Since 2018, ancient DNA from graves in Mongolia has been published for the Xiongnu period, the Göktürk period and the Uyghur period.[1] The studies describe the descent of the dead. They do not record the language the dead spoke, the names they bore or the rulers they served.

The studies

A study of 2018 sequenced 137 ancient genomes from across the Eurasian steppes.[2] Its summary says that Scythian groups later mixed with the eastern nomads who formed the Xiongnu confederations, and moved west in about the second or third century BCE. They formed the Hun traditions of the fourth and fifth centuries CE. These nomads then mixed further with East Asian groups in the short-lived khanates of the Middle Ages.[2] The three Xiongnu genomes of Mongolia that were published by 2020 came from the 2018 study.[3]

A study published in Cell in 2020 analysed new genome-wide data from 214 individuals of Mongolia and the Baikal region, over 6,000 years.[4] A study of 2020 in Evolutionary Human Sciences set the available genetic and linguistic data side by side for the Xiongnu, the Rouran, the Huns and the Avars.[5] A study published in Science Advances in 2023 analysed 18 individuals from two cemeteries on the western edge of the Xiongnu empire.[6] Another study of 2023 sequenced the genome of an Ashina woman, Empress Ashina, from the Xiaoling mausoleum.[7] A study of 2022 analysed the elites of the Avars in the Carpathian basin.[8]

The Xiongnu

The 2020 study includes 60 individuals of the Xiongnu period from across Mongolia, dated from about 200 BCE to 100 CE.[9] Thirteen of them are older than 100 BCE.[9] The authors find that the Xiongnu emerged from the mixing of populations from Mongolia and from surrounding regions.[4]

Among the early Xiongnu, six individuals resemble the Early Iron Age population of the Altai and Sayan region, with some Iranian-related ancestry. Six more fall between this group and the Slab Grave population of eastern Mongolia, and two of them match that population.[9] The authors read this as the union of two deeply diverged lineages of the Eastern Steppe, one from the west and one from the east.[9]

Among the 47 late Xiongnu, heterogeneity is higher. Eleven individuals have the highest western affinity and fall on a cluster of ancient Sarmatians. Eight individuals have the highest eastern affinity and lean toward China further south. Six of them are modelled as a mixture of the Slab Grave population and a Han source.[9] The late Xiongnu thus show two further processes: gene flow from a Sarmatian-related western source, and growing mixture with people of the Han empire.[9]

The study of 2023 finds that the diversity inside two Xiongnu communities on the western frontier equals that of the empire as a whole, and that it appears even within extended families.[6] Diversity is greatest among the individuals of the lowest status. The individuals of the highest status carry less diversity and more eastern Eurasian ancestry, and the highest-status graves at both cemeteries held women.[10] The authors read this as a sign that power was concentrated in specific parts of the Xiongnu population.[6] A single man from the great Tomb 1 of Gol Mod had been analysed before; he too has high eastern Eurasian ancestry.[10]

The Göktürk period

The 2020 study contains eight individuals from Göktürk-period contexts at five sites, among them Shoroon Bumbagar and Zaan-Khoshuu.[11] They differ from the individuals of the Xiongnu period, and the authors infer new gene flow into Mongolia in this time.[12] Two of the eight are indistinguishable from the Slab Grave population, one is mostly Han-related, and the rest show intermediate profiles.[12] The study dates the admixture behind the Göktürk-period individuals to about 500 CE.[12]

One of the eight, found in the ramp of the mausoleum of an emissary of the Bugu who served the Tang, has 78 per cent Han-related ancestry. The authors take him for a Chinese attendant sacrificed to guard the entrance.[12] The sample counts for the period because of its grave, not because of its descent.

A genome of a member of the Ashina has been published: that of Empress Ashina. The supplementary figures of the 2023 study describe her as falling among eastern Eurasians, with modern Tungusic and Mongolic speakers and with ancient northeast Asian populations, among them the Xianbei, the Rouran and the Khitan.[13] They report that she shared more with eastern Eurasians than the early Xiongnu did.[14]

The Uyghur period

The 2020 study includes 13 individuals from Uyghur cemeteries. Twelve come from Olon Dov near the Uyghur capital Ordu Baliq, and one from Zaan-Khoshuu.[12] Most show a high but variable western Eurasian ancestry. The authors model it as a mixture of an Alan source and an Iranian-related source, together with the Slab Grave ancestry.[12] They date the admixture to about 500 CE as well.[12]

Six individuals lay in one tomb at Olon Dov, grave 19. Only two of them are related, in the second degree. The authors conclude that such collective tombs raise questions about their function and about the relations of those buried in them.[12] The article on the Uyghur Khaganate treats the state.

The Rouran and the Avars

A single Rouran-period genome had been published by 2020. It falls between present-day Mongolic-speaking populations from Mongolia and Tungusic-speaking populations from the lower Amur basin.[15] A study of 2022 reports a striking genetic likeness between early Avar elites and the Rouran of Mongolia.[8] A review of 2020 finds the data neutral on a continuity between Rouran and Avars. It holds only that some European Avars had eastern Asian ancestry.[16] The articles on the Rouran and on the origin of the Avars treat the question.

Limits of the data

The samples are small. The 2018 study had three Xiongnu genomes, the 2020 study 60, the Göktürk period has eight individuals and the Uyghur period thirteen, and the genome of the empress stands beside them.[17] The authors call the data for the early Middle Ages sparse and uneven. Few sites of the Xianbei or the Rouran are known for the 400 years between the Xiongnu and the Göktürks.[18] One site of the late Xiongnu with only eight individuals out of 300 burials shows low diversity.[19] The authors suspect that the sampling is biased.[19]

The labels come from the grave and not from the genome. The 2020 study speaks of individuals from Göktürk contexts and from Uyghur cemeteries.[12] The 2020 study calls the Slab Grave population, the Han and the Alans “ancestry proxies” of its model.[20] Such a proxy is a sampled group that fits the model. It does not show that a person came from that people. For the Xiongnu, the authors of the 2023 study say that the diversity prevents any meaningful attempt to define a representative Xiongnu genetic profile.[19]

Ancestry is not language. The summary of the 2018 study links a change in ancestry on the steppe with a change in language, from Indo-European speakers of largely western Eurasian ancestry to mostly Turkic-speaking groups of today with mainly East Asian ancestry.[2] That link is the authors’ interpretation. The genomes contain no language. A review of the Rouran and the Avars shows how the two can part. It names the possibility of a continuity of culture and history without continuity of language, which would imply a language shift.[16] The supplement of the 2023 study on Empress Ashina reports that the ancient groups, Ashina, early-medieval Göktürk-period individuals, Xiongnu and Uyghur-period individuals, differ significantly from present-day Turkic-speaking populations, with a few pairings excepted.[21]

The genetic evidence in the debates

The genetic evidence enters three debates. The first concerns the language of the Xiongnu. The authors of the 2020 review conclude that the predominant part of the Xiongnu population probably spoke Turkic. They see the genetic mixture of western and eastern ancestry as mirroring a linguistic picture with an Iranian component and a Turkic one. They find the Yeniseian hypothesis unsupported by genetics.[15] The Ket of today lack the Iranian-related ancestry of the Xiongnu and are close to their Samoyedic-speaking neighbours.[22] By contrast, one recent linguistic study says that its identification of the Xiongnu and Hunnic language as an early Yeniseian form augments and confirms genetic and archaeological studies.[23] The article on the language of the Xiongnu sets the positions side by side.

The second debate concerns the Huns. The 2018 summary has the mixed Scythian and Xiongnu groups, moving west, form the Hun traditions of the fourth and fifth centuries.[2] The review of 2020 finds the evidence for continuity between the Xiongnu and the Huns of Europe very weak. It notes that no genome of the Hunnic period in the Carpathian basin had been reported.[15] The article on the debate on the Huns and the Xiongnu treats it.

The third debate concerns the claim that the Ashina descended from the Xiongnu, which the Zhou Shu makes.[24] The Göktürk-period individuals differ from the Xiongnu individuals as a group.[12] They are eight individuals, however, and the Ashina genome is that of one woman. The genomes at hand therefore cannot test the claim. The article on the Göktürks and the Xiongnu treats the claim.

References

  1. ^ al. 2018, p. 369; Summary; 1; al. 2020, p. 369; Summary; 1; al. 2023, p. 369; Summary; 1
  2. ^ a b c d al. 2018, p. 369
  3. ^ Savelyev 2020, p. 6–7
  4. ^ a b al. 2020, summary
  5. ^ Savelyev 2020, p. 1
  6. ^ a b c al. 2023, p. 1
  7. ^ al. 2023, supplementary document, section 1
  8. ^ a b al. 2022, p. 1
  9. ^ a b c d e f al. 2020, results, xiongnu empire
  10. ^ a b al. 2023, p. 8
  11. ^ al. 2020, star methods, early medieval
  12. ^ a b c d e f g h i j al. 2020, results, fluctuating genetic heterogeneity
  13. ^ al. 2023, fig. s3
  14. ^ al. 2023, fig. s10
  15. ^ a b c Savelyev 2020, p. 12
  16. ^ a b Savelyev 2020, p. 14
  17. ^ Savelyev 2020, p. 6–7; Results, Fluctuating Genetic Heterogeneity; Supplementary Document, Section 1; al. 2020, p. 6–7; Results, Fluctuating Genetic Heterogeneity; Supplementary Document, Section 1; al. 2023, p. 6–7; Results, Fluctuating Genetic Heterogeneity; Supplementary Document, Section 1
  18. ^ al. 2020, discussion
  19. ^ a b c al. 2023, p. 6
  20. ^ al. 2020, results, rise of the mongol empire
  21. ^ al. 2023, fig. s17
  22. ^ Savelyev 2020, p. 7
  23. ^ Bonmann 2025, p. 29
  24. ^ Zhou Shu (Book of Zhou), juan 50

Sources

Literature

  • Peter de Barros Damgaard et al., 137 Ancient Human Genomes from across the Eurasian Steppes (2018)
  • Choongwon Jeong et al., A Dynamic 6,000-Year Genetic History of Eurasia’s Eastern Steppe (2020)
  • Alexander Savelyev; Choongwon Jeong, Early Nomads of the Eastern Steppe and Their Tentative Connections in the West (2020)
  • Juhyeon Lee et al., Genetic Population Structure of the Xiongnu Empire at Imperial and Local Scales (2023)
  • Yang et al., Ancient genome of Empress Ashina (2023)
  • Guido Alberto Gnecchi-Ruscone et al., Ancient Genomes Reveal Origin and Rapid Trans-Eurasian Migration of 7th Century Avar Elites (2022)
  • Svenja Bonmann; Simon Fries, Linguistic Evidence Suggests that Xiong-nu and Huns Spoke the Same Paleo-Siberian Language (2025)

Related

What links here1

Places
Gol Mod

Cite this article

Yavuz, Emre-E. “Archaeogenetics of the Steppe Empires.” Turkic Atlas, revised 8 November 2026. https://turkicatlas.org/historiography/archaeogenetics-of-the-steppe-empires/

Last revised: 8 November 2026