Золотоордынское обозрение (Sep 2014)
Review on the B.A. Muratov’s monograph “Ethnogenesis of the Bashkirs: Historiography and Contemporary Research”
Abstract
The author of this review examines four main types of errors contained in the B.A. Muratov’s book “Ethnogenesis of the Bashkirs: Historiography and Contemporary Research”. Factual errors. The author often makes factual errors by inventing some facts or ideas, which he attributes to certain researchers. Methodological errors. An improper use of the population genetics methods has led the author of this monograph to incorrect conclusions. The author does not use at all such methods as multidimensional scaling, calculation of genetic distances, AMOVA, cluster analysis, etc. In turn, the author incorrectly uses such methods as the construction of phylogenetic networks and the allocation of close haplotypes based on networks of clusters. The author has not made a selection of modal haplotype (haplotype of the founder). He made a lot of mistakes in calculating TMRCA (the lifetime of the first common ancestor) based on genealogical and evolutionary rates of mutations. One of the main error is the small sample size for the study of Bashkir clans (n=45). Therefore, the conclusions drawn from such a small sample, are poorly reasoned. Historical fantasy. For example, B.A. Muratov quite unreasonably hypothesizes about the genetic connection of the Bashkir tribe Burzyan with the Mongol tribe Kiyat-Bordjigin. He also put forward unsubstantiated hypotheses about the genetic connection of the same Bashkir tribe Burzyan with Kurds, Ossetians-Digorians, Berendeys. At the same time. Muratov, naturally, did not provide any genetic evidence (belonging to a common terminal SNP-marker). Grammatical mistakes. The main thesis of the B.A. Muratov’s book sounds like: the Bashkirs are (certain) “Turanians”. The main mistake here is the identification of SNP-marker Z2123 with the ethno-religious category of “Turan”. This identification is not methodologically correct as social constructs and genetic markers are different in nature of their appearance, functioning and development. Thus, the mixing of genetic markers and ethno-religious is not methodologically correct when reconstructing history.
