曆史真相
古今中外曆史政治
考古新發現：歐洲匈奴(Huns)和中國匈奴無關
關於中國的漢族和少數民族，現在人有很多錯誤的看法，比如，漢族是純血統的，這不對，漢族是無數個民族融合起來的。漢族是內容不斷變化的“民族”，其實，古代沒有“民族”這個說法，都是天子的子民，所謂“漢族”是近代革命黨搞出來的，有政治化的意味。生活在中國版圖上的所有民族都是中華民族的一部分。從以下16個主要民族結局看，盡管古代有殺戮，但他們都沒有消失，比如“黨項”沒有蒙古族滅絕，羯在16國時代也沒有被滅族。流傳最大的謊言是匈奴，原來說匈奴被西漢打敗後，部分成了歐洲的“匈奴帝國”，但近年通過95俱古代匈奴屍體的DNA 分析，歐洲匈奴(Huns)和中國的匈奴(Xiongnu)毫無關係，這個重大考古和生物研究成就，不知道為什麽被國內媒體忽略了。
位於蒙古北部Egyin Gol峽穀，發現一處墓地，是一處匈奴時代屍骸遺址，共挖掘出屬於不同時期的90多具屍骸。三名法國學者Christine Keyser Tracqui，Eric Crubezy和Bertrand Ludes對這些古代屍骨進行了DNA測試，測試共分Nuclear DNA細胞核DNA和MitochondrialDNA（mtDNA）線粒體DNA兩部分，最後確定了匈奴人的人種類型，他們是典型的亞洲人，和今天的蒙古、西伯利亞、中國人、朝鮮人、日本人有比較近似的人類發生學關係，而且沒有發現歐洲人血統的影響。
他們的論文發表在最權威的遺傳學學術刊物《American Journal of Human Genetics》上（《美國人類遺傳學雜誌》），發表於2003年。
寫此文的目的，主要是我對民族和曆史感興趣，另一方麵，網上某些別有用心的人又在叫囂漢族血統最純，說某某少數民族被誰誰滅族了，試圖挑撥民族矛盾。看看《史記》，最早的“漢族”就是多個民族融合而成的，根據人類考古學，最早的人類出自東非，匈奴和“漢族”來自同一個祖先。 希特勒這個狂熱的日耳曼民族種族主義者的下場大家都知道。美國有大量的移民人口，也沒有怎麽害怕汙染了他們本民族的血統。個人認為，中國的某些極端民族主義者是中了儒教的毒害，儒教的所謂“夷夏”之分，對今天的民族和諧團結非常不利，某個國學大師在媒體上甚至公然指責紀大才子，是服務於清朝的漢奸。
匈奴
在秦漢時期稱雄中原以北的一個強大的遊牧民族，前215年被逐出黃河河套地區，曆經東漢時分裂，南匈奴進入中原內附，北匈奴從漠北西遷，中間經曆了約三百年。中國古代的匈奴和歐洲的匈人（匈奴）沒有血緣關係，不是同一民族。近年來使用DNA等測試手段已經回答了這個問題。
匈奴人是夏朝的遺民。《史記·匈奴列傳》記載：“匈奴，其先祖夏後氏之苗裔也，曰淳維。”。《山海經·大荒北經》稱：犬戎與夏人同祖，皆出於黃帝。《史記索隱》引張晏的話說：“淳維以殷時奔北邊。”意即夏的後裔淳維，在商朝時逃到北邊，子孫繁衍成了匈奴。還有一說認為，移居北地的夏之後裔，是夏桀的兒子。夏桀流放三年而死，其子獯鬻帶著父親留下的妻妾，避居北野，隨畜移徙，即是中國所稱的匈奴。
王國維在《鬼方昆夷獫狁考》中，把匈奴名稱的演變作了係統的概括，認為商朝時的鬼方、混夷、獯鬻，周朝時的獫狁，春秋時的戎、狄，戰國時的胡，都是後世所謂的匈奴。
真正與匈奴進行大規模戰鬥是在漢朝。漢初前201年，韓王劉信投降匈奴。次年，漢高祖劉邦親率大軍征討，在白登（今山西大同東北）被匈奴冒頓單於30餘萬騎兵圍困七晝夜。後用計逃脫，之後開始與匈奴和親。其後的文、景諸帝也是沿用和親政策以休養生息。前57年匈奴分裂，郅支單於獲勝據漠北，呼韓邪單於前51年南下投靠漢朝。前33年呼韓邪單於娶王昭君與漢修好。
48年，東漢初年，匈奴分裂為兩部，呼韓邪單於之孫日逐王比率4萬多人南下附漢稱為南匈奴，被漢朝安置在河套地區。留居漠北的稱為北匈奴。89年到91年南匈奴與漢聯合夾擊北匈奴，先後敗之於漠北和阿爾泰山，迫使其西遷，從此北匈奴就從中國古書中消失。
187年，東漢末年黃巾起義、董卓專權之際，南匈奴發生內訌。195年，南匈奴參與了中原混戰，東漢蔡邕之女蔡文姬被擄掠去匈奴。202年，南匈奴首領歸附漢丞相曹操，蔡文姬歸漢。曹操將南匈奴分成五部。
4世紀初，匈奴族的五部大都督劉淵在成都王司馬穎手下為將。乘西晉八王之亂之後的混亂時期，劉淵起兵占領了北中國的大部分地區，自稱漢王，311年劉淵子劉聰攻占洛陽，316年攻占長安，滅西晉。史稱前趙或漢趙。
匈奴與鮮卑的混血後代稱為鐵弗人。鐵弗人劉勃勃被鮮卑拓跋氏擊敗後投奔羌人的後秦。後自認為是末代的匈奴王，改姓赫連，在河套地區創立夏國，史稱胡夏。425年赫連勃勃卒，子赫連昌繼位。428年北魏俘赫連昌。赫連昌弟赫連定在平涼自稱夏皇帝。431年北魏俘赫連定，夏亡。夏國的國都統萬城是作為遊牧民族的匈奴在東亞留下的唯一的遺跡。
匈奴融入靠近高麗的鮮卑的宇文氏部落，進入朝鮮半島。後來宇文氏篡西魏建立的北周政權，後被漢族外戚楊堅所篡。楊堅創立隋朝，統一中原。
以上是五胡十六國及南北朝時期，匈奴在中國曆史舞台上進行了最後一場演出。之後匈奴作為一個獨立的民族從中國曆史中消失，和其他一些民族一起融入華夏族。匈奴後裔漢化後，所改漢姓有劉、賀、叢、呼延、萬俟等，很多生活在今天的陝西、山西和山東等地。
附1：網友的質疑
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 Unfortunately, he's reading from a History books that's 20 years out of date.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 美國人類遺傳學雜誌的原文
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 "匈奴屍體DNA " ?! Disclose the source.
"DNA testing of Hun remains has NOT proven conclusive in determining the origin of the Huns"
類似的還有沙陀
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係 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具屍骨DNA最終確定古代匈奴時期的人種
[size=3]說實話，這也不是什麽新聞了，畢竟3年過去了。如此巨大的發現，消息閉塞的國內居然還沒有什麽報道和反響，殊為傳奇。
是在位於蒙古北部Egyin Gol峽穀的一處墓地發現的，是一處匈奴時代（隻是該時代的）屍骸遺址，共挖掘出屬於不同時期的90多具屍骸。
3年前，三名法國學者Christine Keyser Tracqui，Eric Crubezy和Bertrand Ludes對這些古代屍骨進行了DNA測試，測試共分Nuclear DNA細胞核DNA和MitochondrialDNA（mtDNA）線粒體DNA兩部分，最後確定了匈奴人的人種類型，他們是典型的亞洲人，和今天的蒙古、西伯利亞、中國人、朝鮮人、日本人有比較近似的人類發生學關係.而且沒有發現歐洲人血統的影響。
他們的論文發表在最權威的遺傳學學術刊物《merican Journal of Human Genetics》上（《美國人類遺傳學雜誌》），發表於2003年。
地址，位於蒙古北部Egyin Gol峽穀，在外蒙古首都烏蘭巴托北部，北緯49度27分，東經103度30分。貝加爾湖正南方。
文章先介紹了匈奴人的曆史，他們建立了曆史上第一個控製整個蒙古草原和中亞的遊牧帝國，從公元前3世紀到公元2世紀，曾經擁有長期的繁榮。
並介紹了匈奴人的結局，南方的漢帝國崛起，漢帝國在擴張中把匈奴帝國征服了，匈奴從此消失。後麵有同歐洲民族的比較，以比較後期羅馬時期的Huns和Xiongnu的關係
洞穴的方位，A、B、C、D四個室，95個屍骨的位置，他們的關係（父子、母子），F為female女性，M表示男性Male，黑色個體，為保存了毛囊、齒根等部分，得以提取有效線粒體DNA的個體。
通過mtDNA的分析，他們擁有印第安人和亞洲人具有的ACD的類型，而沒有歐洲人的H，基本確定他們是典型的亞洲起源。
而典型的歐洲mtDNA卻沒有檢測到，證明了他們的亞洲起源。
共有46個個體，有效的提取了DNA，他們的類型如下：
最後，他們分析了現代人群。
並認為，古代匈奴人中，已經開始有了能在現代突厥語民族中找到的mtDNA類型。說明，古代已經有現在突厥語民族的祖先，融合到了古代匈奴人的國家中。
附錄一：
附錄：
對亞洲、美洲、歐洲15個民族mtDNA的比較，含蒙古人、突厥語的哈薩克人、漢族人、愛斯基摩人、印第安人、俄羅斯人、匈牙利人等民族
基本可以確定，匈奴人是典型的亞洲人，而且對現代歐洲人的血統沒有影響。（匈牙利人的D是烏拉爾人的，和匈奴人不同）
2007-3-9 21:50 歐元區
歐洲的HUNS與中國的匈奴無關,更有可能是來自蒙古高原的鮮卑人!
如果HUNS是匈奴的話,在中亞待了幾百年,黃種血統絕不會那麽純!
2007-3-10 17:15 氐羌人後裔
[quote]原帖由 [i]光速[/i] 於 2007-3-9 21:24 發表
最後，對羌氐人、PPLO等人說明一下，東西是2003年的，不是新的，我事先自己聲明。
如果你以前已經看過此文，請不要再說剩飯之類的話。 [/quote]
抱歉，上次是我失言了，說話太不懂禮貌．也是由於那個論壇上經常有人發一些別人說過Ｎ次的觀點，看的有些煩了．你轉的這篇文章還是很不錯的．支持一下！
2007-3-11 09:44 謎霧
[quote]原帖由 [i]歐元區[/i] 於 2007-3-9 21:50 發表
歐洲的HUNS與中國的匈奴無關,更有可能是來自蒙古高原的鮮卑人!
如果HUNS是匈奴的話,在中亞待了幾百年,黃種血統絕不會那麽純! [/quote]
鮮卑人主要也是黃種人，五胡中隻有羯是較明確的白種人。
2007-3-11 10:32 歐元區
[quote]原帖由 [i]謎霧[/i] 於 2007-3-11 09:44 發表
鮮卑人主要也是黃種人，五胡中隻有羯是較明確的白種人。 [/quote]
我的意思是,如果入侵歐洲的HUNS在中亞待了幾百年的話,不太可能是黃種人,所以他們一定是像後來的蒙古那樣,直接來自東北亞草原~
別忘了今天的哈薩克人就是黃白混血人種,而他們的祖先突厥是黃種人!
[[i] 本帖最後由 歐元區 於 2007-3-11 10:34 編輯 [/i]]
2007-3-11 19:51 光速
[quote]原帖由 [i]氐羌人後裔[/i] 於 2007-3-10 17:15 發表
抱歉，上次是我失言了，說話太不懂禮貌．也是由於那個論壇上經常有人發一些別人說過Ｎ次的觀點，看的有些煩了．你轉的這篇文章還是很不錯的．支持一下！ [/quote]
謝謝你的肯定
2007-3-12 07:57 songkoro
文章不錯.不知道光速能提供文章地址嗎?
2007-3-12 08:24 songkoro
我轉帖到別的地方有人有少數民族的同誌有疑問不知道光速能不能解答一下:
"遺傳學上科學分析的結論我是相信的，所以沒有什麽異議。
我不明白 的是這麽一點：如何確認他們就是匈奴人的？
因為匈奴是沒有文字的.好比中國，因為沒有任何出土文字證實“夏”的存在，至今洋人都不肯承認夏的曆史存在。
那麽，沒有文字證明的遺骸，如何確認他們的匈奴人身份？請樓主再提供一些資料給我們！"
2007-3-12 13:45 光速
回樓上，是我自己說的不嚴謹
是匈奴時期，從邏輯上還不能說就是匈奴人，他最後一段也說了，這可能不是係統埋藏，而且四個洞穴的時期相差很大
但他原文裏提到這個時期的匈奴是turkomongolian tribe，並且認為這個時期的屍體應該就是匈奴的，所以他後麵提到骸骨時都說的匈奴（Xiongnu）一詞
還有個詞，不懂，Old Scythain Spirit是什麽神靈？
2007-3-12 13:46 光速
Y染色體分析，有的數據測出來
2007-3-12 13:47 光速
2007-3-12 13:51 光速
這麽帖有點亂，你用標題去google搜一下應該能找到PDF格式的原文，PDF的格式大於256k，沒法放到附件裏
2007-3-12 15:24 謎霧
其實以前的主流觀點就認為匈奴主要是黃種人夾雜一些白種人，隻是後來有些崇洋媚外的認為匈奴以白種人為主。
2007-3-20 10:31 M@r!0
17樓“還有個詞，不懂，Old Scythain Spirit是什麽神靈？”
古代斯基泰（西徐亞）人的神吧
2007-4-3 02:13 Daic
光速：我們希望向您約一篇稿子，不知意下如何，請通過email和我們聯係。好嗎？
[email]COMonCA.ed@gmail.com[/email]
謝謝！
《現代人類學通訊》
2007-4-3 12:21 muguancai
漠北高原當然是蒙古裏亞類型,漠南則一直有白種部落生息,比如月氏.
匈奴王族來自哪裏,誰能說清楚?
2007-4-3 13:38 謎霧
月氏如果真的在河西走廊生活過,應該和樓蘭人一樣,屬於原始印歐人的後代.說月氏在漠南不妥,,漠南範圍太大,河西走廊隻是其中一部份.
2007-4-3 13:53 性手槍
我記得以前看到過一篇文獻，匈奴總體的種屬當然是無法確定的了，有白種也有黃種，隨分布的地區不同而不同，不過研究者注意到一個有趣的現象，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 氐羌人後裔
[quote]原帖由 [i]謎霧[/i] 於 2007-4-3 13:38 發表
月氏如果真的在河西走廊生活過,應該和樓蘭人一樣,屬於原始印歐人的後代.說月氏在漠南不妥,,漠南範圍太大,河西走廊隻是其中一部份. [/qu
月氏不一定能到河西.按照史記的說法,月氏在敦煌、祁連間，這也是後人認為月氏在河西的主要依據。可是，漢朝時的“敦煌、祁連”就一定是現在的敦煌、祁連嗎？如果不是，月氏在河西的說法就站不住腳了。實際上，迄今為止在河西並沒有發現漢代時張騫出使西域前有高加索人活動的考古證據。北大林梅村教授提出過一種觀點認為敦煌、祁連是新疆吐火羅語詞語，敦煌、祁連最初是在新疆的。也就是說月氏當時主要活動在新疆。林梅村先生對吐火羅語有深刻研究，感覺考證的很有道理。
2007-4-28 20:42 氐羌人後裔
[quote]原帖由 [i]性手槍[/i] 於 2007-4-3 13:53 發表
我記得以前看到過一篇文獻，匈奴總體的種屬當然是無法確定的了，有白種也有黃種，隨分布的地區不同而不同，不過研究者注意到一個有趣的現象，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]
不對吧？我看到的研究結論是匈奴主體人種是蒙古人種北亞類型，尤其是高級墓葬。當然，你說的匈奴人種多樣的現象也是存在的。
2007-4-28 21:40 wolfgang
那篇文章我也看了從mtDNA的角度匈奴主體人種是蒙古人種北亞類型,我個人認為Y染色體匈奴的核心部落可能是N.
2007-4-28 22:55 氐羌人後裔
從考古學上看,匈奴的原初和核心成分和蒙古中部及東部的石板墓文化有密切關係.而從體質人類學的角度來說,實際上古代蒙古高原和西伯利亞的人雖然都屬於北亞類型,但是有可以細分為古蒙古高原類型和古西伯利亞類型,而匈奴是屬於古蒙古高原類型.古蒙古高原類型和今天的蒙古族體質特征非常相似,所以可以認為匈奴和C關係密切.至於N,我以為就是古西伯利亞類型之一種.而且從N的分布來看主要是在蒙古高原以北.當然很多專家認為匈奴語是屬於突厥語族的,這也是對你的N說有利的.再說蒙古的崛起比較晚,此前蒙古高原一直是突厥語族的人占優勢,這也是對你的N說有利的
2007-4-29 22:35 wolfgang
應該這麽說,N占優勢的地方主要在蒙古高原以北,但是N最多的人群卻在中國的漢族中,雖然占漢族的比例很小.我認為體質和mtDNA的關係更大,而不是和Y染色體.
2007-4-29 23:06 氐羌人後裔
為什麽?難道一個人得到他母親的遺傳物質比他父親的多的多?哈哈.按照您的推論,那人類豈不是最後都要變成女人?
頁: 1 [2] 3
查看完整版本: 《 The Merican Journal of Human Genetics》95具屍骨DNA最終確定古代匈奴時期的人種
2007-4-29 23:17 光速
漢族裏的N主要是N*吧，蒙古人和西伯利亞主要是N3，少數的N2，北歐的N是N2為主，少數N3
複旦數據裏漢族的10%↑的K，現在覺得主要就是N*，其次是O2*、NO、O*，基本沒有真正的K
2007-4-30 01:11 氐羌人後裔
芬蘭人就是以N3為主的,N2很少.其他北歐人群基本都是N3為主.
當然東歐也有幾個N2比例比較高的:Vepsas(17.9%),Komis(12.8%), Udmurts(28.7%), Maris (15.7%), Chuvashes(10.1%),但是他們的N2比例還是低於N3.
漢族的N確實是N*為主,這也證實了N是由東南亞或者中國南部產生並經過中國大陸向北向西遷徙的.
2007-4-30 01:24 氐羌人後裔
[quote]原帖由 [i]光速[/i] 於 2007-4-29 23:17 發表
漢族裏的N主要是N*吧，蒙古人和西伯利亞主要是N3，少數的N2，北歐的N是N2為主，少數N3
複旦數據裏漢族的10%↑的K，現在覺得主要就是N*，其次是O2*、NO、O*，基本沒有真正的K [/quote]
漢族的K*,可能確實如你所言.不過目前最大的問題還是樣本大小的問題.也就是說把K*分得很細的往往采的樣本太少.對於漢族這樣一個龐然大物來說似乎總讓人感覺充滿了太多的可能性.而複旦的樣本量大(10000個漢族),當然分得也就粗了.不過從xue(2006)來說,東亞樣本1000,漢族也不少,和漢族有關的民族都沒有發現K*.再結合Hammer的數據,似乎真正的K*確實微乎其微.
2007-4-30 08:59 謎霧
敦煌、祁連和現在的新疆本來就相連,樓蘭到現在的敦煌不是很遠,我一直懷疑後來的羯人在基因上與月氏有關.
http://www.sinodino.com/bbs/archiver/?tid-17641-page-3.html
2007-5-1 22:34 wolfgang
同意上麵的意見,中國以前的K*實際上沒有多少真正的K*,基本上是N,O2*,O*,ON*.中國的N南部以N*為主,北麵以N3和N1為主.
2007-5-1 22:41 wolfgang
對於體質問題,就一般的感覺而言,應該是父係母係各占一半.但是曆史上迅速擴散的群體往往是一個男子有若幹個女人.這樣幾代以後,母係的體質就又了明顯優勢.
