- Email: [email protected]
A NONMETRIC CRANIAL STUDY OF THE ANDRONOVO SERIES FROM THE ALTAI
ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY OF EURASIA Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 147–155 E-mail: [email protected]
147
ANTHROPOLOGY
S.S. Tur Altai State University, Lenina 61, Barnaul, 656049, Russia E-mail: [email protected]
A NONMETRIC CRANIAL STUDY OF THE ANDRONOVO SERIES FROM THE ALTAI* Nonmetric traits were studied on more than 80 crania from the Middle Bronze Age (Andronovo) burials in the Altai. Two alternative trait batteries were used: that introduced by T. Hanihara and H. Ishida, and that proposed by A.G. Kozintsev. Groups were compared using two multivariate methods, Correspondence Analysis and C.A.B. Smith’s Mean Measure of Divergence. Both trait batteries yielded similar results, attesting to the Southern Caucasoid (Mediterranean) af¿nities of the Andronovo population of the Altai. This agrees with the results of dental studies, but disagrees with the results of craniometric analysis. One of the possible explanations is admixture. Keywords: Nonmetric cranial traits, Bronze Age, Andronovo culture, Altai.
Introduction Nonmetric (discrete) cranial traits are anatomical variations which are scored as present or absent. They provide an important source of information about the population affinities, both prehistoric and modern. The analysis of these traits may help test the mutually exclusive hypotheses concerning the craniometric status of the Andronovo population of the Altai (Dremov, 1997; Solodovnikov, 2005; Kozintsev, 2008). Materials and methods More than eighty adult crania from the Andronovo burials in the Altai were studied. They come from the *The study was supported by the grant-in-aid “Multidisciplinary Historical Studies of Western and Southern Siberia from the Earliest Stage to the Present Time” under the Federal Financial Support Program “Scienti¿c and Pedagogical Human Resources of Innovative Russia” (Project 2009-1.1-301-072-016).
following burial grounds: Firsovo-14 (44)*, Chekanovsky Log-2, Chekanovsky Log-10 (14), Yeluninsky-2 (5), Gilevo (4), Marinka (4), Berezovsky (4), Podturino (2), Barsuchikha (1), Blizhnie Yelbany -16 (1), Pavlovka (1), Stepnoy Chumysh (1). Two trait batteries were used. One is employed by Japanese craniologists (Hanihara, Ishida, 2001a–ɟ; Hanihara, Ishida, Dodo, 2003), another, by members of the Saint-Petersburg school (Kozintsev, 1988, 1992). Apart from the traits themselves, divergences between the two approaches concern the calculation of frequencies (see below). The groups used by the Japanese and the Russian specialists are different too. The battery used by T. Hanihara, H. Ishida, and Y. Dodo comprises the following characters: metopic suture, supraorbital foramen, accessory infraorbital foramen, transverse zygomatic suture posterior trace, ossicle at lambda, asterionic bone, occipito-mastoid wormians, parietal notch bone, lateral remnants of transverse occipital sutures, ovale-spinosum conÀuence, *The number of crania is indicated in parentheses.
Copyright © 2011, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology & Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2011.06.019
148
S.S. Tur / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 147–155
tympanic dehiscence, precondylar tubercles, paracondylar tubercle, jugular foramen bridging, hypoglossal canal bridging, condylar canal patent, medial palatine canal, accessory mental foramen, mylohyoid bridging, aural exostosis. The differentiation of seventy ethno-territorial populations from various regions of the world based on these traits generally agrees with that based on genetic markers, DNA-polymorphism, and craniometric data (Hanihara, Ishida, Dodo, 2003). One of the twenty characters listed above (the aural exostosis) was excluded, and thus nineteen traits remain. The battery introduced by A.G. Kozintsev (1988, 1992) includes six highly informative characters which either differentiate Caucasoids and Mongoloids or reveal a contrast between northern and southern populations. These characters are as follows: occipital Wormian index (OI), transverse zygomatic suture posterior trace (TZST), supraorbital foramen (SOF), transverse palatine suture index (TPSI), spheno-mazillary suture (SMS), and infraorbital pattern type II (IOP II). Only two of them (TZST and SOF) match those in Hanihara, Ishida, and Dodo’s battery. Traits were scored according to the respective instructions (Dodo, 1986; Hanihara, Ishida, 2001ɚ–ɟ; Hauser, de Stefano, 1989; Kozintsev, 1988, 1992). Both sides of the cranium were inspected. In the case of Hanihara, Ishida, and Dodo’s program, frequencies were calculated “per cranium”, that is, the trait was scored as present regardless of unilateral or bilateral presence (Hanihara, Ishida, Dodo, 2003). Crania where only one side was available for observation were included. This method, which maximizes the number of independent observations, is often used in dental studies in cases where the remains are fragmented (Scott, Turner, 1997: 103– 105). Its use is warranted by the fact that the asymmetry of most nonmetric traits is Àuctuating rather than directed. In the case of Kozintsev’s battery, frequencies were calculated by the “per side” method, that is, the total number of sides was used (Kozintsev, 1980, 1988). Frequencies of the two traits included in both batteries, TZST and SOF, were calculated according to both methods. For most traits, male and female crania were pooled, because sex differences are known to be minor. However, Kozintsev (1988) has demonstrated that the sphenomaxillary junction occurs signi¿cantly more frequently in males than in females. Frequencies of this trait were estimated for each sex separately, and unweighted averages were calculated (Kozintsev, 1988). The following cranial series were employed for comparative analysis. I. Hanihara, Ishida, and Dodo’s battery (nineteentraits): (a) recent groups: populations of western, southern, and northwestern India, Afghanistan, Israel, Eastern
Europe (Poland, Czechia, Bulgaria, and former Yugoslavia), Italy, Finland, Scandinavia (Norway and Sweden), Germany, France, Great Britain, southeastern Siberia (the Amur Basin), as well as Turks (Cyprus), Greeks, Russians (Sebezh), Kazakhs, Japanese, northern Chinese, Mongols, Buriats, Yakuts, Chukchi, Aleuts, Asian Eskimos, and Greenland Eskimos (Hanihara, Ishida, 2001b–ɟ); (b) ancient groups: Baikal Neolithic, Tagar culture, prehistoric Eskimos (Ekven), Iron Age and Medieval Britain (Ibid.). II. Kozintsev’s battery (six-traits): (a) recent groups: Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Karels, Finns, Ingushes, Chechens, Adygeys, Abkhazians, Ossets, Armenians, Turks, Bulgarians, and Italians (Kozintsev, 1988, 1992). (b) ancient groups: Chalcolithic of Turkmenia (Kozintsev, 1988), Afanasyev culture of Gorny Altai and Minusinsk Basin (pooled), Andronovo culture of Minusinsk Basin, and of northern, central, and eastern Kazakhstan, mostly representing the Alakul variety of the Andronovo culture (Gromov, 1997). The position of groups in the multivariate space was assessed using the Correspondence Analysis (part of the STATISTICA software) – a version of the Principal Component analysis adapted for nonmetric traits. In this analysis the matrix of pairwise chi-squared values measuring the association between the traits is used instead of the correlation matrix employed in the Principal Component analysis. To assess the distances between the groups, C.A.B. Smith’s mean measure of divergence (MMD) was used (Harris, Sjovold, 2004), and the distances were processed with the nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDSCAL) method. Negative MMD values were processed as such and not equated to zero (Kozintsev, 1980; Harris, Sjovold, 2004). Results and discussion Frequencies of nonmetric traits in the Andronovo series from the Altai are presented in Table 1. The arrangement of 34 Eurasian cranial series in the multivariate space de¿ned by the nineteen-trait battery in the Correspondence Analysis is shown in Fig. 1. The first vector, accounting for 31.5 % of the total variance, opposes Caucasoid series (marked by positive values) to Mongoloid ones, which are on the negative side. Caucasoids are characterized by generally higher frequencies of the metopic suture, of lateral remnants of the transverse occipital sutures, of ossicles at lambda and asterion, and of precondylar tubercles, whereas Mongoloids are characterized by generally higher frequencies of the transverse zygomatic suture trace, of
S.S. Tur / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 147–155
149
Table 1. Frequencies of nonmetric cranial traits in the Andronovo series from the Altai Nos.
Males x(N)
Traits
Females x(N)
P
Pooled x(n/N)
Hanihara, Ishida, and Dodo’s battery (“per cranium”) 1
Metopic suture
0.0476 (42)
0 (31)
–
0.0430 (4/93)
2
Supraorbital foramen
0.4390 (41)
0.5161 (31)
–
0.4722 (34/72)
3
Accessory infraorbital foramen
0.2286 (35)
0.2400 (25)
–
0.2333 (14/60)
4
Transverse zygomatic suture posterior trace 2 mm
0.1724 (29)
0.1818 (22)
–
0.1765 (9/51)
5
Ossicle at lambda
0.2188 (32)
0.0370 (27)
0.05
0.1356 (8/59)
6
Asterionic bone
0.1935 (31)
0.1786 (28)
–
0.1864 (11/59)
7
Occipito-mastoid wormians
0.0968 (31)
0.0000 (26)
–
0.0526 (3/57)
8
Parietal notch bone
0.1765 (34)
0.2083 (24)
–
0.1897 (11/58)
9
Lateral remnants of the transverse occipital sutures 10 mm
0.0882 (34)
0.0714 (28)
–
0.0806 (5/62)
10
Ovale-spinosum conÀuence
0.1081 (37)
0.0370 (27)
–
0.0781 (5/64)
11
Tympanic dehiscence
0.0000 (40)
0.1563 (32)
0.05
0.0694 (5/72)
12
Precondylar tubercles
0.1333 (30)
0.2083 (24)
–
0.1667 (9/54)
13
Paracondylar tubercle
0.0000 (32)
0.0417 (24)
–
0.0179 (1/56)
14
Jugular foramen bridging
0.1481 (27)
0.3158 (19)
–
0.2174 (10/46)
15
Hypoglossal canal bridging
0.2609 (46)
0.2308 (26)
–
0.2500 (18/72)
16
Condylar canal patent
0.6800 (25)
0.9091 (22)
–
0.7872 (37/47)
17
Medial palatine canal
0.0323 (31)
0.050 (20)
–
0.0392 (2/51)
18
Accessory mental foramen
0.0571 (35)
0.0000 (23)
–
0.0345 (2/58)
19
Mylohyoid bridging
0.1081 (37)
0.1818 (22)
–
0.1356 (8/59)
Kozintsev’s battery (“per side”) 20
Supraorbital foramen
0.2750 (80)
0.3966 (58)
–
0.3261(45/138)
21
Infraorbital pattern type II
0.3404 (47)
0.4242 (33)
–
0.3750 (30/80)
22
Spheno-maxillary suture
0.5233 (86)
0.0926 (54)
0.01
23
Transverse zygomatic suture trace 2 mm
0.1220 (41)
0.1143 (35)
–
0.1184 (9/76)
24
Occipital Wormian index
0.3077 (13)
0.0000 (6)
–
0.2105 (4/19)
25
Transverse palatine suture index
0.6226 (53)
0.4688 (32)
–
0.5647 (48/85)
0.3079
Note: x, trait frequency, N, number of observations, n, number of positive scores; P – signi¿cance level of male versus female differences.
the accessory mental foramen, of tympanic dehiscence, of occipito-mastoid wormians, and of the supraorbital foramen (Table 2). Notably, certain Caucasoid groups, specifically the Tagar people, the Russians, the Indians and the Afghans, deviate in the Mongoloid direction. While a small Mongoloid admixture in the former two groups cannot be ruled out, the Mongoloid tendency displayed
by South Asians requires a different explanation. Dental anthropologists speak not only of Caucasoid and Mongoloid traits but also of western and eastern ones (Zubov, Khaldeyeva, 1993). Increased frequencies of certain eastern traits such as upper medial incisor shoveling and the distal ridge of trigonid on the ¿rst lower molar are typical of southern Caucasoids. Apparently, certain nonmetric cranial traits show a
150
S.S. Tur / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 147–155
Table 2. Results of Correspondence Analysis of 34 groups: loadings of traits of Hanihara, Ishida, and Dodo’s battery on the ¿rst two vectors Traits
Fig. 1. Position of groups on the ¿rst and second vectors derived from the Correspondence Analysis of the frequencies of 19 nonmetric traits (Hanihara and Ishida’s battery). 1 – eastern Indians, 2 – southern Indians, 3 – northwestern Indians, 4 – Afghans, 5 – Tagar, 6 – Kazakhs, 7 – Israelis, 8 – Turks (Cyprus), 9 – Russians, 10 – Greeks, 11 – eastern Europeans, 12 – Italians, 13 – Finns, 14 – Scandinavians, 15 – Germans, 16 – French, 17–21 – British, 22 – Japanese, 23 – northern Chinese, 24 – Mongols, 25 – Buryats, 26 – Amur people, 27 – Baikal Neolithic, 28 – Yakuts, 29 – ancient Eskimos (Ekven), 30 – Asian Eskimos, 31 – Greenland Eskimos, 32 – Chukchi, 33 – Aleuts, 34 – Andronovo, Altai.
I
II
Medial palatine canal
0.14
–0.19
Hypoglossal canal bridging
0.09
0.00
Precondylar tubercles
0.20
–0.15
Paracondylar tubercle
–0.00
–0.17
Jugular foramen bridging
0.06
0.12
Mylohyoid canal bridging
0.13
0.48
–0.27
–0.07
Ovale-spinosum conÀuence
0.07
0.14
Metopic suture
0.56
–0.12
–0.33
–0.12
Lateral remnants of the transverse occipital sutures 10 mm
0.31
–0.04
Condylar canal patent
0.03
–0.03
Supraorbital foramen
–0.17
0.06
0.01
0.23
–0.33
–0.03
Ossicle at lambda
0.27
–0.21
Parietal notch bone
0.04
–0.08
Asterionic bone
0.26
–0.01
–0.22
–0.05
Tympanic dehiscence
Transverse zygomatic suture posterior trace 2 mm
Accessory infraorbital foramen
similar distribution. The ¿rst vector, then, arranges the groups along the east-to-west axis. The second vector, which accounts for 14.2 % of the variance, opposes Chukchi, Aleuts, and Eskimos to northern Chinese, Japanese, Yakuts, Buryats, and Mongols (among the Mongoloids) and Finns, Scandinavians, and the British to populations of India, Greeks, Israelis, and Turks (among the Caucasoids). The differentiation thus appears to be mainly along the north-to-south axis (Fig. 1). In the southern groups, the ossicle at lambda, the medial palatine canal, the paracondylar tubercle, and the precondylar tubercles are generally more frequent, whereas in the northern and central groups, the mylohyoid bridging, and the accessory infraorbital foramen are more frequent on average (Table 2). In this coordinate system, the Andronovo people of the Altai fall within the Caucasoid cluster, between the southern and northern-central Caucasoids. Results of the Principal Component and Correspondence analyses are known to depend not only on the selection of traits, but also on the choice of groups. The more numerous and variable the groups used for comparison, the more details are sacri¿ced in order to represent the general pattern of group relationships. If only Caucasoid groups are compared, the most meaningful vectors are the ¿rst (24.2 % of the variance), arranging the groups mostly along the east-to-west axis, and the third (12.4 % of the variance), differentiating
Accessory mental foramen
Occipito-mastoid wormians
them mainly in the north-to-south direction (Table 3, Fig. 2). The second vector appears to reflect local variations in the geographical distribution of certain traits, such as ovale-spinosum conÀuence, accessory mental foramen, and metopic suture). Southern groups tend to display low (“eastern”) scores on the ¿rst vector and high (“southern”) scores on the third vector, whereas the northern and central European groups reveal the opposite combination (“western” versus “northern” on the ¿rst and third vectors, respectively). The Andronovo series from the Altai, however, shows high (“western”) scores on the ¿rst vector and likewise high (“southern”) scores on the third vector. Such a contradictory combination may testify to admixture. To calculate the MMD distances between the groups (Table 4), twelve characters, which are the most variable within the Caucasoid cluster, were selected (Nos. 1, 4–7, 9–11, 14, 15, 18, and 19).
S.S. Tur / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 147–155
Table 3. Results of Correspondence Analysis of 21 groups: loadings of traits of Hanihara, Ishida, and Dodo’s battery on the ¿rst three vectors Traits Medial palatine canal
I
II
III
0.09
–0.18
0.18
–0.01
–0.03
–0.08
Precondylar tubercles
0.14
–0.08
0.13
Paracondylar tubercle
–0.15
0.03
0.23
Jugular foramen bridging
0.16
–0.08
0.06
Mylohyoid canal bridging
0.33
–0.16
–0.22
–0.33
0.04
–0.14
Ovale-spinosum conÀuence
0.14
0.57
0.06
Metopic suture
0.29
0.28
–0.16
Transverse zygomatic suture posterior trace 2 mm
–0.18
–0.01
0.17
Lateral remnants of the transverse occipital sutures 10 mm
0.09
0.20
–0.05
Condylar canal patent
–0.04
0.01
0.01
Supraorbital foramen
–0.03
–0.02
–0.03
0.25
–0.09
–0.00
Accessory mental foramen
–0.25
–0.43
–0.18
Ossicle at lambda
–0.09
0.13
–0.01
Parietal notch bone
–0.05
0.14
–0.01
0.13
–0.10
0.17
–0.17
–0.02
0.36
Hypoglossal canal bridging
Tympanic dehiscence
Accessory infraorbital foramen
Asterionic bone Occipito-mastoid wormians
The arrangement of groups on the first and third dimensions of the Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling space (Fig.3b) shows a nearly exact match with that of the respective vectors in the Correspondence Analysis based on nineteen traits (Fig. 2). The new ¿rst axis likewise reÀects the east-to-west differentiation, and the new third axis shows a north-to-south differentiation. The variation along the second vector is more difficult to interpret. One of its extremes is taken by groups from Britain and Israel, whereas Finns, Scandinavians, and Turks are on the opposite extreme (Fig. 3a). This vector appears to reÀect mostly local differences in the occurrence of the metopic suture. According to Kozintsev (1988), this trait is generally frequent in regions where the transition from foraging to producing economy occurred early. However, its local peaks, such as that seen in Britain, may be caused by isolation (Hanihara, Ishida, 2001ɫ).
Fig. 2. Position of Caucasoid groups on the ¿rst and third vectors derived from the Correspondence Analysis of the frequencies of nineteen nonmetric traits (Hanihara and Ishida’s battery). 1 – eastern Indians, 2 – southern Indians, 3 – northwestern Indians, 4 – Afghans, 5 – Tagar, 6 – Israelis, 7 – Turks (Cyprus), 8 – Russians, 9 – Greeks, 10 – eastern Europeans, 11 – Italians, 12 – Finns, 13 – Scandinavians, 14 – Germans, 15 – French, 16–20 – British, 21 – Andronovo, Altai. Polygons show the distribution areas of Southern Caucasoids.
The position of the Andronovo series from the Altai is intermediate in that it displays both western traits (on the ¿rst vector) and southern traits (on the third vector) (Fig. 3b). In short, the results of the Correspondence Analysis based on the complete trait battery (nineteen traits) and those of the NMDSCAL analysis of MMD distances based on the abridged trait battery (twelve most variable traits) show a nearly perfect agreement. Among the traits in Kozintsev’s battery, those most informative for the differentiation of the Caucasoid populations are IOP II and TZST; formerly, Kozintsev (1988) combined them in his “Northern Eurasian Index”. This combination differentiates southern groups from northern ones. In our case, it would be more reasonable to speak of southern versus non-southern differentiation, because southern Caucasoids are opposed not only to northern ones, but also to central Europeans. In southern Caucasoids, the frequency of TZST is generally higher and that of IOP II, generally lower than in northern Caucasoids or in central Europeans (Kozintsev, 1988, 1992). The variation of the Occipital Wormian Index in Caucasoids is high and erratic (Ibid.), and therefore this trait was excluded from the analysis. The results of the Correspondence Analysis of frequencies of the remaining ¿ve traits in ancient and recent Caucasoids (Fig. 4) shows that the ¿rst vector, which accounts for 33.5 % of the total variance, shows a high correlation with the Northern Eurasian
151
152
S.S. Tur / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 147–155
Table 4. Distances (MMD) between the groups based Nos.
Groups
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
Eastern Indians
0
2
Southern Indians
–0.011
3
Northwestern Indians
–0.005
–0.003
4
Afghans
0.004
0.004
0.017
0
5
Tagar culture
0.022
0.030
0.041
0.016
0
6
Israelis
0.023
0.029
0.024
0.031
0.081
0
7
Turks (Cyprus)
0.050
0.041
0.070
0.017
0.029
0.039
0
8
Russians (Sebezh)
0.031
0.024
0.037
0.035
0.028
0.107
0.063
9
Greeks
0.014
0.010
0.019
0.003
0.023
0.007
–0.013
0.050
10
Eastern Europeans
0.033
0.033
0.041
–0.004
0.058
0.006
0.022
0.071
11
Italians
0.047
0.037
0.056
0.009
0.065
0.020
0.000
0.071
12
Finns
0.049
0.050
0.056
0.020
0.050
0.034
0.030
0.083
13
Scandinavians
0.050
0.047
0.062
0.019
0.035
0.024
–0.012
0.080
14
Germans
0.073
0.064
0.069
0.034
0.071
0.044
0.023
0.086
15
French
0.025
0.019
0.025
–0.006
0.034
0.018
0.004
0.031
16
British, 1
0.054
0.049
0.038
0.008
0.078
0.028
0.066
0.066
17
British, 2
0.039
0.036
0.047
–0.014
0.043
0.042
0.033
0.081
18
British, 3
0.050
0.048
0.036
0.035
0.074
0.018
0.056
0.061
19
British, 4
0.064
0.061
0.065
0.026
0.064
0.055
0.057
0.064
20
British, 5
0.074
0.072
0.063
0.051
0.099
0.020
0.060
0.118
21
Andronovo culture, Altai
0.053
0.059
0.075
0.023
0.062
0.032
0.040
0.106
0 0
Note: Statistically signi¿cant differences are italicized.
ɚ
b
Fig. 3. Results of the Nonmetrical Multidimensional Scaling of distances (MMD) between the groups. Conventions are the same as in Fig. 2.
0
S.S. Tur / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 147–155
153
on twelve traits of the Hanihara, Ishida, and Dodo’s battery 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
0 0.003
0
0.004
0.005
0
0.017
0.020
0.059
0.010
0.014
0.023
–0.007
0.025
0.005
0.034
0.019
0.005
–0.012
–0.013
0.004
0.012
0.009
–0.008
0.032
0.012
0.025
0.054
0.054
0.043
0.004
0.022
–0.003
0.034
0.008
–0.001
0.000
–0.000
0.037
0
0.021
0.007
0.030
0.048
0.039
0.018
–0.004
0.004
0.032
0
0.036
0.015
0.038
0.049
0.037
0.031
0.003
0.020
0.012
0.011
0
0.027
0.007
0.045
0.034
0.021
0.008
0.012
0.040
0.007
0.007
0.025
0
0.004
0.002
0.038
0.028
0.029
0.047
0.019
0.065
0.014
0.045
0.039
0.021
0 0 0 0
Index. Specifically, southern Caucasoids (Ingushes, Chechens, Adygeys, Abkhasians, Ossets, Armenians, Turks, Bulgarians, Arabs, and the Chalcolithic people of Turkmenia) are opposed to northern and central Europeans (Estonians, Karels, Finns, Lithuanians, Poles, Russians, and Ukrainians). The transgression area between them is small. Local Andronovo groups are variable on the ¿rst vector. The most important differences are between the Altai and the Minusinsk series: the former displays a “southern” score, whereas the latter displays a “northern” score. Andronovo samples from Kazakhstan are intermediate, inside the transgression zone. The Afanasyev group is decisively “northern”. It can be concluded, therefore, that the Andronovo people of the Altai display southern Caucasoid af¿nities and differ from other local Andronovo populations, especially from the Andronovo people of the Minusinsk Basin, as well as from the Afanasyev people.
0
0
While the affinities of the Andronovo series from the Altai with respect to both nonmetric trait batteries are generally similar, certain differences are evident. Speci¿cally, according to Hanihara, Ishida and Dodo’s battery, this group reveals both a southern Caucasoid and a western (European) Caucasoid tendency. According to Kozintsev’s battery, however, it reveals only southern Caucasoid af¿nities. It is not clear if the discrepancy is due to the selection of traits or to the selection of groups (in either case, the “reference systems” are somewhat different). Meanwhile the southern Caucasoid ties of the Andronovo people of Altai are also revealed by the analysis of dental features (Tur, 2009). Craniometrically, however, this group is robust and “Proto-European” (Cro-Magnon-like), being thus opposed to the gracile southern Caucasoids (“Mediterraneans”) (Kozintsev, 2008). Whereas the within-group craniometric analysis of the dimensions and proportions of the braincase and face
154
S.S. Tur / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 147–155
ɚ
b
Fig. 4. Results of the Correspondence Analysis of the frequencies of ¿ve traits (Kozintsev’s battery). a – position of groups on the ¿rst and second vectors: 1 – Russians, 2 – Ukrainians, 3 – Poles, 4 – Latvians, 5 – Lithuanians, 6 – Estonians, 7 – Karels, 8 – Finns, 9 – Ingushes, 10 – Chechens, 11 – Adygeys, 12 – Abkhasians, 13 – Ossets, 14 – Armenians, 15 – Turks, 16 – Bulgarians, 17 – Arabs, 18 – Italians, 19 – Chalcolithic, Turkmenia, 20 – Andronovo, Altai, 21 – Andronovo, Minusinsk Basin, 22 – Andronovo, Kazakhstan, 23 – Afanasyev; b – trait loadings on the ¿rst two vectors.
in this series does reveal a “Mediterranean” component along with the “Proto-European” one (Dremov, 1997; Solodovnikov, 2005), the former is apparently minor as it does not affect the average characteristics of the series. In short, craniometrically, Andronovo people of the Altai were “Proto-Europeans”, whereas both nonmetric cranial ɚnd dental traits reveal their southern Caucasoid af¿nities. Similar discrepancies between measurements and nonmetric traits have been noted in the analysis of admixed groups (Irish, Konigsberg, 2007). One of the reasons may be related to different mechanisms of inheritance. By all appearances, craniometric and cranial nonmetric traits reÀect various stages of the population history. The “Mediterranean” ties of the Andronovo population of the Altai have not been adequately explained so far. It has been suggested that they may stem from the contacts of this population, which was associated with the Fedorovka variety of the Andronovo culture, with the Andronovo people of Kazakhstan, who were associated with the Alakul variety, or with descendants of the Yelunino people (Dremov, 1997; Solodovnikov, 2005). These hypotheses, however, have not been adequately supported either by archaeological data or by the evidence of physical anthropology. New materials will hopefully provide an answer. Conclusions The study of nonmetric cranial traits in the Andronovo series from the Altai according to two methodological approaches has yielded similar results. Both trait batteries have revealed the southern Caucasoid af¿nities of those
people. The result matches that of a dental study and disagrees with that of the craniometric study. One of the possible reasons is admixture. References Dodo J. 1986 Observations on the bony bridging of the jugular foramen in man. Journal of Anatomy, vol. 144: 153–165. Dremov V.A. 1997 Naseleniye Verkhnego Priobya v epokhu bronzy (antropologichesky ocherk). Tomsk: Izd. Tomsk. Gos. Univ. Gromov A.V. 1997 Kranioskopicheskiye osobennosti naseleniya okunevskoi kultury. In Okunevsky sbornik: Kultura. Iskusstvo. Antropologiya. St. Petersburg: Izd. SPb. Gos. Univ., pp. 294–300. Hanihara T., Ishida H. 2001a Os incae: Variation in frequency in major human population groups. Journal of Anatomy, vol. 198: 137–152. Hanihara T., Ishida H. 2001b Frequency variations of discrete cranial traits in major human populations. I. Supernumerary ossicle variations. Journal of Anatomy, vol. 198: 689–706. Hanihara T., Ishida H. 2001c Frequency variations of discrete cranial traits in major human populations. II. Hypostotic variations. Journal of Anatomy, vol. 198: 707–725. Hanihara T., Ishida H. 2001d Frequency variations of discrete cranial traits in major human populations. III. Hyperostotic variations. Journal of Anatomy, vol. 199: 251–272. Hanihara T., Ishida H. 2001e Frequency variations of discrete cranial traits in major human populations. IV. Vessel and nerve related variations. Journal of Anatomy, vol. 199: 273–287.
S.S. Tur / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 147–155
Hanihara T., Ishida H., Dodo Y. 2003 Characterization of biological diversity through analysis of discrete cranial traits. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, vol. 121: 241–251. Harris E.F., Sjovold T. 2004 Calculation of Smith’s mean measure of divergence for intergroup comparisons using nonmetric data. Dental Anthropology, No. 17: 83–93. Hauser G., De Stefano G.F. 1989 Epigenetic Variants of the Human Skull. Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Irish J.D., Konigsberg L. 2007 The ancient inhabitants of Jebel Moya redux: Based on dental morphology. Intern. Journal of Osteoarchaeology, vol. 17: 138–156. Kozintsev A.G. 1980 Diskretnye priznaki na cherepakh epokhi bronzy iz Yuzhnoi Sibiri (v svyazi s problemami metodiki izucheniya kraniologicheskogo polimor¿zma). In Sbornik MAE, vol. 36. Leningrad: Nauka, pp. 75–99. Kozintsev A.G. 1988 Etnicheskaya kranioskopiya: Rasovaya izmenchivost shvov cherepa sovremennogo cheloveka. Leningrad: Nauka. Kozintsev A.G. 1992 Ethnic epigenetics: A new approach. Homo, vol. 43, No. 3: 213–244.
155
Kozintsev A.G. 2008 The “Mediterraneans” of Southern Siberia and Kazakhstan, Indo-European migrations, and the origin of the Scythians: A multivariate craniometric analysis. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, 4 (36): 140–144. Scott G.R., Turner II C.G. 1997 The Anthropology of Modern Human Teeth: Dental Morphology and its Variation in Recent Human Populations. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Solodovnikov K.N. 2005 Antropologicheskiye materialy iz mogilnika andronovskoi kultury Firsovo XIV k probleme formirovaniya naseleniya Verkhnego Priobya v epokhu bronzy. Vestnik arkheologii, antropologii i etnogra¿i (Tyumen), iss. 6: 127–147. Tur S.S. 2009 Odontologicheskaya kharakteristika naseleniya andronovskoi kultury Altaya. Izvestiya Altai. gos. univ., No. 4 (64), vol. 2: 228–235. Zubov A.A., Khaldeyeva N.I. 1993 Odontologiya v antropofenetike. Moscow: Nauka.
Received October 13, 2009.
147
ANTHROPOLOGY
S.S. Tur Altai State University, Lenina 61, Barnaul, 656049, Russia E-mail: [email protected]
A NONMETRIC CRANIAL STUDY OF THE ANDRONOVO SERIES FROM THE ALTAI* Nonmetric traits were studied on more than 80 crania from the Middle Bronze Age (Andronovo) burials in the Altai. Two alternative trait batteries were used: that introduced by T. Hanihara and H. Ishida, and that proposed by A.G. Kozintsev. Groups were compared using two multivariate methods, Correspondence Analysis and C.A.B. Smith’s Mean Measure of Divergence. Both trait batteries yielded similar results, attesting to the Southern Caucasoid (Mediterranean) af¿nities of the Andronovo population of the Altai. This agrees with the results of dental studies, but disagrees with the results of craniometric analysis. One of the possible explanations is admixture. Keywords: Nonmetric cranial traits, Bronze Age, Andronovo culture, Altai.
Introduction Nonmetric (discrete) cranial traits are anatomical variations which are scored as present or absent. They provide an important source of information about the population affinities, both prehistoric and modern. The analysis of these traits may help test the mutually exclusive hypotheses concerning the craniometric status of the Andronovo population of the Altai (Dremov, 1997; Solodovnikov, 2005; Kozintsev, 2008). Materials and methods More than eighty adult crania from the Andronovo burials in the Altai were studied. They come from the *The study was supported by the grant-in-aid “Multidisciplinary Historical Studies of Western and Southern Siberia from the Earliest Stage to the Present Time” under the Federal Financial Support Program “Scienti¿c and Pedagogical Human Resources of Innovative Russia” (Project 2009-1.1-301-072-016).
following burial grounds: Firsovo-14 (44)*, Chekanovsky Log-2, Chekanovsky Log-10 (14), Yeluninsky-2 (5), Gilevo (4), Marinka (4), Berezovsky (4), Podturino (2), Barsuchikha (1), Blizhnie Yelbany -16 (1), Pavlovka (1), Stepnoy Chumysh (1). Two trait batteries were used. One is employed by Japanese craniologists (Hanihara, Ishida, 2001a–ɟ; Hanihara, Ishida, Dodo, 2003), another, by members of the Saint-Petersburg school (Kozintsev, 1988, 1992). Apart from the traits themselves, divergences between the two approaches concern the calculation of frequencies (see below). The groups used by the Japanese and the Russian specialists are different too. The battery used by T. Hanihara, H. Ishida, and Y. Dodo comprises the following characters: metopic suture, supraorbital foramen, accessory infraorbital foramen, transverse zygomatic suture posterior trace, ossicle at lambda, asterionic bone, occipito-mastoid wormians, parietal notch bone, lateral remnants of transverse occipital sutures, ovale-spinosum conÀuence, *The number of crania is indicated in parentheses.
Copyright © 2011, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology & Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2011.06.019
148
S.S. Tur / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 147–155
tympanic dehiscence, precondylar tubercles, paracondylar tubercle, jugular foramen bridging, hypoglossal canal bridging, condylar canal patent, medial palatine canal, accessory mental foramen, mylohyoid bridging, aural exostosis. The differentiation of seventy ethno-territorial populations from various regions of the world based on these traits generally agrees with that based on genetic markers, DNA-polymorphism, and craniometric data (Hanihara, Ishida, Dodo, 2003). One of the twenty characters listed above (the aural exostosis) was excluded, and thus nineteen traits remain. The battery introduced by A.G. Kozintsev (1988, 1992) includes six highly informative characters which either differentiate Caucasoids and Mongoloids or reveal a contrast between northern and southern populations. These characters are as follows: occipital Wormian index (OI), transverse zygomatic suture posterior trace (TZST), supraorbital foramen (SOF), transverse palatine suture index (TPSI), spheno-mazillary suture (SMS), and infraorbital pattern type II (IOP II). Only two of them (TZST and SOF) match those in Hanihara, Ishida, and Dodo’s battery. Traits were scored according to the respective instructions (Dodo, 1986; Hanihara, Ishida, 2001ɚ–ɟ; Hauser, de Stefano, 1989; Kozintsev, 1988, 1992). Both sides of the cranium were inspected. In the case of Hanihara, Ishida, and Dodo’s program, frequencies were calculated “per cranium”, that is, the trait was scored as present regardless of unilateral or bilateral presence (Hanihara, Ishida, Dodo, 2003). Crania where only one side was available for observation were included. This method, which maximizes the number of independent observations, is often used in dental studies in cases where the remains are fragmented (Scott, Turner, 1997: 103– 105). Its use is warranted by the fact that the asymmetry of most nonmetric traits is Àuctuating rather than directed. In the case of Kozintsev’s battery, frequencies were calculated by the “per side” method, that is, the total number of sides was used (Kozintsev, 1980, 1988). Frequencies of the two traits included in both batteries, TZST and SOF, were calculated according to both methods. For most traits, male and female crania were pooled, because sex differences are known to be minor. However, Kozintsev (1988) has demonstrated that the sphenomaxillary junction occurs signi¿cantly more frequently in males than in females. Frequencies of this trait were estimated for each sex separately, and unweighted averages were calculated (Kozintsev, 1988). The following cranial series were employed for comparative analysis. I. Hanihara, Ishida, and Dodo’s battery (nineteentraits): (a) recent groups: populations of western, southern, and northwestern India, Afghanistan, Israel, Eastern
Europe (Poland, Czechia, Bulgaria, and former Yugoslavia), Italy, Finland, Scandinavia (Norway and Sweden), Germany, France, Great Britain, southeastern Siberia (the Amur Basin), as well as Turks (Cyprus), Greeks, Russians (Sebezh), Kazakhs, Japanese, northern Chinese, Mongols, Buriats, Yakuts, Chukchi, Aleuts, Asian Eskimos, and Greenland Eskimos (Hanihara, Ishida, 2001b–ɟ); (b) ancient groups: Baikal Neolithic, Tagar culture, prehistoric Eskimos (Ekven), Iron Age and Medieval Britain (Ibid.). II. Kozintsev’s battery (six-traits): (a) recent groups: Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Karels, Finns, Ingushes, Chechens, Adygeys, Abkhazians, Ossets, Armenians, Turks, Bulgarians, and Italians (Kozintsev, 1988, 1992). (b) ancient groups: Chalcolithic of Turkmenia (Kozintsev, 1988), Afanasyev culture of Gorny Altai and Minusinsk Basin (pooled), Andronovo culture of Minusinsk Basin, and of northern, central, and eastern Kazakhstan, mostly representing the Alakul variety of the Andronovo culture (Gromov, 1997). The position of groups in the multivariate space was assessed using the Correspondence Analysis (part of the STATISTICA software) – a version of the Principal Component analysis adapted for nonmetric traits. In this analysis the matrix of pairwise chi-squared values measuring the association between the traits is used instead of the correlation matrix employed in the Principal Component analysis. To assess the distances between the groups, C.A.B. Smith’s mean measure of divergence (MMD) was used (Harris, Sjovold, 2004), and the distances were processed with the nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDSCAL) method. Negative MMD values were processed as such and not equated to zero (Kozintsev, 1980; Harris, Sjovold, 2004). Results and discussion Frequencies of nonmetric traits in the Andronovo series from the Altai are presented in Table 1. The arrangement of 34 Eurasian cranial series in the multivariate space de¿ned by the nineteen-trait battery in the Correspondence Analysis is shown in Fig. 1. The first vector, accounting for 31.5 % of the total variance, opposes Caucasoid series (marked by positive values) to Mongoloid ones, which are on the negative side. Caucasoids are characterized by generally higher frequencies of the metopic suture, of lateral remnants of the transverse occipital sutures, of ossicles at lambda and asterion, and of precondylar tubercles, whereas Mongoloids are characterized by generally higher frequencies of the transverse zygomatic suture trace, of
S.S. Tur / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 147–155
149
Table 1. Frequencies of nonmetric cranial traits in the Andronovo series from the Altai Nos.
Males x(N)
Traits
Females x(N)
P
Pooled x(n/N)
Hanihara, Ishida, and Dodo’s battery (“per cranium”) 1
Metopic suture
0.0476 (42)
0 (31)
–
0.0430 (4/93)
2
Supraorbital foramen
0.4390 (41)
0.5161 (31)
–
0.4722 (34/72)
3
Accessory infraorbital foramen
0.2286 (35)
0.2400 (25)
–
0.2333 (14/60)
4
Transverse zygomatic suture posterior trace 2 mm
0.1724 (29)
0.1818 (22)
–
0.1765 (9/51)
5
Ossicle at lambda
0.2188 (32)
0.0370 (27)
0.05
0.1356 (8/59)
6
Asterionic bone
0.1935 (31)
0.1786 (28)
–
0.1864 (11/59)
7
Occipito-mastoid wormians
0.0968 (31)
0.0000 (26)
–
0.0526 (3/57)
8
Parietal notch bone
0.1765 (34)
0.2083 (24)
–
0.1897 (11/58)
9
Lateral remnants of the transverse occipital sutures 10 mm
0.0882 (34)
0.0714 (28)
–
0.0806 (5/62)
10
Ovale-spinosum conÀuence
0.1081 (37)
0.0370 (27)
–
0.0781 (5/64)
11
Tympanic dehiscence
0.0000 (40)
0.1563 (32)
0.05
0.0694 (5/72)
12
Precondylar tubercles
0.1333 (30)
0.2083 (24)
–
0.1667 (9/54)
13
Paracondylar tubercle
0.0000 (32)
0.0417 (24)
–
0.0179 (1/56)
14
Jugular foramen bridging
0.1481 (27)
0.3158 (19)
–
0.2174 (10/46)
15
Hypoglossal canal bridging
0.2609 (46)
0.2308 (26)
–
0.2500 (18/72)
16
Condylar canal patent
0.6800 (25)
0.9091 (22)
–
0.7872 (37/47)
17
Medial palatine canal
0.0323 (31)
0.050 (20)
–
0.0392 (2/51)
18
Accessory mental foramen
0.0571 (35)
0.0000 (23)
–
0.0345 (2/58)
19
Mylohyoid bridging
0.1081 (37)
0.1818 (22)
–
0.1356 (8/59)
Kozintsev’s battery (“per side”) 20
Supraorbital foramen
0.2750 (80)
0.3966 (58)
–
0.3261(45/138)
21
Infraorbital pattern type II
0.3404 (47)
0.4242 (33)
–
0.3750 (30/80)
22
Spheno-maxillary suture
0.5233 (86)
0.0926 (54)
0.01
23
Transverse zygomatic suture trace 2 mm
0.1220 (41)
0.1143 (35)
–
0.1184 (9/76)
24
Occipital Wormian index
0.3077 (13)
0.0000 (6)
–
0.2105 (4/19)
25
Transverse palatine suture index
0.6226 (53)
0.4688 (32)
–
0.5647 (48/85)
0.3079
Note: x, trait frequency, N, number of observations, n, number of positive scores; P – signi¿cance level of male versus female differences.
the accessory mental foramen, of tympanic dehiscence, of occipito-mastoid wormians, and of the supraorbital foramen (Table 2). Notably, certain Caucasoid groups, specifically the Tagar people, the Russians, the Indians and the Afghans, deviate in the Mongoloid direction. While a small Mongoloid admixture in the former two groups cannot be ruled out, the Mongoloid tendency displayed
by South Asians requires a different explanation. Dental anthropologists speak not only of Caucasoid and Mongoloid traits but also of western and eastern ones (Zubov, Khaldeyeva, 1993). Increased frequencies of certain eastern traits such as upper medial incisor shoveling and the distal ridge of trigonid on the ¿rst lower molar are typical of southern Caucasoids. Apparently, certain nonmetric cranial traits show a
150
S.S. Tur / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 147–155
Table 2. Results of Correspondence Analysis of 34 groups: loadings of traits of Hanihara, Ishida, and Dodo’s battery on the ¿rst two vectors Traits
Fig. 1. Position of groups on the ¿rst and second vectors derived from the Correspondence Analysis of the frequencies of 19 nonmetric traits (Hanihara and Ishida’s battery). 1 – eastern Indians, 2 – southern Indians, 3 – northwestern Indians, 4 – Afghans, 5 – Tagar, 6 – Kazakhs, 7 – Israelis, 8 – Turks (Cyprus), 9 – Russians, 10 – Greeks, 11 – eastern Europeans, 12 – Italians, 13 – Finns, 14 – Scandinavians, 15 – Germans, 16 – French, 17–21 – British, 22 – Japanese, 23 – northern Chinese, 24 – Mongols, 25 – Buryats, 26 – Amur people, 27 – Baikal Neolithic, 28 – Yakuts, 29 – ancient Eskimos (Ekven), 30 – Asian Eskimos, 31 – Greenland Eskimos, 32 – Chukchi, 33 – Aleuts, 34 – Andronovo, Altai.
I
II
Medial palatine canal
0.14
–0.19
Hypoglossal canal bridging
0.09
0.00
Precondylar tubercles
0.20
–0.15
Paracondylar tubercle
–0.00
–0.17
Jugular foramen bridging
0.06
0.12
Mylohyoid canal bridging
0.13
0.48
–0.27
–0.07
Ovale-spinosum conÀuence
0.07
0.14
Metopic suture
0.56
–0.12
–0.33
–0.12
Lateral remnants of the transverse occipital sutures 10 mm
0.31
–0.04
Condylar canal patent
0.03
–0.03
Supraorbital foramen
–0.17
0.06
0.01
0.23
–0.33
–0.03
Ossicle at lambda
0.27
–0.21
Parietal notch bone
0.04
–0.08
Asterionic bone
0.26
–0.01
–0.22
–0.05
Tympanic dehiscence
Transverse zygomatic suture posterior trace 2 mm
Accessory infraorbital foramen
similar distribution. The ¿rst vector, then, arranges the groups along the east-to-west axis. The second vector, which accounts for 14.2 % of the variance, opposes Chukchi, Aleuts, and Eskimos to northern Chinese, Japanese, Yakuts, Buryats, and Mongols (among the Mongoloids) and Finns, Scandinavians, and the British to populations of India, Greeks, Israelis, and Turks (among the Caucasoids). The differentiation thus appears to be mainly along the north-to-south axis (Fig. 1). In the southern groups, the ossicle at lambda, the medial palatine canal, the paracondylar tubercle, and the precondylar tubercles are generally more frequent, whereas in the northern and central groups, the mylohyoid bridging, and the accessory infraorbital foramen are more frequent on average (Table 2). In this coordinate system, the Andronovo people of the Altai fall within the Caucasoid cluster, between the southern and northern-central Caucasoids. Results of the Principal Component and Correspondence analyses are known to depend not only on the selection of traits, but also on the choice of groups. The more numerous and variable the groups used for comparison, the more details are sacri¿ced in order to represent the general pattern of group relationships. If only Caucasoid groups are compared, the most meaningful vectors are the ¿rst (24.2 % of the variance), arranging the groups mostly along the east-to-west axis, and the third (12.4 % of the variance), differentiating
Accessory mental foramen
Occipito-mastoid wormians
them mainly in the north-to-south direction (Table 3, Fig. 2). The second vector appears to reflect local variations in the geographical distribution of certain traits, such as ovale-spinosum conÀuence, accessory mental foramen, and metopic suture). Southern groups tend to display low (“eastern”) scores on the ¿rst vector and high (“southern”) scores on the third vector, whereas the northern and central European groups reveal the opposite combination (“western” versus “northern” on the ¿rst and third vectors, respectively). The Andronovo series from the Altai, however, shows high (“western”) scores on the ¿rst vector and likewise high (“southern”) scores on the third vector. Such a contradictory combination may testify to admixture. To calculate the MMD distances between the groups (Table 4), twelve characters, which are the most variable within the Caucasoid cluster, were selected (Nos. 1, 4–7, 9–11, 14, 15, 18, and 19).
S.S. Tur / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 147–155
Table 3. Results of Correspondence Analysis of 21 groups: loadings of traits of Hanihara, Ishida, and Dodo’s battery on the ¿rst three vectors Traits Medial palatine canal
I
II
III
0.09
–0.18
0.18
–0.01
–0.03
–0.08
Precondylar tubercles
0.14
–0.08
0.13
Paracondylar tubercle
–0.15
0.03
0.23
Jugular foramen bridging
0.16
–0.08
0.06
Mylohyoid canal bridging
0.33
–0.16
–0.22
–0.33
0.04
–0.14
Ovale-spinosum conÀuence
0.14
0.57
0.06
Metopic suture
0.29
0.28
–0.16
Transverse zygomatic suture posterior trace 2 mm
–0.18
–0.01
0.17
Lateral remnants of the transverse occipital sutures 10 mm
0.09
0.20
–0.05
Condylar canal patent
–0.04
0.01
0.01
Supraorbital foramen
–0.03
–0.02
–0.03
0.25
–0.09
–0.00
Accessory mental foramen
–0.25
–0.43
–0.18
Ossicle at lambda
–0.09
0.13
–0.01
Parietal notch bone
–0.05
0.14
–0.01
0.13
–0.10
0.17
–0.17
–0.02
0.36
Hypoglossal canal bridging
Tympanic dehiscence
Accessory infraorbital foramen
Asterionic bone Occipito-mastoid wormians
The arrangement of groups on the first and third dimensions of the Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling space (Fig.3b) shows a nearly exact match with that of the respective vectors in the Correspondence Analysis based on nineteen traits (Fig. 2). The new ¿rst axis likewise reÀects the east-to-west differentiation, and the new third axis shows a north-to-south differentiation. The variation along the second vector is more difficult to interpret. One of its extremes is taken by groups from Britain and Israel, whereas Finns, Scandinavians, and Turks are on the opposite extreme (Fig. 3a). This vector appears to reÀect mostly local differences in the occurrence of the metopic suture. According to Kozintsev (1988), this trait is generally frequent in regions where the transition from foraging to producing economy occurred early. However, its local peaks, such as that seen in Britain, may be caused by isolation (Hanihara, Ishida, 2001ɫ).
Fig. 2. Position of Caucasoid groups on the ¿rst and third vectors derived from the Correspondence Analysis of the frequencies of nineteen nonmetric traits (Hanihara and Ishida’s battery). 1 – eastern Indians, 2 – southern Indians, 3 – northwestern Indians, 4 – Afghans, 5 – Tagar, 6 – Israelis, 7 – Turks (Cyprus), 8 – Russians, 9 – Greeks, 10 – eastern Europeans, 11 – Italians, 12 – Finns, 13 – Scandinavians, 14 – Germans, 15 – French, 16–20 – British, 21 – Andronovo, Altai. Polygons show the distribution areas of Southern Caucasoids.
The position of the Andronovo series from the Altai is intermediate in that it displays both western traits (on the ¿rst vector) and southern traits (on the third vector) (Fig. 3b). In short, the results of the Correspondence Analysis based on the complete trait battery (nineteen traits) and those of the NMDSCAL analysis of MMD distances based on the abridged trait battery (twelve most variable traits) show a nearly perfect agreement. Among the traits in Kozintsev’s battery, those most informative for the differentiation of the Caucasoid populations are IOP II and TZST; formerly, Kozintsev (1988) combined them in his “Northern Eurasian Index”. This combination differentiates southern groups from northern ones. In our case, it would be more reasonable to speak of southern versus non-southern differentiation, because southern Caucasoids are opposed not only to northern ones, but also to central Europeans. In southern Caucasoids, the frequency of TZST is generally higher and that of IOP II, generally lower than in northern Caucasoids or in central Europeans (Kozintsev, 1988, 1992). The variation of the Occipital Wormian Index in Caucasoids is high and erratic (Ibid.), and therefore this trait was excluded from the analysis. The results of the Correspondence Analysis of frequencies of the remaining ¿ve traits in ancient and recent Caucasoids (Fig. 4) shows that the ¿rst vector, which accounts for 33.5 % of the total variance, shows a high correlation with the Northern Eurasian
151
152
S.S. Tur / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 147–155
Table 4. Distances (MMD) between the groups based Nos.
Groups
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
Eastern Indians
0
2
Southern Indians
–0.011
3
Northwestern Indians
–0.005
–0.003
4
Afghans
0.004
0.004
0.017
0
5
Tagar culture
0.022
0.030
0.041
0.016
0
6
Israelis
0.023
0.029
0.024
0.031
0.081
0
7
Turks (Cyprus)
0.050
0.041
0.070
0.017
0.029
0.039
0
8
Russians (Sebezh)
0.031
0.024
0.037
0.035
0.028
0.107
0.063
9
Greeks
0.014
0.010
0.019
0.003
0.023
0.007
–0.013
0.050
10
Eastern Europeans
0.033
0.033
0.041
–0.004
0.058
0.006
0.022
0.071
11
Italians
0.047
0.037
0.056
0.009
0.065
0.020
0.000
0.071
12
Finns
0.049
0.050
0.056
0.020
0.050
0.034
0.030
0.083
13
Scandinavians
0.050
0.047
0.062
0.019
0.035
0.024
–0.012
0.080
14
Germans
0.073
0.064
0.069
0.034
0.071
0.044
0.023
0.086
15
French
0.025
0.019
0.025
–0.006
0.034
0.018
0.004
0.031
16
British, 1
0.054
0.049
0.038
0.008
0.078
0.028
0.066
0.066
17
British, 2
0.039
0.036
0.047
–0.014
0.043
0.042
0.033
0.081
18
British, 3
0.050
0.048
0.036
0.035
0.074
0.018
0.056
0.061
19
British, 4
0.064
0.061
0.065
0.026
0.064
0.055
0.057
0.064
20
British, 5
0.074
0.072
0.063
0.051
0.099
0.020
0.060
0.118
21
Andronovo culture, Altai
0.053
0.059
0.075
0.023
0.062
0.032
0.040
0.106
0 0
Note: Statistically signi¿cant differences are italicized.
ɚ
b
Fig. 3. Results of the Nonmetrical Multidimensional Scaling of distances (MMD) between the groups. Conventions are the same as in Fig. 2.
0
S.S. Tur / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 147–155
153
on twelve traits of the Hanihara, Ishida, and Dodo’s battery 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
0 0.003
0
0.004
0.005
0
0.017
0.020
0.059
0.010
0.014
0.023
–0.007
0.025
0.005
0.034
0.019
0.005
–0.012
–0.013
0.004
0.012
0.009
–0.008
0.032
0.012
0.025
0.054
0.054
0.043
0.004
0.022
–0.003
0.034
0.008
–0.001
0.000
–0.000
0.037
0
0.021
0.007
0.030
0.048
0.039
0.018
–0.004
0.004
0.032
0
0.036
0.015
0.038
0.049
0.037
0.031
0.003
0.020
0.012
0.011
0
0.027
0.007
0.045
0.034
0.021
0.008
0.012
0.040
0.007
0.007
0.025
0
0.004
0.002
0.038
0.028
0.029
0.047
0.019
0.065
0.014
0.045
0.039
0.021
0 0 0 0
Index. Specifically, southern Caucasoids (Ingushes, Chechens, Adygeys, Abkhasians, Ossets, Armenians, Turks, Bulgarians, Arabs, and the Chalcolithic people of Turkmenia) are opposed to northern and central Europeans (Estonians, Karels, Finns, Lithuanians, Poles, Russians, and Ukrainians). The transgression area between them is small. Local Andronovo groups are variable on the ¿rst vector. The most important differences are between the Altai and the Minusinsk series: the former displays a “southern” score, whereas the latter displays a “northern” score. Andronovo samples from Kazakhstan are intermediate, inside the transgression zone. The Afanasyev group is decisively “northern”. It can be concluded, therefore, that the Andronovo people of the Altai display southern Caucasoid af¿nities and differ from other local Andronovo populations, especially from the Andronovo people of the Minusinsk Basin, as well as from the Afanasyev people.
0
0
While the affinities of the Andronovo series from the Altai with respect to both nonmetric trait batteries are generally similar, certain differences are evident. Speci¿cally, according to Hanihara, Ishida and Dodo’s battery, this group reveals both a southern Caucasoid and a western (European) Caucasoid tendency. According to Kozintsev’s battery, however, it reveals only southern Caucasoid af¿nities. It is not clear if the discrepancy is due to the selection of traits or to the selection of groups (in either case, the “reference systems” are somewhat different). Meanwhile the southern Caucasoid ties of the Andronovo people of Altai are also revealed by the analysis of dental features (Tur, 2009). Craniometrically, however, this group is robust and “Proto-European” (Cro-Magnon-like), being thus opposed to the gracile southern Caucasoids (“Mediterraneans”) (Kozintsev, 2008). Whereas the within-group craniometric analysis of the dimensions and proportions of the braincase and face
154
S.S. Tur / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 147–155
ɚ
b
Fig. 4. Results of the Correspondence Analysis of the frequencies of ¿ve traits (Kozintsev’s battery). a – position of groups on the ¿rst and second vectors: 1 – Russians, 2 – Ukrainians, 3 – Poles, 4 – Latvians, 5 – Lithuanians, 6 – Estonians, 7 – Karels, 8 – Finns, 9 – Ingushes, 10 – Chechens, 11 – Adygeys, 12 – Abkhasians, 13 – Ossets, 14 – Armenians, 15 – Turks, 16 – Bulgarians, 17 – Arabs, 18 – Italians, 19 – Chalcolithic, Turkmenia, 20 – Andronovo, Altai, 21 – Andronovo, Minusinsk Basin, 22 – Andronovo, Kazakhstan, 23 – Afanasyev; b – trait loadings on the ¿rst two vectors.
in this series does reveal a “Mediterranean” component along with the “Proto-European” one (Dremov, 1997; Solodovnikov, 2005), the former is apparently minor as it does not affect the average characteristics of the series. In short, craniometrically, Andronovo people of the Altai were “Proto-Europeans”, whereas both nonmetric cranial ɚnd dental traits reveal their southern Caucasoid af¿nities. Similar discrepancies between measurements and nonmetric traits have been noted in the analysis of admixed groups (Irish, Konigsberg, 2007). One of the reasons may be related to different mechanisms of inheritance. By all appearances, craniometric and cranial nonmetric traits reÀect various stages of the population history. The “Mediterranean” ties of the Andronovo population of the Altai have not been adequately explained so far. It has been suggested that they may stem from the contacts of this population, which was associated with the Fedorovka variety of the Andronovo culture, with the Andronovo people of Kazakhstan, who were associated with the Alakul variety, or with descendants of the Yelunino people (Dremov, 1997; Solodovnikov, 2005). These hypotheses, however, have not been adequately supported either by archaeological data or by the evidence of physical anthropology. New materials will hopefully provide an answer. Conclusions The study of nonmetric cranial traits in the Andronovo series from the Altai according to two methodological approaches has yielded similar results. Both trait batteries have revealed the southern Caucasoid af¿nities of those
people. The result matches that of a dental study and disagrees with that of the craniometric study. One of the possible reasons is admixture. References Dodo J. 1986 Observations on the bony bridging of the jugular foramen in man. Journal of Anatomy, vol. 144: 153–165. Dremov V.A. 1997 Naseleniye Verkhnego Priobya v epokhu bronzy (antropologichesky ocherk). Tomsk: Izd. Tomsk. Gos. Univ. Gromov A.V. 1997 Kranioskopicheskiye osobennosti naseleniya okunevskoi kultury. In Okunevsky sbornik: Kultura. Iskusstvo. Antropologiya. St. Petersburg: Izd. SPb. Gos. Univ., pp. 294–300. Hanihara T., Ishida H. 2001a Os incae: Variation in frequency in major human population groups. Journal of Anatomy, vol. 198: 137–152. Hanihara T., Ishida H. 2001b Frequency variations of discrete cranial traits in major human populations. I. Supernumerary ossicle variations. Journal of Anatomy, vol. 198: 689–706. Hanihara T., Ishida H. 2001c Frequency variations of discrete cranial traits in major human populations. II. Hypostotic variations. Journal of Anatomy, vol. 198: 707–725. Hanihara T., Ishida H. 2001d Frequency variations of discrete cranial traits in major human populations. III. Hyperostotic variations. Journal of Anatomy, vol. 199: 251–272. Hanihara T., Ishida H. 2001e Frequency variations of discrete cranial traits in major human populations. IV. Vessel and nerve related variations. Journal of Anatomy, vol. 199: 273–287.
S.S. Tur / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 39/1 (2011) 147–155
Hanihara T., Ishida H., Dodo Y. 2003 Characterization of biological diversity through analysis of discrete cranial traits. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, vol. 121: 241–251. Harris E.F., Sjovold T. 2004 Calculation of Smith’s mean measure of divergence for intergroup comparisons using nonmetric data. Dental Anthropology, No. 17: 83–93. Hauser G., De Stefano G.F. 1989 Epigenetic Variants of the Human Skull. Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Irish J.D., Konigsberg L. 2007 The ancient inhabitants of Jebel Moya redux: Based on dental morphology. Intern. Journal of Osteoarchaeology, vol. 17: 138–156. Kozintsev A.G. 1980 Diskretnye priznaki na cherepakh epokhi bronzy iz Yuzhnoi Sibiri (v svyazi s problemami metodiki izucheniya kraniologicheskogo polimor¿zma). In Sbornik MAE, vol. 36. Leningrad: Nauka, pp. 75–99. Kozintsev A.G. 1988 Etnicheskaya kranioskopiya: Rasovaya izmenchivost shvov cherepa sovremennogo cheloveka. Leningrad: Nauka. Kozintsev A.G. 1992 Ethnic epigenetics: A new approach. Homo, vol. 43, No. 3: 213–244.
155
Kozintsev A.G. 2008 The “Mediterraneans” of Southern Siberia and Kazakhstan, Indo-European migrations, and the origin of the Scythians: A multivariate craniometric analysis. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, 4 (36): 140–144. Scott G.R., Turner II C.G. 1997 The Anthropology of Modern Human Teeth: Dental Morphology and its Variation in Recent Human Populations. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Solodovnikov K.N. 2005 Antropologicheskiye materialy iz mogilnika andronovskoi kultury Firsovo XIV k probleme formirovaniya naseleniya Verkhnego Priobya v epokhu bronzy. Vestnik arkheologii, antropologii i etnogra¿i (Tyumen), iss. 6: 127–147. Tur S.S. 2009 Odontologicheskaya kharakteristika naseleniya andronovskoi kultury Altaya. Izvestiya Altai. gos. univ., No. 4 (64), vol. 2: 228–235. Zubov A.A., Khaldeyeva N.I. 1993 Odontologiya v antropofenetike. Moscow: Nauka.
Received October 13, 2009.