On the Issue of Genetic Genealogy of the Kazakh Clan Zhagalbayly

Rakhimov Adil ORCID: 0000-0001-7432-7143 "Analytical Center of Economic Policy in the Agricultural Sector" Limited Liability Partnership 010000, Kazakhstan, Nur-Sultan, Kabanbai Batyr str., 19, block B, office 1010 adil.rakhim@gmail.com

MRNTI 03.20.00

*The study was carried out within the framework of the grant of the Science Committee of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan (IRN AP13068670) Within the framework of the grant implementation of the Science Committee of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan (IRN AR13068670)

Introduction.

The purpose of this research work was to consider the main versions of the origin of zhagalbayla, to conduct their comparative analysis and summarize the results highlighting the results of genetic studies completed as of 2022 concerning the issue under study. The Kazakh genus zhagalbayly (jagalbayly) refers to the Younger zhuz (Small Horde). Mentions of zhagalbayly are found in quite a large number of historical sources ^{[1, p. 34; 2, p. 25; 3, p. 86; 4, p. 45]}, which, in our opinion, are currently insufficiently consolidated. This also applies to other Kazakh clans, which, along with zhagalbayly, are part of the Zhetiru tribal formation (Jetyru, Semireds). Compared with other ethno-social formations of the Kazakhs, Zhetiru has been little studied from the point of view of genetic genealogy due to the low degree of involvement of their representatives in the research conducted so far.

Materials and methods of research. The research was conducted by studying and analyzing scientific literature and thematic historical sources. Expert opinions of domestic and foreign scientists were taken into account. 

To conduct historical comparisons of the plots of various versions of the epic of the same name of various peoples, the principles of the comparative historical method are used. In order to study their individuality, relative to the overall holistic basis, the approaches of the idiographic method are applied. When comparing the data of the epic and shezhire, for their historical synthesis, the provisions of the method of logical analysis are involved. The historical-genetic method was used in the analysis of shezhire as the source of the phenomenon under study. A distinctive advantage of the Kazakh heroic epic is the presence in it of a large number of auto-ethnonyms, alloethnonyms, eponyms and ethnotoponyms. In connection with the onomastic nomenclature, they allow us to detect threads of historical and ethnic processes indirectly linking the present and the past of the Kazakh people. Some processes of historical study of the epic remain insufficiently open by academic historical science ^{[5, pp. 5-22]}. The use of the heroic epic as a historical source, which has real historical events in its basis, is reasoned ^{[6, p. 6]}. At the same time, the events described in it should not be idealized. The heroic epic of the Turkic-Mongolian peoples is considered as a national form of describing various historical periods and personalities ^{[7, p. 329]}.

Shezhire is a special kind of folklore historiographical tradition of the Kazakhs ^{[8, p. 374]}. It should be emphasized that when conducting research, the use of Kazakh shezhire as a literary source was based on its categorization as historical and genealogical knowledge by researchers of the mid-XIX century ^{[9, pp. 15-16]}.          

Discussion and results. The junior zhuz, as one of the main structural divisions of the Kazakh ethnos, in turn consists of three tribal associations – Alimuly, Bayuly and Zhetiru ^{[10, p. 24]}.

The Zhetiru tribal group includes seven genera (tabyn, Tama, kerderi, kereit, zhagalbayly, teleu, Ramadan). Alimuly and Bayuly are represented on the genealogical tree as two branches of the Alshyn family and in the direct male line they go back to one common ancestor, which is Batyr Alau, known as one of the emirs of the Golden Horde in the middle of the XIV century ^{[1, p. 31]}. Zhetiru, on the contrary, have different origins from each other along direct paternal lines. This is confirmed both by the data of a number of legends and shezhire ^{[11, p. 371]}, and by the results of population-genetic studies ^{[1, p. 39]}. It should be emphasized that according to the results of recent works, facts have also been established that certify the different origin of some intra-tribal divisions that make up the Zhetira, for example tabyn ^{[12, p. 15]}. We do not exclude that as a result of further research, there may be more such information.

It should be added that along with information about the heterogeneity of the genesis of Zhetiru, there is also a group of sources – mainly various variations of shezhire – indicating the origin of the Zhetiru genera from Alshyn ^{[13, pp. 301-303]}. As a result, the name Alshyn has spread to all the genera included in the Junior Zhuz and in fact to this day is synonymous with its name ^{[14, p. 404]}. We believe that the genealogical elevation of Zhetiru to Alshyn was justified by the need to consolidate society and consolidate in the national consciousness the idea of the unity of the origin of the Kazakh tribes.

Pedigree is a unifying factor and acts as a system-forming principle. Further, there is a need to confirm the origin and the existing social order by appealing to the ideal past ^{[7, pp. 373-386]}. We believe that such an attitude at the legendary level could deduce the origin of Zhetiru from the Alshyn clan for the ideological justification of the new social order in the Kazakh Khanate, approved by Tauke Khan during his reign (1680-1715).

In the genealogical construction of Zhetiru to Alshyn, there is a parallel with the attribution of the mythological ancestors of the Kazakhs Akarys, Zhanarys and Bekarys to the legendary ancestor of the Kazakh people, the Cossack (Alash). According to shezhira, they are indicated as the ancestors of the tribes of the Elder (Big Horde), Middle (Middle Horde) and Younger Zhuzes ^{[11, p. 15]}.In our opinion, it should be emphasized that during the reign of Tauke Khan, the Zhetiru clan became part of the Younger Zhuz, but not of the Alshyn proper.

Thus, it can be argued that at a certain stage of the formation of the Junior Zhuz, Zhetiru, along with Alshyn, formed an important part of it. This opinion is confirmed by the fact that before Ayteke bi, the supreme bey of the Younger zhuz was Shegen bi (Chegen-biy) from the zhagalbayly clan ^{[2, p. 58]}. According to shezhire, the real name is Shegen biya Sherbuga, in the pedigree he is listed as the son of Zhagalbayly and the original two branches of the Kazakh Zhagalbayly, namely Myrza and Lez (Iles), are his descendants in the seventh generation ^{[15, p. 701]}.

Sources also indicate that, unlike Alimuly and Bayuly, in the old days, Zhetiru were mainly engaged in military affairs in order to protect the interests and territory of both the Younger Zhuz and the Kazakh Khanate as a whole. Later, representatives of some Zhetiru clans carried out the forwarding of trade caravans to the Central Asian khanates ^{[3, p. 86]}.

Probably, according to the military Kazakh tradition, the Zhetiru settled on the outskirts of the state, in order to defend its borders or consolidate in the newly occupied territories. This fact may explain the second name of the association of seven tribes, which sounds like "Kartkazak", and is interpreted as ancient, old or the first Kazakhs.

The name "Kartkazak" applied to Zhetir is periodically mentioned in shezhir and historical sources. For example, information is provided with reference to the materials of the XVIII century, according to which Alshyn had three sons: Alim, Kadyrkozha and Kartkazak. From the first two came Alimuli and Bayuli, from the last – Zhetiru. At the same time, it is clarified that the genera consolidated in Zhetiru are known in Kazakh history from an earlier time. Therefore, the introduction of the term Kartkazak in relation to them could be used to emphasize their historical significance ^{[16, p. 75]}.

It is worth noting the presence of the epic Kartkozhak (Kartkozhak) from the cycle "Forty Crimean (Nogai) heroes". The eponymous character is also found in the epic "Er-Targyn". In our opinion, there is no apparent relationship between the proper name of the batyr Kartkozhak and the term Kartkazak. At the same time, there may be a connection with the toponyms Kartkazak found in the Crimea region. This statement requires further investigation.

In addition, the genus Cossack is listed in the list of Nogai genera along with Naiman, Argyn, kypshak, tama, kereyit, etc. ^{[17, p. 177]}.

An interesting analogy, in our opinion, could be drawn here with the Mongolian associations called "tama". These formations were recruited from the ulus troops and sent together with their families and property for deployment on the borders or in the newly conquered territories ^{[18, pp. 42-96]}. It is noteworthy that the Kazakh clan Tama is currently part of the Zhetiru.

Here you can also compare with the events that occurred after the migration of part of the population of the state of Abulkhair to the territory of Mogolistan under the leadership of sultans Zhanybek and Kerey. As a result, the displaced persons were placed by Yesen-Bug on the western outskirts of the state for the purpose of their further use as a border service. As a result of the implementation of which, as well as as a result of the military actions carried out by them, in a few years the Dzungarian and Kyrgyz tribes who claimed the lands of Mogolistan were ousted from this region. Thus, the opinion is once again confirmed that for some time the term "Cossack" has become more characteristic of the social status of people who were in paramilitary border units or on permanent military service ^{[19, p. 7]}, and does not mean "robber/wanderer".

The pejorative nickname "jete" (robber /robber), which was traditionally used by the Timurids in relation to the inhabitants of Mogulistan ^{[20, p. 17]}, in our opinion cannot be fully identified with the term zhetiru.

Thus, according to the opinion established today in Kazakh historical science, the clans included in the Zhetira have different origins from each other and were united by the Tauke Khan in order to resist oppression by the Alshyn ^{[21, p. 428]}. In the union of the seven clans into a tribal union, the union is not seen through consanguineous ties, but for political and economic reasons. There are examples of the mismatch of generic consanguineous and administrative associations in the XVIII century. ^{[21, pp. 236-237]}. In the future, a territorial connection was established between the Zhetiru clans.

Associations formed by seven tribes, or clans consisting of seven divisions, are also found among other Turkic peoples. For example, Bashkir ye-yryu (jet uru), Nogai ethisan (edisan), Kyrgyz jeti uru (chett uru), Khakass chiti puur. Their generic composition differs from Zhetiru.

It was noted that Bashkir Jete Uru are of Kazakh origin and were included in the Bashkir Kipchaks ^{[22, p. 114]}. We believe that in order to establish their relationship, it is necessary to conduct appropriate DNA studies.

There are many questions regarding the origin of each individual genus consisting of Zhetiru and their places of residence, before and after the union, there are many questions. There is a widespread point of view about the transfer of seven weak genera of the Middle Zhuz to the Younger One. At the same time, information from the same source is not always taken into account, indicating that it contradicts the data of the origin of these genera ^{[2, p. 25]}.

Another version of the origin of the Zhetiru clans is based on their transition from the Big, Altyul and Small Nogai Hordes to the Kazakh Khanate in the first third of the XVII century. Perhaps some clans were in the Kazakh state at that time, but they were not large enough to be mentioned in the list of tribes ^{[4, p. 584]}. It is also likely that the late Nogai groups (Nogai, Nogaili) will be included in the genera Teleu and Zhagalbaili ^{[17, p. 45]}. There is evidence that Nogai and Nogail are descendants of Nogai Mamai–gerliks ^{[13, p. 322]}. We believe that there has been a finding of the same genera or their subdivisions in various state entities. For example, the transition to Kazakh relatives in 1748 of Karakalpak Zhalairs in the number of 1500 families ^{[23, p. 84]}.

The Kyrgyz association "Zhagalmai Tamga" is part of the Munguush tribe ^{[22, p. 138]}. The origin of the Kyrgyz Zhagalbais is associated with the territory of Western Mongolia ^{[24, p. 167]}. The Mongols have generic divisions zagal (in the southern dialect – "zhagal"), zegel and zagalmai. This information requires scientific confirmation.

Ethnonyms consonant with zhagalbayly are found in the composition of Nogais, Bashkirs, Uzbeks, Karakalpaks, Crimean Tatars.

The Nogais had the genera yagylbayly-kypshak ^{[25, p. 32]}, Yangy-bayly ^{[25, p. 97]} and jagalbayly ^{[26, p. 81]}. Tamga yagylbayly-kypshak looks like a slash "I", yangy-bayly – "T", jagalbayly is also "T". In this case, we assume the identity of Nogai yangy-bayly and jagalbayly.  The Nogai tamga "T" means "hammer" and completely coincides with the spelling and meaning of the tamga of the Kazakh zhagalbayly.

Nogai jagalbayly along with baganaly (baganaile) and shobalashy (shobalachi) are part of the Kundra (Karagash) naimans. Their origin is traced back to Kasbolat, the son of Ediga, the son of Ismail – murza of the Little Nogai Horde ^{[26, p. 81]}.

The Bashkir genus Yagalbai is part of the Burzyan, the tamga of one of the divisions of which, namely the genus Munash, coincides with the tamga of the Kazakh zhagalbayly ^{[22, p. 138]}. It is interesting to see the entry of Kyrgyz Zhagalmai into Munguush and Bashkir Yagalbaev into munash, i.e. there is a striking consonance of the names of the two tribes and their two divisions.

The ethnonyms Mongush, Mongash and Mungush are also noted among Tuvans ^{[27, p. 119]}.

Among the Uzbeks, the Jagalbayli clan is recorded as part of the Sary-Kipchaks, Tokuzuruv Kipchaks, Zarafshan Naimans and Tashkent Kurams ^{[28, p. 134]}. In the Middle Ages, the Jagalbayli were a separate tribe, but in view of internecine strife, they were divided into small clans and became part of other tribes, while retaining their self-designation.  During the Timurid Empire, in the XIV-XV centuries, the Jagalbayli as part of the Kipchaks migrated from Desht-i-Kipchak to the territory of Maveranahr (Transoxiana) and northern Afghanistan and lived in the Balkh region. In the 70s of the XIX century, a large group of zhagalbayly returned and settled on the territory of the modern Pastdargom district of the Samarkand region. The bulk of the Uzbek Jagalbayli in the late XIX – early XX centuries were part of the Zarafshan Kipchaks ^{[29, pp. 132-133]}. Jagalbayly as part of the kuram of Buka district had divisions of daberdi, Khoja, chigatai and ushtamgaly ^{[30, p. 46]}. In our opinion, daberdi and khoja correspond to the subgenus of Kozhamberli of the department of Zhagalbayly-Malatau. Chigatai and ushtamgaly are not recorded as part of the Kazakh zhagalbayly.

The Karakalpak Kipchaks have the genus Zhagaltai, which is part of the Jeti-koshe subdivision ^{[31, p. 125]}. The Romanian Nogais had a consonant tamga Jagyltai ^{[35, p. 128]}.

Yalyboylu is one of the constituent subethnic groups of the Crimean Tatars, along with the Nogai and tatami ^{[32, p. 329]} and means "south-coast", or "coastal inhabitants".

The wide distribution of the names of genera consonant with zhagalbayly can be explained by the presence among the Turkic peoples of the tamga "zhagalbay" ^{[22, p. 138]}, depicting a flying turd or cheglok and presented in the form of a cross. The etymology of the name "cheglok" is not fully elucidated, it is associated with the Old Russian "chegl" (authentic, primordial) and semantically related "chelig" ^{[33, p. 95]}. Here we see the consonance between zhagal / chagal and cheglok / chegl – probably it is deducible to the name of the Chigil tribe. There are known works on the relationship of zhagalbayly with chigil and yagma ^{[24, p. 89]}.

A popular explanation of the origin of the ethnonym zhagalbayly is the various phonetic variations of the word "zhagal" in the Turkic, Mongolian and Tungusic-Manchu languages. Basically, they mean "mottled, spotted", "having scorch marks" and are used to describe the color of animals with spots in the neck, shoulders and shoulder blades ^{[34, p. 389]}. Signs of the plumage of the cheglok also fall under this description. In the Yakut language, the name of the white–shouldered eagle sounds like "dyail toyon" - "an eagle with spots on its shoulders" ^{[35, p. 205]}.

The term "zagal" in the mythology of the Mongolian peoples belongs to the category of white shamanism ^{[36, p. 66]}. Among the Sayano-Altai Turks, the word "zagal" meant "shamanic tambourine" ^{[37, p. 69]}. The use of fortune-telling bones "jiagu" (ji?g?) is also inherent in Chinese culture ^{[38, p. 99]}. In our opinion, here it is possible to make a connection with the fortune-teller on the shoulder of mutton Kara Bukan, whose words in the epic "Er Sayyn" are not in doubt in view of his origin from the genus zhagalbayly. In shezhir Alshyn, it is said about the adopted son of Alau batyr named Sadu (Sabdan), who comes from a family (country) Time. Upon reaching adulthood, Sadu proved himself in the shamanic field, discovering the abilities of a healer and a soothsayer in divination on the shoulder of mutton. Later, the nickname Zhagaly bai was fixed for him, his offspring became known as zhagalbayly ^{[39, p. 26]}. Apparently , therefore , the descendant of Zhagalbaila in the fourth generation of the Karakatys/The cuttlefish is sometimes depicted as a predictor and associate of Alau batyr.

We have not found any additional information about the origin of zhagalbayla from Time. Perhaps this is an attempt to ascribe the origin to the appropriate Arab tribe, which took place earlier in Kazakh society ^{[14, p. 201]}.

In historical literature, the time of zhagalbayly's entry into the Kazakh Khanate is associated with the departure of the Naimans from Khorezm after their pogrom in Khiva in 1625 and the transition to the Kazakhs [2 p. 25]. It does not indicate the direct relationship of zhagalbayla to naimans, but the default conclusion about this can be made. Thus, once again there is a connection with the Naimans. We do not exclude that we may be talking about a part of the genera zhagalbayly and Naiman.

The widespread opinion about the origin of zhagalbayla from Bashkirs was promoted by the discrepancy between the texts of the work of I.Esenberlin "Nomads" in Kazakh and Russian. In the story describing the entry of the Nogailin people into the Kazakh Khanate, it is said that they gave a girl from the Zhagalbayly clan to the Kazakh khan Khaknazar (reign 1538-1580) as a wife. The text in Russian states that the zhagalbayly come from noble Bashkir families ^{[40, p. 21]}. In the original text of the work in Kazakh, the Zhagalbayly are indicated as representatives of the Nogaily country, but not as natives of the Bashkir environment ^{[41, p. 16]}. We believe it is advisable to clarify the availability of information on the extradition of a girl from the Bashkir family of Yagalbai to marry Khaknazar.

An important fact is the absence of zhagalbaila in the list of 92 Golden Horde genera ^{[42, p. 279]}. At the same time, the genus Keleshi (Kelechi) is present in it, which is part of the Bozbet division of the genus zhagalbayly ^{[15, p. 719]}. It is noted that the Kelechi tribe lived between the Dnieper and the Don during Amir Timur's campaign against the Golden Horde ^{[43, p. 119]}. In addition, there is information about a number of toponyms of Kelechi and the presence of a genus of the same name in the Nogai hordes ^{[44, p. 122]}.

If we proceed from the relationship of the zhagalbayly, existing among the Turkic peoples, then it should be noted a fairly large spread of this tribe. Currently, representatives of Zhetiru even on the territory of Kazakhstan live in different regions. For example, compact groups of zhagalbayly are available in the western (West Kazakhstan, Aktobe regions), northern (Kostanay region), Central (Ulytau region), southern (Zhambyl, Turkestan regions) regions. In addition, separate groups of zhagalbayly are found in the Abai, Karaganda, Pavlodar, North Kazakhstan, Zhetysu and Kyzylorda regions. On the territory of the Russian Federation, the ancestral lands of Zhagalbayly are located in the Orenburg and Chelyabinsk regions. The residential areas of zhagalbayly in the listed northern and western regions of Kazakhstan, as well as in the named regions of Russia, are adjacent. Practically in all these districts there are representatives of all generic divisions of zhagalbayly. Currently, zhagalbayly includes 12 main tribes. The Myrza branch consists of seven divisions: Bilis, Malatau, Sirakty, Balkozha, Ormantai, Kutpanai, Ydyris (Bozbet). The Lez branch is divided into five divisions: Buldi, Akkozha, Bodes, Beskurek, Esirkozha. Determining the causes and times of migration of zhagalbayly inside Kazakhstan and beyond its borders requires a separate study and processing of a large number of archival materials.

Perhaps because of the dispersion of the zhagalbayla in many regions, they observed compliance with the rules of the exogamous family - it was noted that brides were taken from other genera ^{[45, p. 65]}.

Currently, various versions of the origin of the ethnonym zhagalbayly are being expressed, not all of them have scientific confirmation. One of the main versions says that Zhagalbayly is a proper name or nickname of the first ancestor of the genus, which is consistent with shezhire. In this case, the hypothesis put forward about the origin of zhagalbayly from the legendary Zhagalbay/Yaglybay batyr from the tribe of Bahrin (baryn), who remained loyal to Toktamysh (Khan of the Golden Horde in 1380-1395; Khan of the Tyumen Khanate in 1396-1406) and his descendants is interesting ^{[46, p. 7]}. In this case, it is permissible not to have a biological origin from Yaglybai, but to be in his citizenship. Here, in our opinion, the fact of the resettlement of zhagalbayly by Emir Timur to Afghanistan requires investigation, perhaps it was after his victory over Toktamysh. 

A reasonable and considered version from the name of the tamga "zhagalbai", which was depicted in the form of a cross and denoted a flying bird. This may also be a modified designation of the cross, which is the basis for statements about the identity of the tamga zhagalbai and the Nestorian cross. As arguments, the Mongolian "zagalmai" is given, which means "cross" in translation. This version is not scientifically confirmed.

In our opinion, the version about the origin of the ethnonym zhagalbayly from the toponym of the same name Zhagalbayly has the right to be considered/Yagylbayly, implying the name of the settlement area of this genus.

The toponym "Zhagalbayly" is also mentioned when describing the massacre of the Golden Horde Khan Zhanibek over the descendants of Oysyl, the grandson of Maik biy from the Uysun family ^{[47, p. 288]}. The reign of Zhanibek fell on the years 1342-1357.

The later stay of zhagalbayla or part of it on the territory of the Crimean Khanate, which occupied the Black Sea coast, is confirmed by the map of the Italian cartographer Ricci Zanoni, compiled in 1772 ^[48]. It marks the places of settlement of Nogai clans, including Jegal-Baldi/Chagal-Baldi (Figure 1). This ethnonym is identified with jagalbayly or with its subdivision Jagalbayly-Boldy (Jagalbayly-Buldi).

Figure 1. Fragment of the Rizzi Zannoni map, Carte de la Pologne, 1772

As can be seen from Figure 2, the Nogai genus Jegal-Baldi was approximately located in the area where the previously mentioned Nogai genus Kelechi.

According to the information from the Kazakh-Nogai epic "Kyz Zhibek", the zhagalbayly previously lived on the Black Sea coast. This fact was established by comparing the main versions of the epic in Kazakh ("Kyz Zhibek" Kazan, 1894; "Kissa "Kyz Zhibek Hikayasy", Kazan, 1900), Nogai ("Tolegen and Kyz-Yibek", Cherkessk, 1994) and Kyrgyz ("Kyz Zhibek", Bishkek, 2012) languages.

The versions of origin discussed in the civilian environment and requiring confirmation include the following: zhagalbayly owners of piebald (zhagal) horses by analogy with the Boma tribe ^{[49, p. 99]}; zhagal = spotted/mottled, indicating the heterogeneous origin of the tribe; Nogai batyrs Yagal and Bayly, who are considered as the ancestors of zhagalbayly; the first ancestor of the Man ata (Manata) family; zhagalbayly = zhalbagayly (wearing caps); Kiyat version.

The Kiyat version is justified by information from the epics. For example, in one of the versions of the epic "Yersayyn", prepared by A.Baitursynov according to the records of performers for publication in Moscow in 1923, it is indicated that the Kiyat batyr Karabukan is a descendant of Zhagalbayla. In the rally versions of the epic "Kobylandy Batyr", he Karabukan is depicted as a soothsayer and fortune-teller on a ram's shoulder with the army of the Kiyat clan. This fact is found in the version of the epic called "Kobylands of Turaly", recorded by the storyteller E.Yeshimov in 1954, as well as in the versions of the storyteller Mergenbai "Kobylands Batyr", submitted to the Academy of Sciences of the USSR in 1939 and the version of the storyteller B.Tolymbaev "Karakypshak Kobylands Batyr", published in Kazan in 1914.

According to shezhira, Karabuka is the father of Karakatys and the great-grandson of Zhagalbaila ^{[15, p. 701]}. We believe that Karabukan and Karabuka are identical characters and one of the legendary ancestors of the Kazakh zhagalbayly. This is confirmed by the fact that in a number of shezhirs, Karakatys is represented as the first ancestor of Zhetira as a whole ^{[39, p. 25; 3, p. 86]}. In the Russian-Bulgarian dictionary, the word "cuttlefish" means "mixed" ^{[50, p. 110]}. Perhaps they characterized the heterogeneous origin of Zhetiru. The explanation of the name Karakatys is available in the study of ethnoanthroponyms consisting of ancient and rarely used words in Kazakh proper names ^{[51, p. 122]}.

Studies on genetic genealogy covered few representatives of zhagalbayla (n=14), as a result of which this sample cannot be considered representative. Therefore, in this article we have limited ourselves to a description of the available data.

The results of studies of Y-chromosome polymorphism of representatives of various divisions of the Kazakh zhagalbayly are shown in Tables 1, 2, 3.

Table 1. Results of studies of the polymorphism of the Y-chromosome of zhagalbayla. Haplogroups

Note: – "*" from the FamilyTreeDNA database; "x" - data is not specified

According to Table 1 ^{[52, p. 227]}, it can be seen that of the nine studied representatives of zhagalbaila, four belong to the haplogroup O-M175. Two of them are from the Myrza branch, one is from the Lez branch, the affiliation of the fourth is not specified. In general, the sample is characterized by a wide spread of haplogroups.

Haplogroup C in the gene pool of zhagalbayla was also found according to the results of other studies. Three of its carriers have been installed without specifying intrapartum affiliation. The first of them is characterized by the DL6A haplotype, the second by ZT88A and the third by AU137A ^{[53, p. 89]}.

 Table 2. The results of studies of the polymorphism of the Y-chromosome of zhagalbayla. Loci

Analysis of the data in Table 2 ^{[52, p. 246]} shows that the test results of representatives of the Myra branch (K2150, 247938) and Les (K1993), assigned to the haplogroup O-M175, differ from each other.

It should be noted that there are two more results of O-M175 in zhagalbayla. The first belongs to a representative of the Bozbet branch of the Myrza branch, the second belongs to a representative of the Beskurek branch of the Lez branch. It coincided with the results of the analysis of the representatives of the Malatau (247938), Bilis (K2150), Kutpanai (277578) and Bozbet (IN19159) divisions of the Myrza branch, but did not coincide with the test result of the representative of the Buldi division of the Les branch (K1993).

For IN19159, the analysis of Big Y-700 using NGS technology was carried out within the framework of civil science. According to the results of the analysis of Y-DNA Haplotree, the haplogroup O-MF30881 was determined for it. In the YFull live database, the ID YF079964 is assigned to it and the subclades O-MF58622 are defined with the age of only this line equal to 2123 years. YF097167 is located on the same branch with him (age: 2633 ybp, TMRCA 2600 ybp, Formed 6100 ybp) – the result of Han Chinese from the People's Republic of China, with the age of this line alone being 3143 years ^[54].

In the Chinese database YDNA tree haplogroup (subclades) O-MF58622 is equivalent to haplogroup O-MF61473 (Figure 2).

Figure 2. O-MF61473 cladogram

As can be seen from Figure 2, the ID YF079964 was saved for the sample IN19159 and the number AU39082 was assigned. Here, on one branch, the data of the test results of eight Chinese are located: AU3771 (subclades O-MF236634); AU42716 (O-TYT40678); AU2717 (O-TYT34496); AU2718 (O-TYT22516); AU3810 (O-TYT222061); AU42719 (O-MF301846); AU42720 (O-TYT14861); AU42721 (O-TYT36383). The age of their closest common ancestor (TMRCA) with AU39082 was determined at 2430 years ^[55]. This time is the starting point of the branching of O-MF61473. At the same time, the jagalbail AU39082 is located at the base of the cladogram and is assigned to the basal group (clade) in relation to other subclades formed as a result of multiple branching.

A comparison of IN19159 with other samples of jagalbayla O-M175 available in the FamilyTreeDNA database is shown in Table 3.

 Table 3. Comparative results of zhagalbayly O-M175

Note: "-" – no results; "x" – no matches.

When analyzing the data given in Table 3, it can be seen that a complete match for 12 Y-STR markers was established between all seven representatives of zhagalbayla. Further, in the areas between Y-DNA25 – Y-DNA111, various degrees of discrepancy are observed. When comparing the results of all Y-DNA12 samples, the probability that the number of generations before their common ancestor is equal to 24 generations is 91.41%. When comparing the three results for Y-DNA 67, it is 99.61%. This information is consistent with shezhire, in which the distance to the common direct ancestor on the paternal line is 22-24 generations.

Conclusion and conclusionsIn view of the fact that the study of history is not the main focus of the author's scientific activity, he does not have the right to claim to receive exhaustive results as a result of the work carried out.

At the same time, over a number of years as a civilian researcher, he has accumulated a fairly large volume of unique materials in the chosen field of research, which required systematization in accordance with the realities of today.

The author analyzed and systematized data from a variety of available historical sources and the results of research in the field of Y-DNA on the Kazakh genus zhagalbayly. In view of the small sample (n = 14) of its representatives involved as of today, it is necessary to continue research in this direction. In order to determine the time of formation of the Kazakh genus zhagalbayly, we organized work on the collection of biomaterial, as a result of which about 50 venous blood samples were obtained for laboratory studies from representatives of different divisions of the genus zhagalbayly from a number of regions of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation. But already according to the available data, it can be argued that the major haplogroup for zhagalbayla is O-M175. In order to establish a genetic connection with the same-named genera as part of other peoples, further research of Y-DNA in their representatives is necessary.

 * * *

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Zhaksylyk Sabitov and Akper Aliyev for viewing the draft version of the work, as well as the criticism and comments expressed on it. The author expresses special gratitude to Akper Aliyev for the consultations on genetic genealogy provided throughout the preparation of the article.

The author expresses his heartfelt gratitude to the members of his family for the understanding shown during the several months during which the work on the manuscript was carried out.