UDC 903.5 (572)

Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography of the Russian Academy of Sciences 3 Universitetskaya nab., Saint Petersburg, 199034, Russia

E-mail: agkozintsev@gmail. com

A multivariate statistical comparison of 245 male craniological series dating from the Neolithic to the Early Iron Age from the territory of Eurasia was carried out. It is shown that there is no reason to consider any ancient groups from the territory of Southern Siberia and Kazakhstan as Southern Caucasoid (Mediterranean). Anthropology does not give any reason to speak about migrations to these territories from Central and Near Asia or from Transcaucasia. The groups in which various researchers found the " Mediterranean component "(carriers of the Okunev culture of Tuva, Elunin, Samus, Afanasiev and Andronovo cultures) are similar to the population of the steppes of Southern Russia and Ukraine of the Bronze Age, as well as to a number of groups of foreign Europe of the late Neolithic and Bronze Age. This similarity can be attributed to the migration of Indo-Europeans (mainly Indo-Iranians) from Europe to the east, up to Central Asia. The return of the descendants of one of their groups from Central Asia to Europe in the early Iron Age was probably the reason for the appearance of the Scythians in the historical arena.

Introduction

I. I. Gokhman [1980], who studied the Okunev craniological series from Tuva, and V. A. Dremov [1980], who studied Preandronov skulls from the Upper Ob region, suggested that southern Caucasians - representatives of the Mediterranean race, in particular its "hypermorphic" variant - were involved in the formation of the ancient population of these areas. Since then, the question of migrations to Southern Siberia from Central Asia, Fore Asia, or the Caucasus in the Pre-Iron Age has been raised repeatedly. This is based on archaeological materials related to the Samus culture [Kiryushin, 2004], as well as anthropological series related to the Elunin and Samus cultures [Solodovnikov and Tur, 2003; Solodovnikov, 2006].

In recent years, archaeological evidence has come to light indicating that the Elunin and Okunev people of Tuva are related to the population of Western Europe of the Early Bronze Age (Kovalev, 2007). These materials correspond to the opinion of I. M. Dyakonov [1982], L. S. Klein [1980, 1990, in print], and V. A. Safronov [1989] that in the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, the focus of Indo-European migrations to the east was located on the territory of foreign Europe. This source may have been secondary, whereas the primary (Early Neolithic) source was located in the Middle East, particularly in Anatolia (Renfrew, 1987; Safronov, 1989; Gray and Atkinson, 2003).

The fact that Indo-Europeans (in particular, Indo-Iranians and Tochars) moved into the interior of Asia not directly from their hypothetical Anatolian ancestral homeland, as it follows, for example, from the theory of Vyach. Vs. Ivanov and T. V. Gamkrelidze [1984], but from Europe, is also evidenced by the perfectly preserved naturally mummified bodies of people of the epoch bronze and early iron from Xinjiang. Gracile Caucasians

page 140
These territories (whose language probably belonged to the Tocharian branch) were red-haired, i.e. they belonged to the northern race rather than the Mediterranean one (Mallory and Mair, 2000). The Xinjiang data, however, do not contradict the "kurgan theory", according to which the ancestral homeland of Indo-Europeans was the Southern Russian steppes (Gimbutas, 1985; Mallory, 1989). K. N. Solodovnikov and S. S. Tur wrote about the possible relationship between the inhabitants of Xinjiang of the Bronze Age, in particular people from Gumugou, and the carriers of the Yelunin culture [2003].

The problem of the origin of the "Merraneans" of Southern Siberia is closely related to the problem of the origin of the Scythians, since they both turned out to be craniologically very close [Kozintsev, 2000, 2007]; archaeological data are increasingly convincing evidence of the arrival of the Scythians "from the depths of Asia" [Savinov, 1994; Machinsky, 1998; Kovalev,1998].

The purpose of this article is to test competing hypotheses about the origin of the "Mediterranean people" of Southern Siberia on extensive material, a significant part of which has not yet been introduced into wide scientific circulation in our country.

Material and methodology

Unpublished data on materials from the Bronze and Scythian periods from Southern Russia and Ukraine were kindly provided to me by S. I. Kruz; for sources of information on most groups published by Russian researchers, see [Kozintsev, 2000, 2007]. Data on groups from the territory of foreign Europe and the Middle East are borrowed from the fundamental summary of I. Schwidetzky and F. Rosing (1990).

245 male craniological series dating from the Neolithic to the Early Iron Age from the territory of Eurasia were analyzed. Of these, 153 series, mainly from the territory of the CIS, were studied in full, 14 features were taken from it (ten linear dimensions and four indicators of facial and nasal profiling [Kozintsev, 2007]), and 92 series from the territory of foreign Europe and the Middle East were studied in part, from which nine linear dimensions were taken (the main diameters of the skull, the smallest width of the forehead, the zygomatic diameter, the width and height of the orbit and nose). The height of the face in the latter case was not taken into account, in order to avoid errors caused by methodological discrepancies.

The data was subjected to canonical analysis. All groups were compared in pairs using the distance D2 of Mahalanobis adjusted for abundance (Rightmire, 1969; Kozintsev, 2007).

Results and discussion

Okunevtsy of Tuva

The Okunev group from Aymyrlyg (Gokhman, 1980; Alekseev, Gokhman, and Tumen, 1987) is the best candidate for the role of an ancestral group for steppe Scythians (Kozintsev, 2000, 2007). Indeed, the first five places in terms of similarity with it, as established during the analysis of 153 episodes in the full program, belong to the Scythians, mainly steppe. They are followed by pitmen from the Ingulets River, log cabins from the territory of the Saratov region, Chernogrovtsy, a group of Scythian era from Mingechaur, early catacombs from the Molochnaya River, log cabins buried in ground graves in Ukraine; subsequent places are again occupied mainly by Scythians. Only on the 13th place-representatives of the Bronze Age of Bactria-Margiana (Sapallitepe). The widespread opinion about the similarity of the Tuvan Okunevites or any other South Siberian groups called "Mediterranean" with the group from the Early Tulkhara is not statistically confirmed.

The study of an incomplete program (245 groups) showed that the Scythians are closest to the Tuvan Okunevites. The second place is occupied by catacombs, and the third and fourth places are shared by the Chernorovites (who lived much later) and the Late Neolithic series of the late IV millennium BC from Ostorf (northern Germany), which belongs to the "furrowed ceramics" culture (Tiefstichkeramik), a variant of the funnel - shaped cup culture [Schwidetzky, Rosing, 1990, N 106]. Being the oldest, this group can be directly related to the focus of Indo-European migrations to the east, in particular, to the origin of the Bronze Age cultures of Southern Russia, Ukraine and much more eastern territories, up to Central Asia. It is interesting that the closest thing to it is not any European groups, but the same group from Aymyrlyg. In addition to the Tuvan Okunevites and Scythians very similar to them, the Neolithic people from Ostorf are very close to the Yamniks from the Ingulets River. On the dendrogram [Ibid, p. 24], the Ostorf group forms a single cluster with Yamnik and Afanasievtsy (data on okunevtsy in Tuva were not available at that time). If these results are not random (it should be remembered that the set of features in this case is limited and does not include important indicators of face and nose profiling), then they deserve the attention of specialists involved in searching for ways of Indo-European (especially Indo-Iranian) migrations. Next, in terms of similarity with the Okunevites of Tuva, are the four Scythian series, the already mentioned yamniki from the Ingulets River, the catacombs of the lower Dnieper, and then the Scythians again. And only on the 14th place-a series from the south-western coast of Lake Baikal. Sevan, on the 19th-a series from Sapallitepe.

page 141
In other words, there is no anthropological evidence that Okunevs came to Tuva from Central or Near East Asia. Consequently, there is no reason to call them Mediterranean. Although the exact source of migration cannot be determined, the Western origin of this group is much more likely than the south-western one.

As for the people who could be considered descendants of the Tuvan Okunevites and direct ancestors of the Black Sea Scythians, it is not yet possible to find them from the anthropological materials of the Late Bronze or Early Iron Age from Central Asia. According to S. S. Tur and M. P. Rykun (2004), the "Mediterranean" component, similar to that of the Okunev people of Tuva, can be traced to the contemporaries of the Scythians - the Pazyryk people from Kyzyl-Jar (Gorny Altai). According to my calculations, these people could rather be considered direct descendants of the carriers of the pre-Scythian culture of non-caste burials in Tuva (Mongun-taiga). Their similarity to the Scythian-era groups from Aymyrlyg and Western Tuva is somewhat less pronounced. Only the 4th place is occupied by a not very clear parallel with one of the Black Sea Scythian series - from Lugovaya Mogila (Alexandropolsky mound), but this series is separated from other Scythian ones and only one parallel, also eastern, is recorded for it, in addition to Kyzyl-Dzhar, with the Sauromats.

Yelunin residents

Similar to the Okunev people of Tuva, the Elunin culture carriers (at least men) came to Southern Siberia clearly from far away (Solodovnikov and Tur, 2003). Craniologically, they are quite isolated and do not show close connections with anyone. Of the 152 groups analyzed in full, the Scythians from Verkhne-Tarasovka (lower Dnieper) are the closest to them. By the way, the latter group is also craniologically isolated (Kozintsev, 2007), and the Elunin group is the closest to this group (which was not included in my article [Ibid.]). The Okunevites of Tuva are in second place in terms of similarity with the Eluninites, as already noted by K. N. Solodovnikov and S. S. Tur [2003], and the Scythian group from Western Tuva is in second place in terms of similarity with the Scythians of Verkhne - Tarasovka. The theory of the Central Asian origin of the Scythians thus receives additional confirmation.

According to the incomplete program analysis (245 groups), Elunin residents are approaching the Scythians of Kerch. In the following places, in descending order of similarity, there are carriers of the Poltavka culture of the Volga region, Okunevtsy of Tuva, early catacombs from the Molochnaya River, a series of early Scythian epoch from Mingechaur, log cabins of the forest-steppe Volga region, Scythians of the Northwestern Black Sea region, and the Mezhanovice culture group (Early Bronze Age of Poland, late III - first half of the II millennium). B.C. [Schwidetzky and Rosing, 1990, N 173]). The bronze Age series from Altyn-Depe is only on the 9th place, and the Hryashchevka log cabins are on the 10th place. Taking into account the chronological affiliation, the most important parallels are Tuva (Okunevskaya), Poltavka, catacomb and Mezhanovitsa. Thus, even in this case, migration should be assumed not from Central or Near Asia, but from the west, if, of course, we do not take into account the possibility of reverse movement from Tuva to the upper Ob.

Samustsy

Taking into account only men, of whom there are only three [Solodovnikov, 2005], they do not show close parallels when analyzing the full program; the least remote are the residents of Poltavka. None of the 92 foreign groups studied under the incomplete program gives analogies to Samus men. If we add data on female skulls, recalculating them using sexual dimorphism coefficients, then the Samus people also have no close ties to anyone in terms of the full set of characteristics, and the Scythians of the Northwestern Black Sea region, who have a noticeable Mongoloid admixture and are quite similar to the people of the Scythian era from Central and Western Tuva, are the least distant from them. The result of the incomplete program analysis with female skulls is the same as with male skulls alone - no foreign parallels. As in the case of the Yelunin people, the most significant in terms of the origin of the Samus people is the early western parallel, albeit not very clear - the Poltavka one. The significance of the Poltavka culture as possibly one of the major centers of Indo-Iranian ethnogenesis is well known (see, for example, Kuzmina, 1994). No method of analysis can reveal either Central Asian or Antero-Asian connections among the Samus.

Early Bronze Age people from Xinjiang (Gumugou)

Han Kangxin (1986, 1998), who published this series, attributed it to the Proto-European type and brought it closer to the Afanasiev and Andronov groups. Agreeing with it in general, K. N. Solodovnikov and S. S. Tur [2003] pointed out the possibility of the presence of a Mediterranean admixture in this group. At the level of average values, according to the results of my analysis, people from Gumugou do not find a special problem.

page 142
intimacy with no one. The Andronovites of Eastern, Central, and Northern Kazakhstan are the least remote from them (according to the updated data of K. N. Solodovnikov [2005]), while the carriers of the Samus and Yelunin cultures are somewhat further away.

Afanasyevtsy and Andronovtsy

A "proto-Mediterranean" component was also found in some groups of Afanasyevites (Dremov, 1980). However, as K. N. Solodovnikov and O. V. Larin [2002] rightly pointed out, the weakening of massiveness in this case is hardly related to the influx of population from Central or Near Asia, because a decrease in face width compared to proto-European standards was observed in many groups of the Bronze Age in Southern Russia and Ukraine. For example, the relatively gracile Afanasiev series from Saldyar [Ibid.], as my analysis shows, is extremely close to a number of pit and catacomb groups. They occupy the first places in the degree of proximity to it, while the Transcaucasian parallel (an Early Iron Age group from the southwestern coast of Lake Baikal) is located in the southern part of the Caucasus. Sevan) is only on the 17th place, and Central Asian (series from Tigrovaya Balka and Makoni-Mora) is on the 18th place. So, even in this case, there is no reason to associate the weakening of massiveness with the southern Europoid admixture.

An opinion was expressed that the "Mediterranean" component is also present in the Andronovites, in particular in the Fedorov group from Firsov XIV (Upper Ob region) [Solodovnikov, 2005, 2006]. At least at the level of average values, this can not be traced. The Afanasievites from Saldyar are the closest to the Fyodorovites of Firsov XIV, and the next five places are occupied by the Bronze Age groups of Southern Russia belonging to the Yamnaya, Poltavka, catacomb and log cultures. Neither the Alakul people of Western Kazakhstan nor the Yelunin people are particularly similar.

As for the Alakul people, V. V. Ginzburg [1962], although he attributed the group from Tasta-Butak to the Mediterranean type, pointed out its possible kinship both with the population of the south of Central Asia and with the log cabins of the Lower Volga region. V. P. Alekseev [1967] believed that the western, in particular, "log cabins", the direction of connections in this case is the only significant one. As my calculations show, the latter conclusion is correct, but in a broader sense: the Alakuls of Western Kazakhstan do not show craniological similarity with any of the Central Asian series, but are very close to a number of groups belonging not only to the log cabin, but also to the pit and especially to the catacomb cultures. As the results of the incomplete program analysis showed, they also do not show any southern gravity, but they show similarities with a number of population groups in Central and even Western Europe of the Bronze Age.

Conclusion

The considered data make us reconsider the traditional opinion (which was recently shared by me [2000]), according to which the taxonomy of ancient Caucasians is mainly reduced to the opposition of proto-Europeans to the Mediterranean. In this scheme, there is no place for the northern branch of the Caucasian race - we simply forgot about it. And yet in ancient times, as now, not all gracile Caucasians were Southerners. Gracilization, which began in the southern regions of the Europoid range (probably not only spontaneous, but also caused by the influx of people and/or genes from the Mediterranean), spread far to the north in the Neolithic, covering large areas of Western Europe, undoubtedly affected by the depigmentation process. Narrow-faced, light-pigmented people of Central and Northern European origin played a role in Indo-European, in particular Indo-Iranian, migrations to the east, probably no less than proto-Europeans, and certainly more than southern Caucasians. Further anthropological studies will help clarify this role and thus contribute to solving the interdisciplinary problem of the Indo-European ancestral homeland.

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to S. I. Kruz for providing unpublished data on Scythian and pre-Scythian series from Ukraine, as well as to S. S. Tur, who pointed out very important, but previously unknown to me, publications of Barnaul colleagues.

List of literature

Alekseev V. P. Antropologiya andronovskaya kul'tury [Anthropology of the Andronovo culture].

Alekseev V. P., Gokhman I. I., Tumen D. Kratkiy ocherk paleoanthropologii Tsentral'noi Azii (kamennyi vek - epokha rannego zheleza) [A brief sketch of the Paleoanthropology of Central Asia (the Stone Age-the Epoch of Early Iron)]. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1987, pp. 208-241.

Ginzburg V. V. Materialy k antropologii naseleniya Zapadnogo Kazakhstana v epokhu bronzy [Materials on the anthropology of the population of Western Kazakhstan in the Bronze Age]. Sorokin V. S. Mogilnik bronzovoy epokhi Tasty-Butak-1 v Zapadnom Kazahstan. - Moscow; L.: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1962. - pp. 188-198. - (MIA; N 120).

Gokhman I. I. The origin of the Central Asian race in the light of new paleoanthropological materials.-

page 143
Proceedings of the Paleoanthropology and Craniology of the USSR, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1980, pp. 5-34 (Collection of the MAE, No. 36).

Dremov V. A. Antropologicheskie materialy iz mogilnikov Ust-Isha i Itkul ' (k voprosu o proiskhozhdenii neoliticheskogo naseleniya Verkhnih Priob'ya) [Anthropological materials from the Ust-Isha and Itkul burial grounds (on the question of the origin of the Neolithic population of the Upper Ob region)].

Dyakonov I. M. O prarodine nositelei indo-evropeiskikh dialektov [About the ancestral homeland of Indo-European dialect speakers]. VDI. - 1982. - N 3. - p. 3-30; N 4. - p. 11-25.

Ivanov Vyach. Vs., Gamkrelidze T. V. Indo-European language and Indo-Europeans. - Tbilisi: Publishing House of the Tbilisi State University, 1984. - Vol. 1. - 435 p. - Vol. 2. - pp. 436-1328.

Kiryushin Yu. F. Eneolithic and Bronze Age of the Southern Taiga zone of Western Siberia. Barnaul: Alt State University Publ., 2004, 294 p. (in Russian)

Klein L. S. Where did arias come from in India? // Vestn. Leningr. univ. - 1980. - N 20. - p. 35-39.

Klein L. S. Early Indo-Europeans in the Caucasus and Northern Pontic steppes // Interdisciplinary studies of the cultural and ethnogenesis of the Armenian Highlands and adjacent territories. Yerevan: Yerevan State University Publ., 1990, pp. 162-175.

Klein L. S. Ancient migrations and the origin of Indo-European peoples. - St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg State University (in print).

Kovalev A. A. Stone sculptures of the Black Irtysh (once again about the Dzungarian ancestral homeland of the Scythians). Khazars. Slavs. Drevnyaya Rus': Mezhdunar. nauch. konf., posv. 100th anniversary of the birth of M. I. Artamonov. St. Petersburg, 1998, pp. 24-29.

Kovalev A. A. Chemurchek cultural phenomenon / / "A.V.": Collection of scientific works in honor of the 60th anniversary of A.V. Vinogradov. Saint Petersburg: Kult-Inform-Press, 2007, pp. 25-76.

Kozintsev A. G. Ob antropologicheskikh svyazyakh i proiskhozhdenii prichernomorskikh skifov [On anthropological relations and the origin of the Black Sea Scythians]. - 2000. - N 3. - p. 145-152.

Kozintsev A. G. Scythians of the Northern Black Sea Region: mezhgruppovye razlichii, vneshniye svyazi, proiskhozhdenie [Intergroup differences, external relations, origin]. - 2007. - N 4. - p. 143-157.

Kuzmina E. E. Where did the Indo-Aryans come from? Material culture of the tribes of the Andronovo community and the origin of Indo-Iranians. - M.: East lit., 1994. - 464 p.

Machinsky D. A. Strana arimaspov, prostor aryevs i "Scythian" mirrors s bortikom [The land of the Arimasps, the expanse of the Aryans and the "Scythian" mirrors with a side]. - St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg State University, 1998. - p. 102-117. - (Problems of archeology; issue 4).

Savinov D. G. Sintashta and Arzhan // Elite mounds of Eurasia in the Scythian-Sarmatian era. St. Petersburg: [B. I.], 1994, pp. 170-175.

Safronov V. A. Indo-European ancestral lands. Gorky: Volgo-Vyatka Publishing House, 1989, 402 p.

Solodovnikov K. N. Craniological materials from the burial ground of the Andronovo culture Firsovo XIV in light of the problems of the formation of the population of the Upper Ob region in the bronze age // the Study of the historical and cultural heritage of the peoples of southern Siberia. Gorno-Altaisk: AKIN Publ., 2005, issue 1, pp. 47-75.

Solodovnikov K. N. Population of the mountain and forest-steppe Altai of the early and advanced Bronze Age according to paleoanthropology: Abstract of the Candidate of Historical Sciences. Barnaul, 2006, 25 p. (in Russian)

Solodovnikov K. N., Larin O. V. Kraniologicheskaya seriya iz mogilnika Saldyar I afanas'evskoy kul'tury Gornogo Altay [Craniological series from the Saldyar I burial ground of the Afanasiev culture of Gorny Altai]. Barnaul: Alt. State University Publ., 2002, pp. 119-123.

Kiryushin Yu. F., Grushin A. Funerary ritual of the population of the Upper Ob Early Bronze Age (based on the materials of the Teleutsky Vzvoz-1 soil burial ground). - Barnaul: Alt Publishing House. State University, 2003, pp. 142-176.

Tur S. S., Rykun M. P. Craniological materials of the Pazyryk culture from burial grounds in the Kyzyl-Jar tract. - 2004. - N 12. - p. 32-49.

Gimbutas M. Primary and secondary homeland of the Indo-Europeans // J. of Indo-European Studies. - 1985. - Vol. 13, N 1/2. - P. 185 - 202.

Gray R. D., Atkinson Q. D. Panguage-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origins // Nature. - 2003. - Vol. 426, N 6965. - P. 435 - 439.

Han Kangxin. Anthropological characteristics of the human skulls from the ancient cemetery at Gumu Gou, Xinjiang // Kaory сюэбао (Acta Archaeologica Sinica). - 1986. - N 3. - P. 361-384 (in Chinese with summary in English).

Han Kangxin. The physical anthropology of the ancient populations of the Tarim Basin and surrounding areas // The Bronze and Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern Central Asia. - Wash.: Institute for the Study of Man, 1998. - Vol. 2. - P. 558 - 570. - (J. of Indo-European Studies, Monograph; N 26).

Mallory J. P. In Search of the Indo-Europeans. - L.: Thames and Hudson, 1989. - 288 p.

Mallory J. P., Mair V. H. The Tarim Mummies: Ancient China and the Mystery of the Earliest Peoples from the West. - L.: Thames and Hudson, 2000. - 352 p.

Renfrew С. Archaeology and Panguage: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. - N. Y.: Cambridge University Press, 1987. - 346 p.

Rightmire G. P. On the computation of Mahalanobis' generalized distance (D2) // Am. J. Phys. Anthropology. - 1969. - Vol. 30, N 1. - P. 157 - 160.

Schwidetzky I., Räsing F. Vergleichend-statistische Untersuchungen zur Anthropologie von Neolithikum und Bronzezeit // Homo. - 1990. - Bd. 40, H. 1/2. - S. 4 - 45.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 16.06.08.

page 144

Permanent link to this publication: