Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Genghis Khan: most prolific man in history?

By Thorgeir Blund in Science
Sun Feb 09, 2003 at 01:09:15 AM EST
Tags: Science (all tags)
Science

A recent study suggests Genghis Khan's direct patrilineal descendants today constitute ~8% of men in a large area of Asia (~0.5% of the world population).

With 16 million living men carrying his Y-chromosome, Genghis Khan had about 800,000 times the reproductive success of the average man of his age. What was his secret?


The key seems to have been Genghis Khan's unique value system:

"The greatest joy a man can know is to conquer his enemies and drive them before him. To ride their horses and take away their possessions. To see the faces of those who were dear to them bedewed with tears, and to clasp their wives and daughters in his arms"

Preferring rape and conquest to hunting and falconry, coupled with building an empire and "a social legacy that benefited his sons' sons unto the seventh generation and even beyond", meant that Genghis' progeny multiplied explosively, and his apparent Y-chromosome lineage today features prominently in the population genetics of Asia.

In "The Genetic Legacy of the Mongols" (Abstract|PDF), to be featured in the March 2003 issue of The American Journal of Human Genetics but which has already been published electronically, the authors report their discovery of the aforementioned Y-chromosome lineage, which due to it's age (~1,000 years), place of origin (Mongolia), and rapid spread, must in all probablity be associated with Genghis Khan or one of his immediate forebears.

Though absolute proof that the lineage in question is Genghis Khan's awaits the recovery of his remains and successful sequencing of his DNA, the only other possible explanation is that Genghis Khan did not spread his genes while some unknown man living in the same place and time did. This is unlikely, to say the least, since the enormous reproductive success of Genghis Khan's descendants is well attested in the historical record.

In fact, as we learn in Steve Sailer's UPI write-up of the study ("Genes of history's greatest lover found?"):

Incredibly, as late as the early 20th century, three-quarters of a millennium after Genghis Khan's birth, the aristocracy of Mongolia, which was 6 percent of the population, consisted of his patrilineal descendants.

Sailer does note that "population genetics is still a growing field", leaving open the possibility that a challenger will emerge to Genghis Khan's status as "the most successful patriarch of all time". Gregory M. Cochran, interviewed by Sailer, implies that Mohamed is among the very few historical figures who could potentially equal or exceed Genghis Khan in number of patrilineal descendants.

Another interesting aspect of the study is its apparent confirmation of the origin story of the Hazara, a tribe from Afghanistan believed to be descended from a Mongol army. While some have claimed there is insufficient evidence to support the Mongol origin of the Hazaras, the recent study all but proves the theory correct, with more than a quarter of Hazara males carrying the probable Genghis Khan Y-chromosome.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Favorite would-be world conqueror?
o Genghis Khan 25%
o Alexander the Great 56%
o Napoleon 18%

Votes: 150
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o value system
o rape
o conquest
o empire
o social legacy
o Abstract
o PDF
o The American Journal of Human Genetics
o Steve Sailer
o Genes of history's greatest lover found?
o population genetics
o Mohamed
o Hazara
o insufficie nt evidence
o Also by Thorgeir Blund


Display: Sort:
Genghis Khan: most prolific man in history? | 139 comments (136 topical, 3 editorial, 0 hidden)
Inbreeding? (1.83 / 6) (#3)
by twistedfirestarter on Sat Feb 08, 2003 at 10:43:26 PM EST

Wouldn't this be a problem?

Baldy (2.57 / 7) (#8)
by medham on Sun Feb 09, 2003 at 12:00:11 AM EST

Give up the multiple accounts. It's making us weep.

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.

rape is not success (3.55 / 9) (#10)
by turmeric on Sun Feb 09, 2003 at 12:33:52 AM EST

physical offspring? maybe. spiritually, though, most people hate him.

Unlikely to have been Ghengis personally. (4.50 / 8) (#19)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sun Feb 09, 2003 at 02:33:35 AM EST

More likely, the Y genes in question came from a recent ancestor of Khan - someone who had a few sons, who had a few sons, who became members of the Horde.

Why? Because that would mean that there would be more than just one man spreading that gene when the Horde went into conquest.


--
"Your article (and I use that term losely) is just a ad-hominem filled rant from a right-wing extremist loony." - Psycho Les


Charlemagne (4.50 / 2) (#21)
by yooden on Sun Feb 09, 2003 at 05:06:52 AM EST

I went to school with a guy whose father was town archivist. He told us one day that his father found out that they are descendants of Charlemagne, only to add that that's true for 10% of people in France and Germany.


What about... (4.00 / 2) (#30)
by pmc on Sun Feb 09, 2003 at 09:03:29 AM EST

..his father?

But seriously, this sounds ever so slightly like sensationalism. As someone else said it wasn't his Y chromosome anyway - he was just carrying it. It is highly probably that most of the original Mongal horde carried the same Y chromosome. It is a tribe after all, and a) limited gene stock to begin with and b) these things happen with small (and large, eventually) communities.

But it isn't really as interesting to say that a large chunk of the human population is descended from a goatherder from central asia about 2000 years ago, and one of his descendants happened to be Ghengis Khan. It certainly won't attract the grants.

The most interesting thing in this paper... (4.50 / 4) (#31)
by lucius on Sun Feb 09, 2003 at 09:37:37 AM EST

to me is the statement about the Hazara's ancestry. But if you read the paper it says that they used the Hazara more or less as a control to show that the common haplotype is indeed from Ghengis Khan. In other words, unless you already knew the Hazara were descended from Ghengis Khan then all this study could do is show that they (the Hazara) have a preponderance of a haplotype that is common all over the area once ruled by the Mongols.

That said, I do think that there was Mongol ancestry of some sort, and it is fairly obvious if you meet any Hazara that they look Mongolian. I just feel the need to point out that there's a little bootstrapping going on here.

Also, the fact that the Hazara speak an Indo-Iranian language (Hazaragi: see http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=HAZ since scoop keeps bitching about the link) is problematic. Why would a once proud army of Ghengis Khan switch from an Altaic to an Indo-European language for no good reason? It's not like it's a gradual dialect shift, they're completely different language families.

And if it were a result of Mongol men taking local wives it raises more questions: Were Mongol warriors, so fearsome in battle, that subservient to their wives that they learned a new language in order to talk to them?

what was his secret? (3.50 / 4) (#33)
by modmans2ndcoming on Sun Feb 09, 2003 at 09:57:00 AM EST

umm mabye being the emporer over the region including western europe, siberia, asia, arabia...you know basicly controling the entire frigen eastern world...had somehting to do with it.

His secret? (4.50 / 6) (#37)
by jabber on Sun Feb 09, 2003 at 10:30:22 AM EST

In addition to raping before burning, he didn't burn those he raped.

I am thrilled to see such a fine, singular example of politics and biological imperative. This guy got the point long before Kennedy and Clinton. Very impressive.

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"

Given *any* collection of humans... (3.50 / 2) (#41)
by the on Sun Feb 09, 2003 at 11:46:43 AM EST

...there is a unique most recent common patrilineal ancestor. That's a simple theorem.

--
The Definite Article
Don't forget Khan's direct descendant! (4.46 / 15) (#48)
by Netsnipe on Sun Feb 09, 2003 at 12:25:56 PM EST

Mr. L. Prosser was, as they say, only human. In other words he was a carbon-based life form descended from an ape. More specifically he was forty, fat and shabby and worked for the local council. Curiously enough, though he didn't know it, he was also a direct male-line descendant of Genghis Khan, though intervening generations and racial mixing had so juggled his genes that he had no discernible Mongoloid characteristics, and the only vestiges left in Mr. L. Prosser of his mighty ancestry were a pronounced stoutness about the tum and a predilection for little fur hats.

He was by no means a great warrior: in fact he was a nervous worried man. Today he was particularly nervous and worried because something had gone seriously wrong with his job which was to see that Arthur Dent's house got cleared out of the way before the day was out.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Douglas Adams

--
Andrew 'Netsnipe' Lau
Debian GNU/Linux Maintainer & Computer Science, UNSW
Kewl. (3.60 / 5) (#54)
by Icehouseman on Sun Feb 09, 2003 at 01:29:19 PM EST

I wish I was more like him. He got things done.
----------------
Bush's $3 trillion state is allegedly a mark of "anti-government bias" on the right. -- Anthony Gregory
Other interesting facts about Genghis Khan (2.80 / 10) (#65)
by untrusteduser on Sun Feb 09, 2003 at 04:02:04 PM EST

From what I've read about him, he was apparently about 5'6, had a small penis, and was good at math.

wrong (3.50 / 2) (#72)
by xah on Sun Feb 09, 2003 at 07:05:16 PM EST

Gregory M. Cochran, interviewed by Sailer, implies that Mohamed is among the very few historical figures who could potentially equal or exceed Genghis Khan in number of patrilineal descendants.

This is plain wrong. Let's assume Genghis Khan's father had more than one son, and that at least one other of his sons also has living patrilineal descendants. Thus, Genghis Khan's father would be the "most prolific man in history." The same would hold true up the line of ancestors. If his father isn't, than his grandfather, or great-grandfather, or earlier ancestor.

Who is really the most prolific man in history? We're not sure who it is, except some people strongly believe in this guy called Adam. For the rest of us, this "most prolific" fellow would have lived thousands of years ago. That's about all we know.

Hang on here (3.50 / 2) (#82)
by wji on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 01:19:08 AM EST

If Khan has 16 million "direct patrilineal descendants", what does that mean about the number of people who have inherited ANY genetic material from him?

It's been a while since I've done math. Bear with me. Rough estimates only here. 1,000 years sounds like about forty generations

First question: on average, how many male children of a patrilineal descendant of Khan survive to have children?

Answer: Whatever works out to 16 million in forty generations. So x ^ 40 = 16 million. This is about 1.5, which sounds eminently reasonable. (By the way, assuming it's 35 or 45 generations doesn't change that figure wildly.

I think multiplying that figure by two to get 'total children who make babies' might be rash. After all, in these societies, women are viewed as maybe a step above cattle. Plus they may not survive childbirth. But out of interest, if you assume two children per generation, you get a bit over one trillion Khan descendants. Which seems wrong for some reason, I dunno.

So, either my model is severely flawed, or these scientists are on crack. I suspect the first.

In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.

Bullshit (none / 0) (#84)
by mlapanadras on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 04:50:08 AM EST

There is no such thing as "enormous reproductive success" for one simple reason - STD.

Try Genghis Khan's value system and next week you will get gonorrhea, couple of weeks you will suffer its consequences (antibiotics weren't a part of Khan's lifestyle) and - voila! - you will be perfectly sterile.

Been done before (4.12 / 8) (#92)
by sjbrown on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 01:25:57 PM EST

> Though absolute proof that the lineage in
> question is Genghis Khan's awaits the recovery of
> his remains and successful sequencing of his DNA,

I would caution against this.  Cobra commander tried the same thing, with disastrous results.

Additional coverage (4.33 / 3) (#102)
by Thorgeir Blund on Mon Feb 10, 2003 at 08:33:37 PM EST

An article by Nicholas Wade on this study is now available at the New York Times website: A Prolific Genghis Khan, it Seems, Helped People the World

Steve Sailer has another article on the subject up, at VDARE.

Interesting. (4.00 / 1) (#108)
by /dev/trash on Tue Feb 11, 2003 at 01:02:37 AM EST

I like this book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail-/0393020185/qid=1044943089/sr=1-1/r ef=sr_1_1/002-2492265-1564011?v=glance&s=books
(The Seven Daughters of Eve)
Basically it describes how mitorcondrial DNA thru the female can link us to our ancestors and to one of 7 women.

---
Updated 02/20/2004
New Site
let's clone genghis khan! (4.33 / 3) (#112)
by ibbie on Tue Feb 11, 2003 at 09:03:40 AM EST

> Though absolute proof that the lineage in
> question is Genghis Khan's awaits the recovery of
> his remains and successful sequencing of his DNA,

it's not like we don't need another bloodthirsty, global dictator around. and frankly, i think that George W. Bush needs the competition.

--
george washington not only chopped down his father's cherry tree, but he also admitted doing it. now, do you know why his father didn't punish him? because george still had the axe in his hand.
Not direct descendants! (4.33 / 3) (#117)
by IPFreely on Tue Feb 11, 2003 at 02:14:04 PM EST


(From the Scientific Weekly article)

First, the referenced Y chromosome was more common to the people in Mongolia than other regions.
Also, That chromosome has been spread across parts of Asia and Europe to a wider degree than would be expected through natural drift, and directly in the regions conquered by Khan. (hence, related to conquest of region by the honerable Khan).

But the problem is that noone actually has Khans DNA. Any claim that this is his and strictly his is just ridiculous. Many people in that region could have had that chromosome, including many of his soldiers. Khan might have had it too. We can't tell without a sample, can we.

The whole issue is primarily about how DNA distribution is affected by movement, conquest, and extermination of various groups of people. It just sounds a lot more interesting when they throw in words like "Khan's decendants".

direct patrilineal descent (4.00 / 2) (#120)
by ethereal on Tue Feb 11, 2003 at 04:23:16 PM EST

Couldn't it be possible that this particular genetic match just makes you more likely to have sons rather than daughters? Thus you end up with more direct patrilineal descendants, whether you're a Mongol lord or a tailor from Budapest. They should look at population statistics for the current group of people who share this marker.

--

Stand up for your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and State

"What was his secret:?" (none / 0) (#122)
by dh003i on Tue Feb 11, 2003 at 07:08:17 PM EST

I don't know, raping thousands of women kind of makes you a little bit more reproductively successful than the next guy, don't ya think?  Also, he probably had hundreds of wives, who had sons that also probably had hundreds of wives, and so on and so forth.

Social Security is a pyramid scam.

Mohammed? (none / 0) (#138)
by elzubeir on Mon Mar 17, 2003 at 01:41:41 AM EST

Mohammed had no sons (or ones who lived long enough anyway). You can bet 98% of those who claim to be part of his family tree are lying. Especially leaders, mind you. Every one of them has some 'scientist' or 'expert' drawing the tree lining them up right there. So.. please.. there is no comparison. Mohammed had a bunch of daughters and that's it.

Genghis Khan: most prolific man in history? | 139 comments (136 topical, 3 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!