conclusion, our study shows how the use of genetic
markers of different mutability might provide an insight
into the history of past necropolises. It also provides
genetic data on ancient Eurasian specimens that could
help to confirm or disprove models developed from
modern genetic data to explain population history. Finally, it provides an excellent tool to select samples of
interest for interpopulation analyses.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by a grant (Aide a` Projet Nouveau) of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (to
E.C.). Additional support was provided by the Institut of Legal
Medicine of Strasbourg (postdoctoral contract) to C.K.-T. We
are indebted to P. Blandin, F.-X. Ricaut, and E. Tissier for their
help in this work. We would also like to thank P.-H. Giscard,
for the management of the excavations, P. Murail, for the classic anthropological study (ages and sex), and J. P. Verdier, for
the topographic study. The staff of J. Jaubert is also gratefully
acknowledged for help with the geological study of the valley
and the discovery of permafrost. We thank V. Balter and A.
Person for the crystallographic studies. The fieldwork was
made possible thanks to the Ministe`re des Affaires Etrange`res
(France) and UNESCO. We also thank S. Erdenebaatar and
D. Turbat from the Mongolian Academy for the codirection,
with P.-H. Giscard and E. Crube′zy, of the team in the field.
References
Anderson S, Bankier AT, Barrell BG, de Bruijn MH, Coulson
AR, Drouin J, Eperon IC, Nierlich DP, Roe BA, Sanger F,
Schreier PH, Smith AJ, Staden R, Young IG (1981) Sequence
and organisation of the human mitochondrial genome. Nature 290:457–465
Burger J, Hummel S, Herrmann B, Henke W (1999) DNA
preservation: a microsatellite-DNA study on ancient skeletal
remains. Electrophoresis 20:1722–1728
Calafell F, Underhill P, Tolun A, Angelicheva D, Kalaydjieva
L (1996) From Asia to Europe: mitochondrial DNA sequence variability in Bulgarians and Turks. Ann Hum Genet
60:35–49
Clisson I, Keyser C, Francfort HP, Crube′zy E, Samashev Z,
Ludes B (2002) Genetic analysis of human remains from a
double inhumation in a frozen kurgan in Kazakhstan (Berel
site, early 3rd century BC). Int J Legal Med 116:304–308
Collins MJ, Waite ER, van Duin AC (1999) Predicting protein
decomposition: the case of aspartic-acid racemization kinetics. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 354:51–64
Comas D, Calafell F, Mateu E, Pe′rez-Lezaun A, Bertranpetit J
(1996) Geographic variation in human mitochondrial DNA
control region sequence: the population history of Turkey
and its relationship to the European populations. Mol Biol
Evol 13:1067–1077
Comas D, Calafell F, Mateu E, Pe′rez-Lezaun A, Bosch E, Martinez-Arias R (1998) Trading genes along the Silk Road:
mtDNA sequences and the origin of Central Asian populations. Am J Hum Genet 63:1824–1838
Cooper A, Poinar HN (2000) Ancient DNA: do it right or not
at all. Science 289:1139
Crube′zy E, Martin H, GiscardPH, BatsaikhanS,Erdenebaatar
D, Verdier JP, Maureille B (1996) Funeral practices and animal sacrifices in Mongolia at the Uigur period: archeological and ethno-historical study of a kurgan in the Egyin Gol
valley. Antiquity 70:891–899
Crube′zy E, Masset C, Lorans E, Perrin F, Tranoy L (2000)
Arche′ologie fune′raire. Editions Errance, Paris
de Knijff P, Kayser M, Caglia` A, Corach D, Fretwell N, Gehrig
C, Graziosi G et al (1997) Chromosome Y microsatellites:
population genetic and evolutionary aspects. Int J Legal Med
110:134–149
Fily ML, Crube′zy E, Courtaud P, Keyser C, Ebrard D, Ludes
B (1998) Analyse pale′oge′ne′tique des sujets de la grotte se′
pulcrale d’Elzarreko Karbia (Bronze ancien, Pays Basque).
CR Acad Sci III 321:79–85
Francfort HP, Ligabue G, Samashev Z (2000) La fouille d’un
kourgane Scythe gele′du IVe sie`cle av. notre e`re a` Berel dans
l’Alta.¨ (Kazakhstan). Acade′miedesInscriptionsetBellesLettres, Paris, pp 775–806
Gabriel MN, Huffine EF, Ryan JH, Holland MM, Parsons TJ
(2001) Improved mtDNA sequence analysis of forensic remains using “mini-primer set” amplification strategy. J Forensic Sci 46:247–253
Gill P, Brenner C, Brinkmann B, Budowle B, Carracedo A,
Jobling MA, de Knijff P, Kayser M, Krawczak M, Mayr
WR, Morling N, Olaisen B, Pascali V, Prinz M, Roewer L,
Schneider PM, Sajantila A, Tyler-Smith C (2001) DNA Commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics:
260
recommendations on forensic analysis using Y-chromosome
STRs. Int J Legal Med 114:305–309
Handt O, Ho¨ss M, Krings M, Pa¨a¨bo S (1994) Ancient DNA:
methodological challenges. Experientia 50:524–529
Henke J, Henke L, Chatthopadhyay P, Kayser M, Du¨ lmer M,
Cleef S, Po¨ che H, Felske-Zech H (2001) Application of Y-
chromosomal STR haplotypes to forensic genetics. Croat
Med J 42:292–297
Hummel S, Bramanti B, Schultes T, Kahle M, Haffner S,
Herrmann B (2000) Megaplex DNA typing can provide a
strong indication of the authenticity of ancient DNA amplifications by clearly recognizing any possible type of modern contamination. Anthropol Anz 58:15–21
Ivanov PL, Wadhams MJ, Holland MM, Weedn VW, Parsons
TJ (1996) Mitochondrial DNA sequence heteroplasmy in
the Grand Duke of Russia Georgij Romanov establishes the
authenticity of the remains of Tsar Nicholas II. Nat Genet
12:417–420
Kolman CJ, Sambuughin N, Bermingham E (1996) Mitochondrial DNA analysis of Mongolian populations and implications for the origin of New World founders. Genetics
142:1321–1334
Kolman CJ, Tuross N (2000) Ancient DNA analysis of human
populations. Am J Phys Anthropol 111:5–23
Konovalov NB (1976) Khuny V Zabayikale Akademia nauk
SSSR, Sibirskoe Otoelenie, Buriatskue Knijnoe izdatelstvo,
Ulan-Ude
Leonard JA, Wayne RK, Cooper A (2000) Population genetics
of ice age brown bears. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:1651–
1654
Marx I (2000) The Xiongnu culture—third century BCE.
[url]http://www.silk-road.com/toc/index.html[/url] (accessed June 12,
2003)
Minajev SS (1996) Les Xiongnu. Dossiers d’Arche′ologie 212:
74–85
Murail P, Bruzek J, Braga J (1999) A new approach to sexual
diagnosis in past populations: practical adjustments from
Van Vark’s procedure. Int J Osteoarchaeol 9:39–53
Murail P, Crube′zy E, Martin H, Haye L, Bruzek J, Giscard
PH, Turbat T, Erdenebaatar D (2000) The man, the woman
and the hyoid bone: from archaeology to the burial practices
of the Xiongnu people (Egiin Gol valley, Mongolia). Antiquity 74:531–536
Am. J. Hum. Genet. 73:247–260, 2003
Nielsen-Marsh C, Gernaey A, Turner-Walker G, Hedges R,
Pike A, Collins M (2000) The chemical degradation of bone.
In: Cox M, Mays S (eds) Human osteology in archeology
and forensic science. London, pp 439–454
Person A, Bocherens H, Mariotti A, Renard M (1996) Diagenetic evolution and experimental heating of bone phosphate. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
126:135–150
Richards M, Co. rte-Real H, Forster P, Macauley V, Wilkinson-
Herbots H, Demaine A, Papiha S, Hedges R, Bandelt HJ,
Sykes B (1996) Paleolithic and Neolithic lineages in the European mitochondrial gene pool. Am J Hum Genet 59:185–
203
Richards M, Macaulay V, Hickey E, Vega E, Sykes B, Guida
V, Rengo C, et al (2000) Tracing European founder lineages
in the Near Eastern mtDNA pool. Am J Hum Genet 67:
1251–1276
Rudenko SI (1970) Frozen tombs of Siberia: the Pazyryk burials of Iron Age horsemen. London, Dent and Son
Schultes T, Hummel S, Herrmann B (2000) Ancient DNA-
typing approaches for the determination of kinship in a disturbed collective burial site. Anthropol Anz 58:37–44
Schurr TG, Sukernik RI, Starikovskaya YB, Wallace DC (1999)
Mitochondrial DNA variation in Koryaks and Itel’men:
population replacement in the Okhotsk Sea-Bering Sea region during the Neolithic. Am J Phys Anthropol 108:1–39
Starikovskaya YB, Sukernik RI, Schurr TG, Kogelnik AM,
Wallace DC (1998) mtDNA diversity in Chukchi and Siberian Eskimos: implications for the genetic history of ancient Beringia and the peopling of the New World. Am J
Hum Genet 63:1473–1491
Stone AC, Stoneking M (1999) Analysis of ancient DNA from
a prehistoric Amerindian cemetery. Philos Trans R Soc Lond
B Biol Sci 354:153–159
Torroni A, Schurr TG, Cabell MF, Brown MD, Neel JV, Larsen
M, Smith DG, Vullo CM, Wallace DC (1993) Asian affinities
and continental radiation of the four founding Native American mtDNAs. Am J Hum Genet 53:563–590
Yao YG, Kong QP, Bandelt HJ, Kivisild T, Zhang YP (2002)
Phylogeographic differentiation of mitochondrial DNA in
Han Chinese. Am J Hum Genet 70:635–651
Linkage of 匈奴 & Huns is "Inconclusive" !
Who did "匈奴尸体DNA " ?! Disclose the source.
"DNA testing of Hun remains has NOT proven conclusive in determining the origin of the Huns"
类似的还有沙陀
對於歷史，仁者見仁，智者見智，請諸君自便評論。。。
引用 刪除 老刀 / 2007-05-28 11:02:36
狂熱的民族主義可怕，無知的自我否定也是極其可怕的！所以，我們對這兩種做法都要給予堅決的打擊！
引用 刪除 dzi / 2007-05-28 10:01:16
咱是不是要出部法律 禁止素質低滿嘴髒話的人上網發評論
引用 刪除 皇帝 / 2007-05-28 09:58:21
有些人渣不配在這裡說話 白癡也可以談人類歷史 可笑 漢族沒有純粹血統體系 這早就被經過科學驗正 狂熱 盲目 單純的民主主義就是無知的表現 中華民族是個大家庭這是事實 我支援作者 文章寫的有深度
引用 刪除 Guest / 2007-05-28 09:36:26
胎毒老是喜歡搞族群對立,難到還想在大陸挑起,也是弱智和弱者的體現.大陸老百姓現在可是聰明絕頂,火眼金精,都是受過教育的人,不像他們無知.
引用 刪除 Guest / 2007-05-28 09:31:10
引用 刪除 Guest / 2007-05-28 09:26:29
文章有深度,是專家.大家都是中國人
引用 刪除 草原來的 / 2007-05-28 09:19:52
網路是人渣都能說話的地方。不是針對作者，是指評論者。
引用 刪除 flshyang / 2007-05-28 00:12:34
你媽的肯定是美國的賊畜生! 解放歐洲的匈奴和中國本部的匈奴都是同一個的.解放歐亞大陸的蒙古人現在遍佈世界各地,有的甚至看起來十足一個西方鬼子的樣子，但你能說他們跟中國人種沒有任何關係?!中國的種族是純潔的，絕沒有黑白鬼子的基因，中國全體人民是永遠一致對外的。想顛覆東方人的信仰，你就得承認你們的“上帝”---耶穌是個畜生！！！
查看(44987) 評論(12) 評分(0/0) 管理
http://big5.phoenixtv.com:82/gate/big5/blog.phoenixtv.com/html/47/871847-834050.html
《 The Merican Journal of Human Genetics》95具尸骨DNA最终确定古代匈奴时期的人种
[size=3]说实话，这也不是什么新闻了，毕竟3年过去了。如此巨大的发现，消息闭塞的国内居然还没有什么报道和反响，殊为传奇。
是在位于蒙古北部Egyin Gol峡谷的一处墓地发现的，是一处匈奴时代（只是该时代的）尸骸遗址，共挖掘出属于不同时期的90多具尸骸。
3年前，三名法国学者Christine Keyser Tracqui，Eric Crubezy和Bertrand Ludes对这些古代尸骨进行了DNA测试，测试共分Nuclear DNA细胞核DNA和MitochondrialDNA（mtDNA）线粒体DNA两部分，最后确定了匈奴人的人种类型，他们是典型的亚洲人，和今天的蒙古、西伯利亚、中国人、朝鲜人、日本人有比较近似的人类发生学关系.而且没有发现欧洲人血统的影响。
他们的论文发表在最权威的遗传学学术刊物《merican Journal of Human Genetics》上（《美国人类遗传学杂志》），发表于2003年。
地址，位于蒙古北部Egyin Gol峡谷，在外蒙古首都乌兰巴托北部，北纬49度27分，东经103度30分。贝加尔湖正南方。
文章先介绍了匈奴人的历史，他们建立了历史上第一个控制整个蒙古草原和中亚的游牧帝国，从公元前3世纪到公元2世纪，曾经拥有长期的繁荣。
并介绍了匈奴人的结局，南方的汉帝国崛起，汉帝国在扩张中把匈奴帝国征服了，匈奴从此消失。后面有同欧洲民族的比较，以比较后期罗马时期的Huns和Xiongnu的关系
洞穴的方位，A、B、C、D四个室，95个尸骨的位置，他们的关系（父子、母子），F为female女性，M表示男性Male，黑色个体，为保存了毛囊、齿根等部分，得以提取有效线粒体DNA的个体。
通过mtDNA的分析，他们拥有印第安人和亚洲人具有的ACD的类型，而没有欧洲人的H，基本确定他们是典型的亚洲起源。
而典型的欧洲mtDNA却没有检测到，证明了他们的亚洲起源。
共有46个个体，有效的提取了DNA，他们的类型如下：
最后，他们分析了现代人群。
并认为，古代匈奴人中，已经开始有了能在现代突厥语民族中找到的mtDNA类型。说明，古代已经有现在突厥语民族的祖先，融合到了古代匈奴人的国家中。
附录一：
附录：
对亚洲、美洲、欧洲15个民族mtDNA的比较，含蒙古人、突厥语的哈萨克人、汉族人、爱斯基摩人、印第安人、俄罗斯人、匈牙利人等民族
基本可以确定，匈奴人是典型的亚洲人，而且对现代欧洲人的血统没有影响。（匈牙利人的D是乌拉尔人的，和匈奴人不同）
2007-3-9 21:50 欧元区
欧洲的HUNS与中国的匈奴无关,更有可能是来自蒙古高原的鲜卑人!
如果HUNS是匈奴的话,在中亚待了几百年,黄种血统绝不会那么纯!
2007-3-10 17:15 氐羌人后裔
[quote]原帖由 [i]光速[/i] 于 2007-3-9 21:24 发表
最后，对羌氐人、PPLO等人说明一下，东西是2003年的，不是新的，我事先自己声明。
如果你以前已经看过此文，请不要再说剩饭之类的话。 [/quote]
抱歉，上次是我失言了，说话太不懂礼貌．也是由于那个论坛上经常有人发一些别人说过Ｎ次的观点，看的有些烦了．你转的这篇文章还是很不错的．支持一下！
2007-3-11 09:44 谜雾
[quote]原帖由 [i]欧元区[/i] 于 2007-3-9 21:50 发表
欧洲的HUNS与中国的匈奴无关,更有可能是来自蒙古高原的鲜卑人!
如果HUNS是匈奴的话,在中亚待了几百年,黄种血统绝不会那么纯! [/quote]
鲜卑人主要也是黄种人，五胡中只有羯是较明确的白种人。
2007-3-11 10:32 欧元区
[quote]原帖由 [i]谜雾[/i] 于 2007-3-11 09:44 发表
鲜卑人主要也是黄种人，五胡中只有羯是较明确的白种人。 [/quote]
我的意思是,如果入侵欧洲的HUNS在中亚待了几百年的话,不太可能是黄种人,所以他们一定是像后来的蒙古那样,直接来自东北亚草原~
别忘了今天的哈萨克人就是黄白混血人种,而他们的祖先突厥是黄种人!
[[i] 本帖最后由 欧元区 于 2007-3-11 10:34 编辑 [/i]]
2007-3-11 19:51 光速
[quote]原帖由 [i]氐羌人后裔[/i] 于 2007-3-10 17:15 发表
抱歉，上次是我失言了，说话太不懂礼貌．也是由于那个论坛上经常有人发一些别人说过Ｎ次的观点，看的有些烦了．你转的这篇文章还是很不错的．支持一下！ [/quote]
谢谢你的肯定
2007-3-12 07:57 songkoro
文章不错.不知道光速能提供文章地址吗?
2007-3-12 08:24 songkoro
我转帖到别的地方有人有少数民族的同志有疑问不知道光速能不能解答一下:
"遗传学上科学分析的结论我是相信的，所以没有什么异议。
我不明白 的是这么一点：如何确认他们就是匈奴人的？
因为匈奴是没有文字的.好比中国，因为没有任何出土文字证实“夏”的存在，至今洋人都不肯承认夏的历史存在。
那么，没有文字证明的遗骸，如何确认他们的匈奴人身份？请楼主再提供一些资料给我们！"
2007-3-12 13:45 光速
回楼上，是我自己说的不严谨
是匈奴时期，从逻辑上还不能说就是匈奴人，他最后一段也说了，这可能不是系统埋藏，而且四个洞穴的时期相差很大
但他原文里提到这个时期的匈奴是turkomongolian tribe，并且认为这个时期的尸体应该就是匈奴的，所以他后面提到骸骨时都说的匈奴（Xiongnu）一词
还有个词，不懂，Old Scythain Spirit是什么神灵？
2007-3-12 13:46 光速
Y染色体分析，有的数据测出来
2007-3-12 13:47 光速
2007-3-12 13:51 光速
这么帖有点乱，你用标题去google搜一下应该能找到PDF格式的原文，PDF的格式大于256k，没法放到附件里
2007-3-12 15:24 谜雾
其实以前的主流观点就认为匈奴主要是黄种人夹杂一些白种人，只是后来有些崇洋媚外的认为匈奴以白种人为主。
2007-3-20 10:31 M@r!0
17楼“还有个词，不懂，Old Scythain Spirit是什么神灵？”
古代斯基泰（西徐亚）人的神吧
2007-4-3 02:13 Daic
光速：我们希望向您约一篇稿子，不知意下如何，请通过email和我们联系。好吗？
[email]COMonCA.ed@gmail.com[/email]
谢谢！
《现代人类学通讯》
2007-4-3 12:21 muguancai
漠北高原当然是蒙古里亚类型,漠南则一直有白种部落生息,比如月氏.
匈奴王族来自哪里,谁能说清楚?
2007-4-3 13:38 谜雾
月氏如果真的在河西走廊生活过,应该和楼兰人一样,属于原始印欧人的后代.说月氏在漠南不妥,,漠南范围太大,河西走廊只是其中一部份.
2007-4-3 13:53 性手枪
我记得以前看到过一篇文献，匈奴总体的种属当然是无法确定的了，有白种也有黄种，随分布的地区不同而不同，不过研究者注意到一个有趣的现象，在出土的墓葬中越是地位高的匈奴人越是具有更多的高加索特征？
2007-4-28 20:39 氐羌人后裔
[quote]原帖由 [i]谜雾[/i] 于 2007-4-3 13:38 发表
月氏如果真的在河西走廊生活过,应该和楼兰人一样,属于原始印欧人的后代.说月氏在漠南不妥,,漠南范围太大,河西走廊只是其中一部份. [/qu
月氏不一定能到河西.按照史记的说法,月氏在敦煌、祁连间，这也是后人认为月氏在河西的主要依据。可是，汉朝时的“敦煌、祁连”就一定是现在的敦煌、祁连吗？如果不是，月氏在河西的说法就站不住脚了。实际上，迄今为止在河西并没有发现汉代时张骞出使西域前有高加索人活动的考古证据。北大林梅村教授提出过一种观点认为敦煌、祁连是新疆吐火罗语词语，敦煌、祁连最初是在新疆的。也就是说月氏当时主要活动在新疆。林梅村先生对吐火罗语有深刻研究，感觉考证的很有道理。
2007-4-28 20:42 氐羌人后裔
[quote]原帖由 [i]性手枪[/i] 于 2007-4-3 13:53 发表
我记得以前看到过一篇文献，匈奴总体的种属当然是无法确定的了，有白种也有黄种，随分布的地区不同而不同，不过研究者注意到一个有趣的现象，在出土的墓葬中越是地位高的匈奴人越是具有更多的高加索特征？ [/quote]
不对吧？我看到的研究结论是匈奴主体人种是蒙古人种北亚类型，尤其是高级墓葬。当然，你说的匈奴人种多样的现象也是存在的。
2007-4-28 21:40 wolfgang
那篇文章我也看了从mtDNA的角度匈奴主体人种是蒙古人种北亚类型,我个人认为Y染色体匈奴的核心部落可能是N.
2007-4-28 22:55 氐羌人后裔
从考古学上看,匈奴的原初和核心成分和蒙古中部及东部的石板墓文化有密切关系.而从体质人类学的角度来说,实际上古代蒙古高原和西伯利亚的人虽然都属于北亚类型,但是有可以细分为古蒙古高原类型和古西伯利亚类型,而匈奴是属于古蒙古高原类型.古蒙古高原类型和今天的蒙古族体质特征非常相似,所以可以认为匈奴和C关系密切.至于N,我以为就是古西伯利亚类型之一种.而且从N的分布来看主要是在蒙古高原以北.当然很多专家认为匈奴语是属于突厥语族的,这也是对你的N说有利的.再说蒙古的崛起比较晚,此前蒙古高原一直是突厥语族的人占优势,这也是对你的N说有利的
2007-4-29 22:35 wolfgang
应该这么说,N占优势的地方主要在蒙古高原以北,但是N最多的人群却在中国的汉族中,虽然占汉族的比例很小.我认为体质和mtDNA的关系更大,而不是和Y染色体.
2007-4-29 23:06 氐羌人后裔
为什么?难道一个人得到他母亲的遗传物质比他父亲的多的多?哈哈.按照您的推论,那人类岂不是最后都要变成女人?
页: 1 [2] 3
查看完整版本: 《 The Merican Journal of Human Genetics》95具尸骨DNA最终确定古代匈奴时期的人种
2007-4-29 23:17 光速
汉族里的N主要是N*吧，蒙古人和西伯利亚主要是N3，少数的N2，北欧的N是N2为主，少数N3
复旦数据里汉族的10%↑的K，现在觉得主要就是N*，其次是O2*、NO、O*，基本没有真正的K
2007-4-30 01:11 氐羌人后裔
芬兰人就是以N3为主的,N2很少.其他北欧人群基本都是N3为主.
当然东欧也有几个N2比例比较高的:Vepsas(17.9%),Komis(12.8%), Udmurts(28.7%), Maris (15.7%), Chuvashes(10.1%),但是他们的N2比例还是低于N3.
汉族的N确实是N*为主,这也证实了N是由东南亚或者中国南部产生并经过中国大陆向北向西迁徙的.
2007-4-30 01:24 氐羌人后裔
[quote]原帖由 [i]光速[/i] 于 2007-4-29 23:17 发表
汉族里的N主要是N*吧，蒙古人和西伯利亚主要是N3，少数的N2，北欧的N是N2为主，少数N3
复旦数据里汉族的10%↑的K，现在觉得主要就是N*，其次是O2*、NO、O*，基本没有真正的K [/quote]
汉族的K*,可能确实如你所言.不过目前最大的问题还是样本大小的问题.也就是说把K*分得很细的往往采的样本太少.对于汉族这样一个庞然大物来说似乎总让人感觉充满了太多的可能性.而复旦的样本量大(10000个汉族),当然分得也就粗了.不过从xue(2006)来说,东亚样本1000,汉族也不少,和汉族有关的民族都没有发现K*.再结合Hammer的数据,似乎真正的K*确实微乎其微.
2007-4-30 08:59 谜雾
敦煌、祁连和现在的新疆本来就相连,楼兰到现在的敦煌不是很远,我一直怀疑后来的羯人在基因上与月氏有关.
http://www.sinodino.com/bbs/archiver/?tid-17641-page-3.html
2007-5-1 22:34 wolfgang
同意上面的意见,中国以前的K*实际上没有多少真正的K*,基本上是N,O2*,O*,ON*.中国的N南部以N*为主,北面以N3和N1为主.
2007-5-1 22:41 wolfgang
对于体质问题,就一般的感觉而言,应该是父系母系各占一半.但是历史上迅速扩散的群体往往是一个男子有若干个女人.这样几代以后,母系的体质就又了明显优势.
