- Email: [email protected]
Early Metal Age crania from Bolshoy Oleniy Island, Barents Sea
ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY OF EURASIA Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 145–154 E-mail: [email protected]
ANTHROPOLOGY
145
V.G. Moiseyev and V.I. Khartanovich Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya Nab. 3, St. Petersburg 199034, Russia E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]
EARLY METAL AGE CRANIA FROM BOLSHOY OLENIY ISLAND, BARENTS SEA
A new cranial series from the Early Metal Age burial ground on Bolshoy Oleniy (Great Reindeer) Island in Kola Bay of the Barents Sea is described. So far, this is the only series from the Arctic regions of Europe and the Urals. A multivariate analysis of cranial measurements in 27 prehistoric populations of Northern Eurasia has revealed the speci¿city of this group. Its most distinct af¿nities are with populations of Western Siberia and the Altai dating to various periods from the Neolithic to the Early Iron Age. People buried on Bolshoy Oleniy Island apparently belonged to a group of populations characterized by the retention of an ancient trait combination distinguishing it both from Mongoloids of Eastern Siberia and Eastern Central Asia, and from Caucasoids. This group of populations was apparently distributed across most of the tundra zone of Northern Europe and of the taiga areas of the Urals and northwestern Siberia. Keywords: Craniometry, population history, Northern Eurasia, Barents Sea, Kola Bay, Early Metal Age, Uralic-speaking peoples.
Introduction The ancient cemetery on Bolshoy Oleniy (Great Reindeer) Island in Kola Bay is a key Early Metal Age site in Northern Eurasia. Its importance stems from the fact that objects composed of organic substances (artifacts made from bone and antler, wooden structures, and human remains) are exceptionally well preserved. Bolshoy Oleniy Island is situated in Kola Bay of the Barents Sea, 6 km south of the bay mouth, and is separated from the shore by Yekaterininsky Island and two straits (Fig. 1). The island rests on a gneiss and granite platform. In some places, deposits of pebble and sand occur. Small sandy deposits (approximately 1000 sq. m) are located in the southern part of the island, in a basin between two
elevations consisting of gneiss and granite. The burial ground is associated with these deposits. Archaeological surveys of the area began in 1925, when G.D. Richter and S.F. Yegorov discovered a disturbed burial (Schmidt, 1930). The ¿rst excavations were conducted in 1928 by the USSR Academy of Science Kola Expedition headed by A.V. Schmidt. Eleven burials were excavated, and various stone and bone artifacts were found in the graves. The ¿ndings were described by A.V. Schmidt and other team members (Kolskiy sbornik, 1930), and the artifacts were handed to the Russian Museum Ethnographic Department. In 1934, during the construction of forti¿cations on the island, a sandpit was made on the burial ground. The Army Corps Engineer A.V. Tsiplenkov, who took part
Copyright © 2012, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2012.05.018
146
V.G. Moiseyev and V.I. Khartanovich / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 145–154
Fig. 1. Map showing the location of Bolshoy Oleniy Island in Kola Bay of the Barents Sea.
in these works, collected artifacts and human remains from some 25 burials. Four ¿nds were handed over to the USSR Academy of Sciences, and the fate of the remaining collection is unknown. In 1947–1948, the Kola Expedition from the Leningrad Department of the Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences (presently the Institute for the History of Material Culture RAS) headed by N.N. Gurina continued excavations of the cemetery. The excavation area reached 56 sq. m, and ten burials were excavated (Gurina, 1953). Some materials were handed over to the Institute of Archaeology in Leningrad and some to the Murmansk Regional Museum. In 1998, archaeological studies of the site were resumed by the Institute for the History of Material Culture RAS under the direction of V.Y. Shumkin. Surveys conducted in 1998 and 1999 demonstrated that the burial ground was probably not excavated completely, whereas the remaining part was destroyed by erosion. From 2001–2004, some 120 sq. m were excavated. Nine burials were discovered – ¿ve single and four collective. All were accompanied by abundant burial goods. The collective burials contained remains of two, four, ¿ve, and six individuals including children, and bones of a fetus. The total number of well preserved skeletons of adults and children is 19, and more than 250 artifacts have been unearthed (Shumkin, Murashkin, 2003; Murashkin, Shumkin, 2004; Shumkin et al., 2005; Shumkin et al., 2006, 2007). Previous studies The ¿rst description of the scarce human remains from Bolshoy Oleniy, excavated by A.V. Schmidt, was given by
S.D. Sinitsyn (1930), who analyzed certain skeletal traits in seven adult individuals (three males and four females). Only four crania were available (one male and three female). Based on the analysis of a few measurements, mostly those of the braincase, Sinitsyn suggested that all the skeletons were those of members of the same tribe, and that “in terms of head shape, people of Bolshoy Oleniy were quite similar to modern Lapps of the same area” (Ibid.: 182). However, Sinitsyn stressed that “the issue of actual af¿nities between those peoples, vastly separated in time, requires a thorough investigation, and a larger sample must be collected” (Ibid.: 183). A monographic study of crania from Bolshoy Oleniy, using a large trait battery nearly identical to that employed by Russian craniologists at present, and the comparison of this series with ancient and recent Eurasian groups known at that time was undertaken by V.P. Yakmov (1953). His sample consisted of specimens unearthed both by Schmidt and by Gurina. Yakimov concluded that “certain cranial traits link those people with members of the Mongoloid race” (Ibid.: 459). These traits include a broad face, a large Flower index, rather large horizontal facial pro¿le angles, and moderately protruding nasal bones. At the same time Yakimov noted that in terms of other traits such as a rather low face (both absolutely and relatively), low orbits, relatively wide frontal bone, etc., crania from Bolshoy Oleniy either fall in the Caucasoid range or are intermediate between Mongoloids and Caucasoids. The comparison with recent series revealed that crania from Bolshoy Oleniy differed from those of the Sami while resembling those of the Nenets and Ob Ugrians (Khanty and Mansi). Taken together, the observed trait combination was specific and had no exact matches among modern cranial series. With regard to ancient series, however, Yakimov noted a marked resemblance between crania from Bolshoy Oleniy and those from the Lugovskoy burial ground of the Ananyino culture in Tatarstan. Yakimov cautiously interpreted this resemblance as an argument in favor of the idea that the Ananyino people had migrated from the Volga basin to the west and northwest. The idea was ¿rst proposed by M.E. Foss (1948) on the basis of archaeological facts. She stressed, however, that the ¿nal solution hinged upon skeletal evidence. With regard to the origin of people buried at the Lugovskoy and Bolshoy Oleniy cemeteries, Yakimov discussed two possibilities. One was that these populations had resulted from a mixture of Caucasoids and Mongoloids. Another possibility was that they represented a distinct Proto-Mongoloid group which diverged from the Mongoloid stem rather early (Yakimov, 1953: 467). Yakimov’s general conclusion was that the question could not be resolved because of the small sample size, and new skeletal data was needed to arrive at a more de¿nite result.
V.G. Moiseyev and V.I. Khartanovich / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 145–154
After Yakimov’s publication the series from Bolshoy Oleniy was very rarely used even for comparative purposes. In our view, the assessment of its af¿nities with ancient and modern groups of Northern Eurasia can provide a clue to the solution of certain problems of the population history of the region. Skeletal remains As a result of excavations conducted by the Kola Archaeological Expedition from the Institute for the History of Material Culture RAS on Bolshoy Oleniy Island in 2001–2004, 16 human skeletons were collected including 13 adult ones. Clearly, the sample is still far from representative; also, the burial ground has apparently not been excavated completely. Nonetheless the new materials provide a better idea of the af¿nities of the middle to the late 2nd millennium BC inhabitants of the Kola Peninsula. The absolute dates of human bones from V.Y. Shumkin’s excavations are as follows. Burial 12, fragment of rib – 3237 ± 32 BP; calibrated dates, 1525– 1440 BC (68.2 %) and 1610–1420 BC (95.4 %) BC. Burial 13, patella – 3195 ± 39 BP; calibrated dates, 1500– 1430 BC (68.2 %) and 1530–1390 BC (95.4 %) (ORAU, Oxford University Radiocarbon Unit). The present study is based on human remains both from old excavations (Yakimov, 1953) and from new ones (2001–2004). All skeletons are housed at Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography (Kunstkamera) RAS in St. Petersburg, collections Nos. 4952 (A.V. Schmidt’s excavations), 5715 (N.N. Gurina’s excavations), and 7265 (V.Y. Shumkin’s excavations). Remains from burial 13, excavated in 2002, were handed over to the Historical Museum in Polarnyi, Murmansk Oblast. The postcranial bones were studied by S.B. Borutskaya (2005, 2006) and S.V. Vasiliyev (Vasiliyev, Borutskaya, 2006a, b). Due to the addition of newly excavated skeletons, sex dimorphism in the pooled sample is higher than the previous estimates suggested. Based on the morphology of both crania and postcrania, skeletons Nos. 5715-1 and 5715-3, which V.P. Yakimov had considered female, were diagnosed as male. In addition to Yakimov’s measurements, those of a separate frontal bone with nasalia from Gurina’s excavations (No. 5715-2) were taken. All measurements follow the standard technique employed by Russian craniologists. General characteristics Because the crania are very well preserved, no substantial restoration was required even with regard to the tips of
the nasal bones. Such an unusual preservation may be due to the presence of naturally crushed marine shells in the ground. The crania are relatively small and moderately robust; some are gracile. The enthesial development is mostly weak. Combinations of sexually dimorphic markers are rather unusual. Characteristics of the pooled series have somewhat changed compared to those published previously (Table 1). Cranial breadth has decreased and so has the cranial index; cranial height, measured both from basion and from porions has decreased too. Absolute frontal breadth has decreased, but relative to the braincase breadth it has become larger. Basion–prosthion length and the upper facial index have increased. The alveolar prognathism has become more marked. The bizygomatic breadth has remained as large, and has increased relative to cranial breadth. The vertical dimensions of the upper face, orbit, and nose have decreased. Facial Àatness has become more pronounced in terms of both angles, nasomalar and zygo-maxillary. The nasal bridge, judging by the dacryal and symotic indices, has become Àatter. The nasal protrusion angle has remained the same in the male series and has become somewhat larger in the female series. Overall, the group is characterized by a very low and rather small braincase, and meso-brachycrany. The frontal bone is wide. The face is rather low, very wide, Àattened at both levels, mesognathic, with a large Flower index, and a tendency to alveolar prognathism. The orbits and the pyriform aperture are low. Nasal protrusion is moderate, and the nasal bridge is Àat. Neither the appearance of separate crania nor the standard deviations indicate heterogeneity (Table 1). The peculiarities of Bolshoy Oleniy Island series, distinguishing it from other groups, both ancient and modern, and described by V.P. Yakimov, are even more salient in the pooled sample. They include an unusual combination of Mongoloid traits with those which none of the known Mongoloid groups display. The former includes horizontal facial Àatness, broad mesognathic face, a moderate projection of nasal bones and a Àat nasal bridge. These traits contrast with a low face, low orbits, and a broad forehead. The position of series from Bolshoy Oleniy Island among the ancient groups of Northern Eurasia Given the unusual trait combination displayed by the group, its af¿nities with other ancient groups of Northern Eurasia must be examined. For that purpose, the canonical variate analysis was used. Twenty-six ancient cranial series, speci¿cally those approaching Bolshoy
147
148
V.G. Moiseyev and V.I. Khartanovich / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 145–154
Table 1. Average measurements and indices of crania from Bolshoy Oleniy Island Males
Traits
From Schmidt’s and Gurina’s excavations (Yakimov, 1953)
Females
From Schmidt’s, Gurina’s and Shumkin’s excavations (pooled)
From Schmidt’s and Gurina’s excavations (Yakimov, 1953)
From Schmidt’s, Gurina’s and Shumkin’s excavations (pooled)
n
X
n
X
sd
n
X
n
X
sd
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1. Cranial length
4
181.3
12
181.2
4.0
4
180.5
8
177.1
4.6
8. Cranial breadth
4
150.0
12
146.2
3.7
4
143.3
8
140.8
4.4
8 : 1. Cranial index
4
82.4
12
80.7
2.2
4
79.4
8
79.3
3.4
17. Cranial height
4
132.2
12
128.2
4.6
4
126.3
8
123.9
2.4
17 : 1. Height-length index
4
73.0
12
70.8
2.7
4
70.0
8
70.0
1.7
17 : 8. Height-breadth index
4
79.7
12
87.7
3.5
4
80.0
8
88.3
3.8
20. Auricular height
4
119.5
12
114.4
5.1
4
114.5
7
109.0
1.9
5. Cranial base length
4
101.3
12
101.2
4.1
4
96.3
8
95.1
5.4
9. Minimal frontal breadth
4
101.3
13
100.5
3.5
4
97.0
9
92.4
4.5
9 : 8. Transverse frontoparietal index
4
67.5
12
68.8
3.3
4
67.8
8
65.9
4.0
sub. 9. Transverse frontal subtense
–
–
12
19.2
2.4
–
–
9
19.7
2.8
TFA. Transverse frontal angle
–
–
12
137.9
4.3
–
–
8
134.9
2.9
32. Frontal pro¿le angle (nasion)
4
76.5
11
81.0
4.2
4
81.3
6
84.0
5.2
G–m. Frontal pro¿le angle (glabella)
4
69.0
11
72.5
4.9
4
73.3
6
75.8
5.6
40. Facial base length
4
101.0
11
103.0
6.3
4
96.8
6
94.7
5.8
40 : 5. Flower’s index
6
99.4
11
102.1
3.4
–
–
6
99.4
4.8
72. Total facial angle
4
84.5
11
84.2
3.1
4
85.3
5
84.6
3.0
73. Midfacial angle
4
86.3
11
87.7
2.5
4
88.8
5
88.0
3.3
74. Alveolar angle
4
74.8
11
73.3
6.1
4
73.5
5
74.0
2.4
43. Upper facial height
4
111.5
11
108.4
5.0
4
103.7
7
100.4
3.7
45. Bizygomatic breadth
4
145.8
12
143.6
4.7
4
134.8
7
130.6
2.6
45 : 8. Horizontal facio-cerebral index
4
97.2
12
98.3
4.1
4
94.1
7
93.3
3.4
46. Midfacial breadth
4
102.3
11
102.6
4.2
4
97.7
5
94.8
4.4
48. Upper facial height
4
71.5
12
70.2
3.8
4
70.5
7
63.9
4.5
48 : 45. Upper facial index
4
49.0
11
49.2
3.4
4
52.3
6
48.1
2.9
48 : 17. Vertical facio-cerebral index
4
54.0
11
55.1
2.4
4
55.9
7
51.6
3.6
43(1). Biorbital breadth
4
101.3
12
101.2
4.2
3
99.0
8
96.0
2.7
sub.n/43(1). Nasion subtense above biorbital breadth
4
16.3
12
15.0
1.9
3
14.3
8
14.0
1.9
77. Naso-malar angle
4
144.5
12
147.1
3.5
4
147.7
7
147.1
3.9
zm’–zm’. Zygo-maxillary breadth
4
101.8
11
100.7
5.3
3
95.0
4
94.5
4.4
1
V.G. Moiseyev and V.I. Khartanovich / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 145–154
149
Table 1 (end) 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
sub.ss/zm’–zm’. Subspinale subtense above zygo-maxillary breadth
4
23.0
11
19.9
2.4
3
19.7
4
20.1
2.3
zm’. Zygo-maxillary angle
4
132.5
11
137.1
4.2
3
135.0
4
134.0
5.6
51. Orbital breadth (mf)
4
44.8
11
43.1
3.7
4
43.5
5
41.8
1.5
52. Orbital height
4
36.3
11
33.8
2.1
4
33.5
5
33.4
1.1
52 : 51. Orbital index (mf)
4
81.5
11
79.0
7.9
4
77.1
5
80.0
4.5
54. Nasal breadth
4
25.0
12
25.0
1.2
4
25.3
6
23.7
0.8
55. Nasal height
4
55.3
12
52.2
2.5
4
52.0
5
47.0
3.7
54 : 55. Nasal index
4
45.3
12
48.0
3.1
4
48.6
5
50.5
4.6
SC. Simotic chord
4
6.1
13
6.2
1.8
4
7.3
9
5.6
1.1
SS. Simotic subtense
4
3.9
13
3.4
0.9
4
3.4
9
2.9
0.6
SS : SC. Simotic index
4
68.5
13
59.0
21.4
4
47.0
9
52.8
11.4
DC. Dacryal chord
2
21.8
11
21.7
1.6
1
19.4
6
21.3
2.2
DS. Dacryal subtense
2
12.0
11
10.6
0.9
1
8.8
6
9.3
1.1
DS : DC. Dacryal index
2
55.3
11
48.8
4.5
1
45.4
6
43.8
5.2
75. Nasal inclination angle to Frankfurt plane
4
66.0
9
63.7
6.3
4
71.0
4
66.3
2.2
75(1). Nasal protrusion angle
4
18.5
10
18.8
4.0
4
14.3
4
18.0
2.3
Oleniy Island chronologically, were used. They consist of mostly well preserved crania, and the minimal sample size is ¿ve (Table 2). The ¿rst two canonical variates (CVs) jointly account for more than two thirds of the total variation (Table 3). CV I (one half of the variance) differentiates groups in the Caucasoid to Mongoloid direction. Traits with the highest loadings on this vector are naso-malar and zygomaxillary angles, nasal protrusion angle, simotic index, and minimal frontal height; facial and orbital height, facial breadth, and cranial height are somewhat less important. Judging from the signs of the loadings, groups displaying a narrow frontal bone, a low braincase, a broad and high face, and high orbits also exhibit facial Àattening and a smaller nasal protrusion angle. Most ancient European groups display an opposite trait combination, i.e. they combine a sharply pro¿led face, a sharply protruding nose, and a convex nasal bridge with a broad forehead. The two exceptions are the series from the Ananyino burial ground at Lugovskoy in Tataria and the series from Bolshoy Oleniy Island. Both show a markedly “eastern” tendency. Southern Siberian groups spanning several periods from the Chalcolithic to the Early Iron Age –
Afanasyevo, Andronovo, and Tagar – are markedly Caucasoid. This agrees with the consensus view concerning early Caucasoid migrations from Europe to Southern Siberia, beginning at least from the Chalcolithic (Alekseyev, Gokhman, 1984a). While the difference between these groups and those from Europe are minor, the Andronovo and Tagar series are on the “eastern” periphery of the Caucasoid range of CV I values, apparently pointing to a small Mongoloid admixture. This is even more true of the Karasuk people, who deviate in the Mongoloid direction only slightly less than do the Early Iron Age groups of Western Siberia (Fig. 2). On the “eastern” Àank of CV I are two Neolithic groups – from Boisman-2 in southeastern Siberia (Primorye) and from the Kitoy burial grounds east of Lake Baikal. Both exhibit extremely Àat faces and noses and narrow foreheads. The Mongoloid trait combination is less expressed in most Neolithic groups of the CisBaikal area and even less so in Early Iron Age groups of Western Siberia and in series from Lugovskoy and Bolshoy Oleniy Island. Notably, the CV I score is higher in the latter series than in the Lugovskoy group, almost matching that in the Serovo and Glazkovo Neolithic
150
V.G. Moiseyev and V.I. Khartanovich / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 145–154
Table 2. Ancient cranial series from Northern Eurasia used in comparative analysis Nos.
Series
Source
Table 3. Correlation coef¿cients between the traits and the three ¿rst canonical variates in the analysis of 27 cranial series from Northern Eurasia
Europe 1
Vovnigi
Gokhman, 1966
2
Pit Grave culture, Ukraine
Alekseyev, Gokhman, 1984a
3
Same, Volga
4
Traits coded after Martin and others
CV I
CV II
CV III
1
–0.10
0.49
–0.58
Same
8
0.37
–0.42
–0.21
Catacomb culture, Ukraine
»
17
–0.54
0.54
0.34
5
Same, Volga
»
9
–0.81
–0.28
–0.20
6
Timber Grave culture, Ukraine
»
45
0.58
–0.00
0.06
48
0.69
0.33
0.15
7
Same, Volga
»
55
0.48
0.42
–0.08
8
Ananyino culture (Lugovskoy)
54
0.14
0.44
–0.23
51
–0.44
–0.69
0.23
52
0.66
–0.12
0.23
77
0.93
0.15
–0.05
Zm
0.96
–0.15
–0.02
SS : SC
–0.83
–0.40
–0.28
75 (1)
–0.92
0.22
0.07
Percent of variance
50.00
17.60
7.30
Alekseyev, 1969 Asia
9
Ust-Isha
Dremov, 1980
10
Itkul
Same
11
Afanasyevo
Alekseyev, Gokhman, 1984a
12
Andronovo
Dremov, 1990
13
Okunev
Debetz, 1980; Gromov, 1997
14
Karasuk
Rykushina, 1980; Gromov, 1995
15
Tagar
Kozintsev, 1977; Alekseyev, Gokhman, 1984a
16
Kamen-2
Rykun, 2001
17
Bystrovka-1–3
Shpakova, 2001
18
Sargat
Bagashev, 2000
19
Serovo, Angara
Levin, 1956; Mamonova, 1973
20
Same, Lena
Same
21
Glazkovo, Lena
»
22
Same, Angara
»
23
Kitoy, Lena
»
24
Same, Angara
»
25
Same, Fofanovo
Gerasimova, 1992
26
Boisman-2
Popov, Chikisheva, Shpakova, 1997
populations, as well as in Neolithic ones from Ust-Isha and Itkul in the northern Altai. The intermediacy of Bolshoy Oleniy Island group on the ¿rst canonical axis may be due to various factors.
ɚ b
Fig. 2. The position of ancient cranial series from Northern Eurasia on the ¿rst two canonical vectors. a – European groups; b – Asian groups. The series are numbered as in Table 2.
It may evidence both admixture and neutrality, e.g. retention of plesiomorphic traits. To decide which of the factors should be favored, other vectors of variation must be addressed. The most important of these is CV II,
V.G. Moiseyev and V.I. Khartanovich / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 145–154
accounting for 18 % of the variance. Its primary function is to separate populations of Western Siberia and the Altai from those of Eastern Siberia. Western Siberian Early Iron Age series and Neolithic ones from the Altai display negative scores of CV II, whereas two other Neolithic groups – from the Kitoy cemeteries on the Lena and from Boisman-2 – are on the opposite extreme. Most Neolithic populations of the Cis-Baikal region are intermediate, and the same applies to the Lugovskoy population. CV II scores in Bolshoy Oleniy Island group are close to those shown by people of Western Siberia and the Altai (Fig. 2). Discussion Judging by the position of group on the ¿rst two CVs, at least three clusters of ancient populations can be separated in Eastern Europe and Siberia. The first comprises Caucasoid groups of Europe and Southern Siberia. The second consists of Mongoloid populations of Siberia; the Mongoloid trait combination is the most pronounced in areas east of Lake Baikal and in southeastern Siberia (Primorye). The third cluster includes Early Iron Age groups of Western Siberia, Neolithic groups of the Altai, and Okunev people of Southern Siberia. Populations making up the third cluster are quite speci¿c rather than intermediate. It is to this cluster that people buried on Bolshoy Oleniy Island are the closest. Whereas the ¿rst two population clusters are readily interpretable in terms of the traditional west-to-east pattern of differentiation, the third cluster presents a dif¿cult problem. Of course, marked similarities between groups widely separated in space such as Okunev, Sargat, Ust-Isha and Itkul, and Bolshoy Oleniy Island should not be taken to imply direct migrations from southwestern Siberia to circumpolar Eastern Europe or vice versa. What then could account for these similarities? In our view, the results of the multivariate comparison, paradoxical as they appear, are not incidental. Rather than indicating direct affinities, membership of the third population cluster may reflect the retention of plesiomorphic cranial traits that were characteristic of an early stage of population differentiation in Eurasia. At least two supposedly plesiomorphic trait combinations peculiar to certain ancient populations of Siberia have been described. One characterizes the Okunev people of Southern Siberia (Kozintsev, Gromov, Moiseyev, 1999; Kozintsev, 2004; Gromov, 1995), whose direct descendents are unknown. A moderate degree of cranial similarity, both metric and nonmetric, links Okunev people with certain recent inhabitants of the same region such as the Khakassians, speci¿cally descendants of the Sagay tribe, and Shors (Kozintsev, Gromov, Moiseyev, 1999).
The second supposedly plesiomorphic trait combination marks much more numerous populations widely dispersed in space and still inhabiting the arctic (tundra) and subarctic (boreal forest) zones of Eastern Europe and Western Siberia. The distribution area of this group of populations, traditionally referred to as the “Uralian community,” “Uralian subrace” (Alekseyev, 1974; Proiskhozhdeniye…, 1965; and others) mainly coincides with that of the Ugrian and Samoyed languages, which belong to the Uralian family. The “Uralian” trait combination is also observed in certain Finnic and Turkic speaking groups of Eastern Europe and Western Siberia. Southwestern Siberia and the northern Altai are parts of the southern periphery of the anthropologically “Uralian” area. The “Uralian” trait combination is quite peculiar, and the af¿nities it reveals are contradictory. Certain traits link Uralians with Siberian Mongoloids, whereas others are suggestive of European af¿nities. To explain this paradox, two hypotheses have been put forward. According to one of them, the principal factor involved in the origin of the Uralians was hybridization between Caucasoids and Mongoloids. This hypothesis appears to be supported by geographical considerations. Indeed, the “Uralian” trait combination is distributed in the contact zone between the two major population groups, western and eastern (Debetz, 1961). The competing hypothesis states that the Uralian trait combination is a relic of a comparatively early stage of population differentiation, when the contrasting cranial patterns distinguishing modern Caucasoids and Mongoloids did not yet exist (Bunak, 1924, 1956, 1980). The intermediary or mosaic nature of the Uralian pattern, according to this view, indicates plesiomorphy not hybridization. Up to the mid 1980s, most Russian physical anthropologists adhered to the hybridization theory. However, later, after new traits, new prehistoric and recent cranial materials, and new multivariate statistical techniques had been introduced, the situation began to change (Alekseyev, 1984; Alekseyev, Gokhman, 1984b; Gokhman, 1986; Moiseyev, 1999, 2001, 2006a, b; Neolit…, 1997; Khartanovich, 2006). As a result, Bunak’s explanation of the speci¿city of the Uralians is gaining more and more ground. One of the principal difficulties with which the researchers reconstructing the early population history of the Uralian speakers are faced is a nearly complete absence of prehistoric skeletal ¿nds from the presumed Uralian homeland, which, as the linguistic evidence suggests, was situated in the taiga zone of Western Siberia. For that reason, all reconstructions were retrospective, i.e. based on recent cranial series, and therefore necessarily speculative. The Uralian trait combination in prehistoric materials was for the ¿rst
151
152
V.G. Moiseyev and V.I. Khartanovich / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 145–154
time registered in cranial series of the Early Iron Age Kamen (Bolshaya Rechka) and Sargat cultures of the Western Siberian forest-steppe (Moiseyev, 2006b). Those populations, however, apparently resulted from a mixture of ancient Uralians with Caucasoids (Bagashev, 2000; Rykun, 2001). Our analysis does not unambiguously suggest that people buried on Bolshoy Oleniy Island were related to Uralians or other presumably relic populations of Northern Eurasia. However, given the geographic proximity of northwestern Russia to Western Siberia and the presence of Uralian speaking groups in northern Europe at present, the af¿nities of Bolshoy Oleniy Island population with ancient Uralians appear quite likely. The only thing that can be stated with certainty at present is that Bolshoy Oleniy Island people were cranially similar to certain ancient populations of Western Siberia and the Altai. This is the only prehistoric European group displaying such af¿nities and pointing to the possibility of a migration from Western Siberia to the Kola coast in the mid-2nd millennium BC. The details of this episode in ancient population history are unknown because skeletal ¿nds are scarce. Importantly, Bolshoy Oleniy Island crania are very different from earlier ones excavated from the Mesolithic burials on Yuzhny Oleniy Island in Lake Onega, Karelia and in Zveinieki, Latvia, and from Dudka, Poland (Khartanovich, 2006). Finally, one more aspect of the ancient population history of northwestern Russia and Fennoscandia must be discussed with regard to the origin of modern populations of those regions. As mentioned above, V.P. Yakimov has noted the general morphological similarity between Bolshoy Oleniy Island crania and those from the Ananyino burial ground at Lugovskoy in Tataria. He regarded this similarity as an argument in favor of idea that the Ananyino people had migrated to the subarctic regions of Europe from Western Siberia, having played the key role in the origin of the Sami. Our results, however, reveal a substantial difference between Bolshoy Oleniy Island group and that from Lugovskoy. The former is peculiar, whereas the latter is intermediate between Caucasoids and Mongoloids. Also, the Bolhoy Oleniy Island crania are nearly a thousand years earlier. Cranial data, then, do not uphold the idea that Ananyino people had migrated to the Kola Peninsula in the Early Metal Age. Yakimov’s conclusion holds only insofar as the markedly “eastern” traits in both ancient European populations are concerned. When new skeletal materials from the Kola region and from Northern Eurasia at large are obtained, we will hopefully gain a clearer idea of how the northern European populations marked by those traits originated. To all appearances, their origins were different.
Conclusions The Bolshoy Oleniy series generally reveals no evidence of heterogeneity. Its comparison with other Northern Eurasian groups indicates, on the one hand, its speci¿city, and on the other hand, its af¿nities with Asiatic populations, speci¿cally those of Western Siberia and the Altai. The Bolshoy Oleniy population was apparently related to a distinct human variety which differed from Mongoloids of Eastern Siberia and Eastern Central Asia and, from at least the Early Metal Age onward, was distributed across most of the tundra zone of Northern Europe and the taiga zone of the Urals.
References Alekseyev V.P. 1969 Proiskhozhdeniye narodov Vostochnoi Evropy. Moscow: Nauka. Alekseyev V.P. 1974 Geogra¿ya chelovecheskikh ras. Moscow: Mysl. Alekseyev V.P. 1984 Fizicheskiye osobennosti mezoliticheskogo i ranneneoliticheskogo naseleniya Vostochnoi Evropy v svyazi s problemoi drevnego zaseleniya etoi territorii. In Problemy antropologii drevnego i sovremennogo naseleniya severa Evrazii. Leningrad: Nauka, pp. 28–36. Alekseyev V.P., Gokhman I.I. 1984a Antropologiya aziatskoi chasti SSSR. Moscow: Nauka. Alekseyev V.P., Gokhman I.I. 1984b Rezultaty ekspertizy nadezhnosti kraniometricheskikh pokazatelei antropologicheskikh materialov iz mogilnika na Yuzhnom Olenyem ostrove Onezhskogo ozera (v svyazi s ikh sokhrannostyu i osobennostyami restavratsii). In Problemy antropologii drevnego i sovremennogo naseleniya severa Evrazii. Leningrad: Nauka, pp. 155–158. Bagashev A.N. 2000 Paleoantropologiya Zapadnoi Sibiri: Lesostep v epokhu rannego zheleza. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Borutskaya S.B. 2005 Paleopatologiya pozdneneoliticheskogo mogilnika na Bolshom Olenyem ostrove Barentseva moray. Vestnik antropologii, iss. 12: 98–105. Borutskaya S.B. 2006 Osteometricheskii analiz skeletov mogilnika na Bolshom Olenyem ostrove Barentseva moray. Nauchnyi almanakh kafedry antropologii MGU im. M.V. Lomonosova, iss. 4: 120–133. Bunak V.V. 1924 Antropologicheskiy tip cheremis. Russ. antropol. zhurnal, vol. 13, No. 3/4: 137–177. Bunak V.V. 1956 Chelovecheskiye rasy i puti ikh obrazovaniya. Sovetskaya etnogra¿ya, No. 1: 86–104. Bunak V.V. 1980 Rod Homo, ego vozniknoveniye i posleduyuschaya evolyutsiya. Moscow: Nauka.
V.G. Moiseyev and V.I. Khartanovich / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 145–154
Debetz G.F. 1961 O putyakh zaseleniya severnoi polosy russkoi ravniny i vostochnoi Pribaltiki. Sovetskaya etnogra¿ya, No. 6: 52–69. Debetz G.F. 1980 Paleoantropologiya okunevskoi kultury. In Paleoantropologiya Sibiri. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 7–8. Dremov V.A. 1980 Antropologicheskiye materialy iz mogilnikov Ust-Isha i Itkul: K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii neoliticheskogo naseleniya Verkhnego Priobya. In Paleoantropologiya Sibiri. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 19–46. Dremov V.A. 1990 Antropologicheskiy sostav naseleniya andronovskoi i andronoidnykh kultur Zapadnoi Sibipi. Izvestiya SO AN SSSR. Ser. ist., ¿lol. i ¿los., iss. 2: 56–62. Foss M.E. 1948 Kulturnye svyazi Severa Vostochnoi Evropy vo II tysyacheletii do nashei ery. Sovetskaya etnogra¿ya, No. 4: 23–35. Gerasimova M.M. 1992 Cherepa iz Fofanovskogo mogilnika (r. Oka, Selenga). In Drevnosti Baikala. Irkutsk: Izd. Irkutsk. Gos. Univ., pp. 97–111. Gokhman I.I. 1966 Naseleniye Ukrainy v epokhu mezolita i neolita: Antropologicheskiy ocherk. Moscow: Nauka. Gokhman I.I. 1986 Antropologicheskiye osobennosti drevnego naseleniya severa Evropeiskoi chasti SSSR i puti ikh formirovaniya. In Antropologiya sovremennogo i drevnego naseleniya Evropeiskoi chasti SSSR. Leningrad: Nauka, pp. 216–222. Gromov A.V. 1995 Naseleniye yuga Khakasii v epokhu pozdnei bronzy i problema proiskhozhdeniya karasukskoi kultury. In Antropologiya segodnya, iss. 1. St. Petersburg: Izd. MAE RAN, pp. 130–150. Gromov A.V. 1997 Proiskhozhdeniye i svyazi okunevskogo naseleniya Minusinskoi kotloviny. In Okunevskiy sbornik. St. Petersburg: Izd. SPb. Gos. Univ., pp. 301–345. Gurina N.N. 1953 Pamyatniki epokhi rannego metalla na severnom poberezhye Kolskogo poluostrova. MIA, No. 39: 347–407. Khartanovich V.I. 2006 O “laponoidnosti” na Severe Evropy (po antropologicheskim materialam iz mogilnikov Bolshogo Olenyego ostrova v Kolskom zalive Barentseva morya i Yuzhnogo Olenyego ostrova Onezhskogo ozera). In Pervobytnaya i srednevekovaya istoriya i kultura Evropeiskogo Severa: Problemy izucheniya i nauchnoi rekonstruktsii. Solovki: SOLTI, pp. 143–156. Kolskiy sbornik: Materialy komissii ekspeditsionnykh issledovaniy. 1930 Iss. 23. Leningrda: Izd. AN SSSR. Kozintsev A.G. 1977 Antropologicheskiy sostav i proiskhozhdeniye naseleniya tagarskoi kultury. Leningrad: Nauka. Kozintsev A.G. 2004 Kety, uraltsy, “amerikanoidy”: Integratsiya kraniologicheskikh dannykh. In Paleoantropologiya, etnicheskaya antropologiya, etnogenez. St. Petersburg: Izd. MAE RAN, pp. 172–185.
Levin M.G. 1956 Antropologicheskiye materialy iz Verkholenskogo mogilnika. TIE, vol. 33: 299–339. Mamonova N.N. 1973 K voprosu o drevnem naselenii Priangarya po paleoantropologicheskim dannym. In Problemy arkheologii Urala i Sibiri. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 18–28. Moiseyev V.G. 1999 Proiskhozhdeniye uraloyazychnykh narodov po dannym kraniologii. St. Petersburg: Nauka. Moiseyev V.G. 2001 North Eurasian populations: Linguistic versus biological differentiation. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, No. 4: 154–159. Moiseyev V.G. 2006a Nonmetric traits in Early Iron Age cranial series from Western and Southern Siberia. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, No. 1: 145–152. Moiseyev V.G. 2006b Proiskhozhdeniye uraloyazychnykh narodov po antropologicheskim dannym: Rezultaty mezhsistemnogo analiza. In II Severnyi arkheologicheskiy kongress: Doklady. Yekaterinburg, Khanty-Mansiysk: Charoid, pp. 240–263. Murashkin A.I. 2007 Kostyanoi i rogovoi inventar mogilnika Bolshogo Olenyego ostrova v Kolskom zalive Barentseva morya (po raskopkam 2002–2004 gg.). In Kolskiy sbornik. St. Petersburg: Eleksis Print, pp. 192–220. Murashkin A.I., Shumkin V.Y. 2004 Novye predmety drevnego iskusstva iz mogilnika Bolshogo Olenyego ostrova v Barentsevom more. In Izobrazitelnye pamyatniki: Stil, epokha, kompozitsii: Materialy temat. nauch. konf. St. Petersburg: 97–101. Neolit lesnoi polosy Vostochnoi Evropy (antropologiya sakhtyshskikh stoyanok). 1997 Moscow: Nauchny mir. Popov A.N., Chikisheva T.A., Shpakova E.G. 1997 Boismanskaya arkheologicheskaya kultura Yuzhnogo Primorya. Novosibirsk: Izd. IAE SO RAN. Proiskhozhdeniye i etnicheskaya istoriya russkogo naroda (po antropologicheskim dannym). 1965 Moscow: Nauka. (TIE; vol. 88). Rykun M.P. 2001 K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii naseleniya Verkhnego Priobya rannego zheleznogo veka (po materialam mogilnika Kamen-2). In Prostranstvo kultury v arkheologo-etnograficheskom izmerenii: Zapadnaya Sibir i sopredelnye territorii: Materialy XII Zap.-Sib. arkheol.-etnogr. konf. Tomsk : pp. 301–303. Rykushina G.V. 1980 Naseleniye srednego Eniseya v karasukskuyu epokhu (kraniologicheskii ocherk). In Paleoantropologiya Sibiri. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 47–63. Schmidt A.V. 1930 Drevnii mogilnik na Kolskom zalive. In Kolskiy sbornik: Materialy komissii ekspeditsionnykh issledovaniy, iss. 23. Leningrad: Izd. AN SSSR, pp. 119–169. Shpakova M.V. 2001 Kraniologicheskiye osobennosti muzhskikh serii mogilnogo kompleksa Bystrovka i ikh statisticheskii analiz. In Istoriko-
153
154
V.G. Moiseyev and V.I. Khartanovich / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 145–154
kulturnoye naslediye Severnoi Azii. Barnaul: Izd. Altai. Gos. Univ., pp. 176–180. Shumkin V.Y., Kolpakov E.M., Murashkin A.I. 2006 Nekotorye itogi novykh raskopok mogilnika na Bolshom Olenyem ostrove Barentseva moray. Zapiski IIMK RAN, No. 1: 42–52. Shumkin V.Y., Murashkin A.I. 2003 Novye dannye o mogilnike na Bolshom Olenyem ostrove Barentseva moray. Arkheologicheskiye vesti, iss. 10: 26–30. Shumkin V.Y., Sapelko T.V., Ludikova A.N., Murashkin A.I. 2005 Kompleksnoye issledovaniye mogilnika na Bolshom Olenyem ostrove v Kolskom zalive Barentseva moray. In Quarter 2005: IV Vseros. sovesch. po izucheniyu chetvertichnogo perioda. Syktyvkar: Geoprint, pp. 470–471. Sinitsyn S.D. 1930 Kostnye ostatki cheloveka v raskopkakh A.V. Schmidta. In Kolskiy sbornik: Materialy komissii ekspeditsionnykh issledovaniy, iss. 23. Leningrad: Izd. AN SSSR, pp. 181–183.
Vasiliyev S.V., Borutskaya S.B. 2006a Rekonstruktsiya ¿zicheskogo tipa i stressovykh vliyanii na naseleniye, ostavivshee mogilnik na Bolshom Olenyem ostrove (Barentsevo more). In Pervobytnaya i srednevekovaya istoriya i kultura Evropeiskogo Severa: Problemy izucheniya i nauchnoi rekonstruktsii. Solovki: SOLTI, pp. 376–381. Vasiliyev S.V., Borutskaya S.B. 2006b Analiz morfologicheskogo tipa, fizicheskikh nagruzok i paleopatologii pozdneneoliticheskogo naseleniya severa Kolskogo poluostrova. In II Severnyi arkheologicheskii kongress: Tezisy dokladov. Yekaterinburg, Khanty-Mansiysk: Charoid, pp. 45–46. Yakimov V.P. 1953 Antropologicheskaya kharakteristika kostyakov iz pogrebenii na Bolshom Olenyem ostrove (Barentsevo more). In Sbornik MAE, vol. 15. Moscow, Leningrad: Izd. AN SSSR, pp. 449–485.
Received September 2, 2009.
ANTHROPOLOGY
145
V.G. Moiseyev and V.I. Khartanovich Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya Nab. 3, St. Petersburg 199034, Russia E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]
EARLY METAL AGE CRANIA FROM BOLSHOY OLENIY ISLAND, BARENTS SEA
A new cranial series from the Early Metal Age burial ground on Bolshoy Oleniy (Great Reindeer) Island in Kola Bay of the Barents Sea is described. So far, this is the only series from the Arctic regions of Europe and the Urals. A multivariate analysis of cranial measurements in 27 prehistoric populations of Northern Eurasia has revealed the speci¿city of this group. Its most distinct af¿nities are with populations of Western Siberia and the Altai dating to various periods from the Neolithic to the Early Iron Age. People buried on Bolshoy Oleniy Island apparently belonged to a group of populations characterized by the retention of an ancient trait combination distinguishing it both from Mongoloids of Eastern Siberia and Eastern Central Asia, and from Caucasoids. This group of populations was apparently distributed across most of the tundra zone of Northern Europe and of the taiga areas of the Urals and northwestern Siberia. Keywords: Craniometry, population history, Northern Eurasia, Barents Sea, Kola Bay, Early Metal Age, Uralic-speaking peoples.
Introduction The ancient cemetery on Bolshoy Oleniy (Great Reindeer) Island in Kola Bay is a key Early Metal Age site in Northern Eurasia. Its importance stems from the fact that objects composed of organic substances (artifacts made from bone and antler, wooden structures, and human remains) are exceptionally well preserved. Bolshoy Oleniy Island is situated in Kola Bay of the Barents Sea, 6 km south of the bay mouth, and is separated from the shore by Yekaterininsky Island and two straits (Fig. 1). The island rests on a gneiss and granite platform. In some places, deposits of pebble and sand occur. Small sandy deposits (approximately 1000 sq. m) are located in the southern part of the island, in a basin between two
elevations consisting of gneiss and granite. The burial ground is associated with these deposits. Archaeological surveys of the area began in 1925, when G.D. Richter and S.F. Yegorov discovered a disturbed burial (Schmidt, 1930). The ¿rst excavations were conducted in 1928 by the USSR Academy of Science Kola Expedition headed by A.V. Schmidt. Eleven burials were excavated, and various stone and bone artifacts were found in the graves. The ¿ndings were described by A.V. Schmidt and other team members (Kolskiy sbornik, 1930), and the artifacts were handed to the Russian Museum Ethnographic Department. In 1934, during the construction of forti¿cations on the island, a sandpit was made on the burial ground. The Army Corps Engineer A.V. Tsiplenkov, who took part
Copyright © 2012, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2012.05.018
146
V.G. Moiseyev and V.I. Khartanovich / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 145–154
Fig. 1. Map showing the location of Bolshoy Oleniy Island in Kola Bay of the Barents Sea.
in these works, collected artifacts and human remains from some 25 burials. Four ¿nds were handed over to the USSR Academy of Sciences, and the fate of the remaining collection is unknown. In 1947–1948, the Kola Expedition from the Leningrad Department of the Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences (presently the Institute for the History of Material Culture RAS) headed by N.N. Gurina continued excavations of the cemetery. The excavation area reached 56 sq. m, and ten burials were excavated (Gurina, 1953). Some materials were handed over to the Institute of Archaeology in Leningrad and some to the Murmansk Regional Museum. In 1998, archaeological studies of the site were resumed by the Institute for the History of Material Culture RAS under the direction of V.Y. Shumkin. Surveys conducted in 1998 and 1999 demonstrated that the burial ground was probably not excavated completely, whereas the remaining part was destroyed by erosion. From 2001–2004, some 120 sq. m were excavated. Nine burials were discovered – ¿ve single and four collective. All were accompanied by abundant burial goods. The collective burials contained remains of two, four, ¿ve, and six individuals including children, and bones of a fetus. The total number of well preserved skeletons of adults and children is 19, and more than 250 artifacts have been unearthed (Shumkin, Murashkin, 2003; Murashkin, Shumkin, 2004; Shumkin et al., 2005; Shumkin et al., 2006, 2007). Previous studies The ¿rst description of the scarce human remains from Bolshoy Oleniy, excavated by A.V. Schmidt, was given by
S.D. Sinitsyn (1930), who analyzed certain skeletal traits in seven adult individuals (three males and four females). Only four crania were available (one male and three female). Based on the analysis of a few measurements, mostly those of the braincase, Sinitsyn suggested that all the skeletons were those of members of the same tribe, and that “in terms of head shape, people of Bolshoy Oleniy were quite similar to modern Lapps of the same area” (Ibid.: 182). However, Sinitsyn stressed that “the issue of actual af¿nities between those peoples, vastly separated in time, requires a thorough investigation, and a larger sample must be collected” (Ibid.: 183). A monographic study of crania from Bolshoy Oleniy, using a large trait battery nearly identical to that employed by Russian craniologists at present, and the comparison of this series with ancient and recent Eurasian groups known at that time was undertaken by V.P. Yakmov (1953). His sample consisted of specimens unearthed both by Schmidt and by Gurina. Yakimov concluded that “certain cranial traits link those people with members of the Mongoloid race” (Ibid.: 459). These traits include a broad face, a large Flower index, rather large horizontal facial pro¿le angles, and moderately protruding nasal bones. At the same time Yakimov noted that in terms of other traits such as a rather low face (both absolutely and relatively), low orbits, relatively wide frontal bone, etc., crania from Bolshoy Oleniy either fall in the Caucasoid range or are intermediate between Mongoloids and Caucasoids. The comparison with recent series revealed that crania from Bolshoy Oleniy differed from those of the Sami while resembling those of the Nenets and Ob Ugrians (Khanty and Mansi). Taken together, the observed trait combination was specific and had no exact matches among modern cranial series. With regard to ancient series, however, Yakimov noted a marked resemblance between crania from Bolshoy Oleniy and those from the Lugovskoy burial ground of the Ananyino culture in Tatarstan. Yakimov cautiously interpreted this resemblance as an argument in favor of the idea that the Ananyino people had migrated from the Volga basin to the west and northwest. The idea was ¿rst proposed by M.E. Foss (1948) on the basis of archaeological facts. She stressed, however, that the ¿nal solution hinged upon skeletal evidence. With regard to the origin of people buried at the Lugovskoy and Bolshoy Oleniy cemeteries, Yakimov discussed two possibilities. One was that these populations had resulted from a mixture of Caucasoids and Mongoloids. Another possibility was that they represented a distinct Proto-Mongoloid group which diverged from the Mongoloid stem rather early (Yakimov, 1953: 467). Yakimov’s general conclusion was that the question could not be resolved because of the small sample size, and new skeletal data was needed to arrive at a more de¿nite result.
V.G. Moiseyev and V.I. Khartanovich / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 145–154
After Yakimov’s publication the series from Bolshoy Oleniy was very rarely used even for comparative purposes. In our view, the assessment of its af¿nities with ancient and modern groups of Northern Eurasia can provide a clue to the solution of certain problems of the population history of the region. Skeletal remains As a result of excavations conducted by the Kola Archaeological Expedition from the Institute for the History of Material Culture RAS on Bolshoy Oleniy Island in 2001–2004, 16 human skeletons were collected including 13 adult ones. Clearly, the sample is still far from representative; also, the burial ground has apparently not been excavated completely. Nonetheless the new materials provide a better idea of the af¿nities of the middle to the late 2nd millennium BC inhabitants of the Kola Peninsula. The absolute dates of human bones from V.Y. Shumkin’s excavations are as follows. Burial 12, fragment of rib – 3237 ± 32 BP; calibrated dates, 1525– 1440 BC (68.2 %) and 1610–1420 BC (95.4 %) BC. Burial 13, patella – 3195 ± 39 BP; calibrated dates, 1500– 1430 BC (68.2 %) and 1530–1390 BC (95.4 %) (ORAU, Oxford University Radiocarbon Unit). The present study is based on human remains both from old excavations (Yakimov, 1953) and from new ones (2001–2004). All skeletons are housed at Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography (Kunstkamera) RAS in St. Petersburg, collections Nos. 4952 (A.V. Schmidt’s excavations), 5715 (N.N. Gurina’s excavations), and 7265 (V.Y. Shumkin’s excavations). Remains from burial 13, excavated in 2002, were handed over to the Historical Museum in Polarnyi, Murmansk Oblast. The postcranial bones were studied by S.B. Borutskaya (2005, 2006) and S.V. Vasiliyev (Vasiliyev, Borutskaya, 2006a, b). Due to the addition of newly excavated skeletons, sex dimorphism in the pooled sample is higher than the previous estimates suggested. Based on the morphology of both crania and postcrania, skeletons Nos. 5715-1 and 5715-3, which V.P. Yakimov had considered female, were diagnosed as male. In addition to Yakimov’s measurements, those of a separate frontal bone with nasalia from Gurina’s excavations (No. 5715-2) were taken. All measurements follow the standard technique employed by Russian craniologists. General characteristics Because the crania are very well preserved, no substantial restoration was required even with regard to the tips of
the nasal bones. Such an unusual preservation may be due to the presence of naturally crushed marine shells in the ground. The crania are relatively small and moderately robust; some are gracile. The enthesial development is mostly weak. Combinations of sexually dimorphic markers are rather unusual. Characteristics of the pooled series have somewhat changed compared to those published previously (Table 1). Cranial breadth has decreased and so has the cranial index; cranial height, measured both from basion and from porions has decreased too. Absolute frontal breadth has decreased, but relative to the braincase breadth it has become larger. Basion–prosthion length and the upper facial index have increased. The alveolar prognathism has become more marked. The bizygomatic breadth has remained as large, and has increased relative to cranial breadth. The vertical dimensions of the upper face, orbit, and nose have decreased. Facial Àatness has become more pronounced in terms of both angles, nasomalar and zygo-maxillary. The nasal bridge, judging by the dacryal and symotic indices, has become Àatter. The nasal protrusion angle has remained the same in the male series and has become somewhat larger in the female series. Overall, the group is characterized by a very low and rather small braincase, and meso-brachycrany. The frontal bone is wide. The face is rather low, very wide, Àattened at both levels, mesognathic, with a large Flower index, and a tendency to alveolar prognathism. The orbits and the pyriform aperture are low. Nasal protrusion is moderate, and the nasal bridge is Àat. Neither the appearance of separate crania nor the standard deviations indicate heterogeneity (Table 1). The peculiarities of Bolshoy Oleniy Island series, distinguishing it from other groups, both ancient and modern, and described by V.P. Yakimov, are even more salient in the pooled sample. They include an unusual combination of Mongoloid traits with those which none of the known Mongoloid groups display. The former includes horizontal facial Àatness, broad mesognathic face, a moderate projection of nasal bones and a Àat nasal bridge. These traits contrast with a low face, low orbits, and a broad forehead. The position of series from Bolshoy Oleniy Island among the ancient groups of Northern Eurasia Given the unusual trait combination displayed by the group, its af¿nities with other ancient groups of Northern Eurasia must be examined. For that purpose, the canonical variate analysis was used. Twenty-six ancient cranial series, speci¿cally those approaching Bolshoy
147
148
V.G. Moiseyev and V.I. Khartanovich / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 145–154
Table 1. Average measurements and indices of crania from Bolshoy Oleniy Island Males
Traits
From Schmidt’s and Gurina’s excavations (Yakimov, 1953)
Females
From Schmidt’s, Gurina’s and Shumkin’s excavations (pooled)
From Schmidt’s and Gurina’s excavations (Yakimov, 1953)
From Schmidt’s, Gurina’s and Shumkin’s excavations (pooled)
n
X
n
X
sd
n
X
n
X
sd
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1. Cranial length
4
181.3
12
181.2
4.0
4
180.5
8
177.1
4.6
8. Cranial breadth
4
150.0
12
146.2
3.7
4
143.3
8
140.8
4.4
8 : 1. Cranial index
4
82.4
12
80.7
2.2
4
79.4
8
79.3
3.4
17. Cranial height
4
132.2
12
128.2
4.6
4
126.3
8
123.9
2.4
17 : 1. Height-length index
4
73.0
12
70.8
2.7
4
70.0
8
70.0
1.7
17 : 8. Height-breadth index
4
79.7
12
87.7
3.5
4
80.0
8
88.3
3.8
20. Auricular height
4
119.5
12
114.4
5.1
4
114.5
7
109.0
1.9
5. Cranial base length
4
101.3
12
101.2
4.1
4
96.3
8
95.1
5.4
9. Minimal frontal breadth
4
101.3
13
100.5
3.5
4
97.0
9
92.4
4.5
9 : 8. Transverse frontoparietal index
4
67.5
12
68.8
3.3
4
67.8
8
65.9
4.0
sub. 9. Transverse frontal subtense
–
–
12
19.2
2.4
–
–
9
19.7
2.8
TFA. Transverse frontal angle
–
–
12
137.9
4.3
–
–
8
134.9
2.9
32. Frontal pro¿le angle (nasion)
4
76.5
11
81.0
4.2
4
81.3
6
84.0
5.2
G–m. Frontal pro¿le angle (glabella)
4
69.0
11
72.5
4.9
4
73.3
6
75.8
5.6
40. Facial base length
4
101.0
11
103.0
6.3
4
96.8
6
94.7
5.8
40 : 5. Flower’s index
6
99.4
11
102.1
3.4
–
–
6
99.4
4.8
72. Total facial angle
4
84.5
11
84.2
3.1
4
85.3
5
84.6
3.0
73. Midfacial angle
4
86.3
11
87.7
2.5
4
88.8
5
88.0
3.3
74. Alveolar angle
4
74.8
11
73.3
6.1
4
73.5
5
74.0
2.4
43. Upper facial height
4
111.5
11
108.4
5.0
4
103.7
7
100.4
3.7
45. Bizygomatic breadth
4
145.8
12
143.6
4.7
4
134.8
7
130.6
2.6
45 : 8. Horizontal facio-cerebral index
4
97.2
12
98.3
4.1
4
94.1
7
93.3
3.4
46. Midfacial breadth
4
102.3
11
102.6
4.2
4
97.7
5
94.8
4.4
48. Upper facial height
4
71.5
12
70.2
3.8
4
70.5
7
63.9
4.5
48 : 45. Upper facial index
4
49.0
11
49.2
3.4
4
52.3
6
48.1
2.9
48 : 17. Vertical facio-cerebral index
4
54.0
11
55.1
2.4
4
55.9
7
51.6
3.6
43(1). Biorbital breadth
4
101.3
12
101.2
4.2
3
99.0
8
96.0
2.7
sub.n/43(1). Nasion subtense above biorbital breadth
4
16.3
12
15.0
1.9
3
14.3
8
14.0
1.9
77. Naso-malar angle
4
144.5
12
147.1
3.5
4
147.7
7
147.1
3.9
zm’–zm’. Zygo-maxillary breadth
4
101.8
11
100.7
5.3
3
95.0
4
94.5
4.4
1
V.G. Moiseyev and V.I. Khartanovich / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 145–154
149
Table 1 (end) 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
sub.ss/zm’–zm’. Subspinale subtense above zygo-maxillary breadth
4
23.0
11
19.9
2.4
3
19.7
4
20.1
2.3
zm’. Zygo-maxillary angle
4
132.5
11
137.1
4.2
3
135.0
4
134.0
5.6
51. Orbital breadth (mf)
4
44.8
11
43.1
3.7
4
43.5
5
41.8
1.5
52. Orbital height
4
36.3
11
33.8
2.1
4
33.5
5
33.4
1.1
52 : 51. Orbital index (mf)
4
81.5
11
79.0
7.9
4
77.1
5
80.0
4.5
54. Nasal breadth
4
25.0
12
25.0
1.2
4
25.3
6
23.7
0.8
55. Nasal height
4
55.3
12
52.2
2.5
4
52.0
5
47.0
3.7
54 : 55. Nasal index
4
45.3
12
48.0
3.1
4
48.6
5
50.5
4.6
SC. Simotic chord
4
6.1
13
6.2
1.8
4
7.3
9
5.6
1.1
SS. Simotic subtense
4
3.9
13
3.4
0.9
4
3.4
9
2.9
0.6
SS : SC. Simotic index
4
68.5
13
59.0
21.4
4
47.0
9
52.8
11.4
DC. Dacryal chord
2
21.8
11
21.7
1.6
1
19.4
6
21.3
2.2
DS. Dacryal subtense
2
12.0
11
10.6
0.9
1
8.8
6
9.3
1.1
DS : DC. Dacryal index
2
55.3
11
48.8
4.5
1
45.4
6
43.8
5.2
75. Nasal inclination angle to Frankfurt plane
4
66.0
9
63.7
6.3
4
71.0
4
66.3
2.2
75(1). Nasal protrusion angle
4
18.5
10
18.8
4.0
4
14.3
4
18.0
2.3
Oleniy Island chronologically, were used. They consist of mostly well preserved crania, and the minimal sample size is ¿ve (Table 2). The ¿rst two canonical variates (CVs) jointly account for more than two thirds of the total variation (Table 3). CV I (one half of the variance) differentiates groups in the Caucasoid to Mongoloid direction. Traits with the highest loadings on this vector are naso-malar and zygomaxillary angles, nasal protrusion angle, simotic index, and minimal frontal height; facial and orbital height, facial breadth, and cranial height are somewhat less important. Judging from the signs of the loadings, groups displaying a narrow frontal bone, a low braincase, a broad and high face, and high orbits also exhibit facial Àattening and a smaller nasal protrusion angle. Most ancient European groups display an opposite trait combination, i.e. they combine a sharply pro¿led face, a sharply protruding nose, and a convex nasal bridge with a broad forehead. The two exceptions are the series from the Ananyino burial ground at Lugovskoy in Tataria and the series from Bolshoy Oleniy Island. Both show a markedly “eastern” tendency. Southern Siberian groups spanning several periods from the Chalcolithic to the Early Iron Age –
Afanasyevo, Andronovo, and Tagar – are markedly Caucasoid. This agrees with the consensus view concerning early Caucasoid migrations from Europe to Southern Siberia, beginning at least from the Chalcolithic (Alekseyev, Gokhman, 1984a). While the difference between these groups and those from Europe are minor, the Andronovo and Tagar series are on the “eastern” periphery of the Caucasoid range of CV I values, apparently pointing to a small Mongoloid admixture. This is even more true of the Karasuk people, who deviate in the Mongoloid direction only slightly less than do the Early Iron Age groups of Western Siberia (Fig. 2). On the “eastern” Àank of CV I are two Neolithic groups – from Boisman-2 in southeastern Siberia (Primorye) and from the Kitoy burial grounds east of Lake Baikal. Both exhibit extremely Àat faces and noses and narrow foreheads. The Mongoloid trait combination is less expressed in most Neolithic groups of the CisBaikal area and even less so in Early Iron Age groups of Western Siberia and in series from Lugovskoy and Bolshoy Oleniy Island. Notably, the CV I score is higher in the latter series than in the Lugovskoy group, almost matching that in the Serovo and Glazkovo Neolithic
150
V.G. Moiseyev and V.I. Khartanovich / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 145–154
Table 2. Ancient cranial series from Northern Eurasia used in comparative analysis Nos.
Series
Source
Table 3. Correlation coef¿cients between the traits and the three ¿rst canonical variates in the analysis of 27 cranial series from Northern Eurasia
Europe 1
Vovnigi
Gokhman, 1966
2
Pit Grave culture, Ukraine
Alekseyev, Gokhman, 1984a
3
Same, Volga
4
Traits coded after Martin and others
CV I
CV II
CV III
1
–0.10
0.49
–0.58
Same
8
0.37
–0.42
–0.21
Catacomb culture, Ukraine
»
17
–0.54
0.54
0.34
5
Same, Volga
»
9
–0.81
–0.28
–0.20
6
Timber Grave culture, Ukraine
»
45
0.58
–0.00
0.06
48
0.69
0.33
0.15
7
Same, Volga
»
55
0.48
0.42
–0.08
8
Ananyino culture (Lugovskoy)
54
0.14
0.44
–0.23
51
–0.44
–0.69
0.23
52
0.66
–0.12
0.23
77
0.93
0.15
–0.05
Zm
0.96
–0.15
–0.02
SS : SC
–0.83
–0.40
–0.28
75 (1)
–0.92
0.22
0.07
Percent of variance
50.00
17.60
7.30
Alekseyev, 1969 Asia
9
Ust-Isha
Dremov, 1980
10
Itkul
Same
11
Afanasyevo
Alekseyev, Gokhman, 1984a
12
Andronovo
Dremov, 1990
13
Okunev
Debetz, 1980; Gromov, 1997
14
Karasuk
Rykushina, 1980; Gromov, 1995
15
Tagar
Kozintsev, 1977; Alekseyev, Gokhman, 1984a
16
Kamen-2
Rykun, 2001
17
Bystrovka-1–3
Shpakova, 2001
18
Sargat
Bagashev, 2000
19
Serovo, Angara
Levin, 1956; Mamonova, 1973
20
Same, Lena
Same
21
Glazkovo, Lena
»
22
Same, Angara
»
23
Kitoy, Lena
»
24
Same, Angara
»
25
Same, Fofanovo
Gerasimova, 1992
26
Boisman-2
Popov, Chikisheva, Shpakova, 1997
populations, as well as in Neolithic ones from Ust-Isha and Itkul in the northern Altai. The intermediacy of Bolshoy Oleniy Island group on the ¿rst canonical axis may be due to various factors.
ɚ b
Fig. 2. The position of ancient cranial series from Northern Eurasia on the ¿rst two canonical vectors. a – European groups; b – Asian groups. The series are numbered as in Table 2.
It may evidence both admixture and neutrality, e.g. retention of plesiomorphic traits. To decide which of the factors should be favored, other vectors of variation must be addressed. The most important of these is CV II,
V.G. Moiseyev and V.I. Khartanovich / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 145–154
accounting for 18 % of the variance. Its primary function is to separate populations of Western Siberia and the Altai from those of Eastern Siberia. Western Siberian Early Iron Age series and Neolithic ones from the Altai display negative scores of CV II, whereas two other Neolithic groups – from the Kitoy cemeteries on the Lena and from Boisman-2 – are on the opposite extreme. Most Neolithic populations of the Cis-Baikal region are intermediate, and the same applies to the Lugovskoy population. CV II scores in Bolshoy Oleniy Island group are close to those shown by people of Western Siberia and the Altai (Fig. 2). Discussion Judging by the position of group on the ¿rst two CVs, at least three clusters of ancient populations can be separated in Eastern Europe and Siberia. The first comprises Caucasoid groups of Europe and Southern Siberia. The second consists of Mongoloid populations of Siberia; the Mongoloid trait combination is the most pronounced in areas east of Lake Baikal and in southeastern Siberia (Primorye). The third cluster includes Early Iron Age groups of Western Siberia, Neolithic groups of the Altai, and Okunev people of Southern Siberia. Populations making up the third cluster are quite speci¿c rather than intermediate. It is to this cluster that people buried on Bolshoy Oleniy Island are the closest. Whereas the ¿rst two population clusters are readily interpretable in terms of the traditional west-to-east pattern of differentiation, the third cluster presents a dif¿cult problem. Of course, marked similarities between groups widely separated in space such as Okunev, Sargat, Ust-Isha and Itkul, and Bolshoy Oleniy Island should not be taken to imply direct migrations from southwestern Siberia to circumpolar Eastern Europe or vice versa. What then could account for these similarities? In our view, the results of the multivariate comparison, paradoxical as they appear, are not incidental. Rather than indicating direct affinities, membership of the third population cluster may reflect the retention of plesiomorphic cranial traits that were characteristic of an early stage of population differentiation in Eurasia. At least two supposedly plesiomorphic trait combinations peculiar to certain ancient populations of Siberia have been described. One characterizes the Okunev people of Southern Siberia (Kozintsev, Gromov, Moiseyev, 1999; Kozintsev, 2004; Gromov, 1995), whose direct descendents are unknown. A moderate degree of cranial similarity, both metric and nonmetric, links Okunev people with certain recent inhabitants of the same region such as the Khakassians, speci¿cally descendants of the Sagay tribe, and Shors (Kozintsev, Gromov, Moiseyev, 1999).
The second supposedly plesiomorphic trait combination marks much more numerous populations widely dispersed in space and still inhabiting the arctic (tundra) and subarctic (boreal forest) zones of Eastern Europe and Western Siberia. The distribution area of this group of populations, traditionally referred to as the “Uralian community,” “Uralian subrace” (Alekseyev, 1974; Proiskhozhdeniye…, 1965; and others) mainly coincides with that of the Ugrian and Samoyed languages, which belong to the Uralian family. The “Uralian” trait combination is also observed in certain Finnic and Turkic speaking groups of Eastern Europe and Western Siberia. Southwestern Siberia and the northern Altai are parts of the southern periphery of the anthropologically “Uralian” area. The “Uralian” trait combination is quite peculiar, and the af¿nities it reveals are contradictory. Certain traits link Uralians with Siberian Mongoloids, whereas others are suggestive of European af¿nities. To explain this paradox, two hypotheses have been put forward. According to one of them, the principal factor involved in the origin of the Uralians was hybridization between Caucasoids and Mongoloids. This hypothesis appears to be supported by geographical considerations. Indeed, the “Uralian” trait combination is distributed in the contact zone between the two major population groups, western and eastern (Debetz, 1961). The competing hypothesis states that the Uralian trait combination is a relic of a comparatively early stage of population differentiation, when the contrasting cranial patterns distinguishing modern Caucasoids and Mongoloids did not yet exist (Bunak, 1924, 1956, 1980). The intermediary or mosaic nature of the Uralian pattern, according to this view, indicates plesiomorphy not hybridization. Up to the mid 1980s, most Russian physical anthropologists adhered to the hybridization theory. However, later, after new traits, new prehistoric and recent cranial materials, and new multivariate statistical techniques had been introduced, the situation began to change (Alekseyev, 1984; Alekseyev, Gokhman, 1984b; Gokhman, 1986; Moiseyev, 1999, 2001, 2006a, b; Neolit…, 1997; Khartanovich, 2006). As a result, Bunak’s explanation of the speci¿city of the Uralians is gaining more and more ground. One of the principal difficulties with which the researchers reconstructing the early population history of the Uralian speakers are faced is a nearly complete absence of prehistoric skeletal ¿nds from the presumed Uralian homeland, which, as the linguistic evidence suggests, was situated in the taiga zone of Western Siberia. For that reason, all reconstructions were retrospective, i.e. based on recent cranial series, and therefore necessarily speculative. The Uralian trait combination in prehistoric materials was for the ¿rst
151
152
V.G. Moiseyev and V.I. Khartanovich / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 145–154
time registered in cranial series of the Early Iron Age Kamen (Bolshaya Rechka) and Sargat cultures of the Western Siberian forest-steppe (Moiseyev, 2006b). Those populations, however, apparently resulted from a mixture of ancient Uralians with Caucasoids (Bagashev, 2000; Rykun, 2001). Our analysis does not unambiguously suggest that people buried on Bolshoy Oleniy Island were related to Uralians or other presumably relic populations of Northern Eurasia. However, given the geographic proximity of northwestern Russia to Western Siberia and the presence of Uralian speaking groups in northern Europe at present, the af¿nities of Bolshoy Oleniy Island population with ancient Uralians appear quite likely. The only thing that can be stated with certainty at present is that Bolshoy Oleniy Island people were cranially similar to certain ancient populations of Western Siberia and the Altai. This is the only prehistoric European group displaying such af¿nities and pointing to the possibility of a migration from Western Siberia to the Kola coast in the mid-2nd millennium BC. The details of this episode in ancient population history are unknown because skeletal ¿nds are scarce. Importantly, Bolshoy Oleniy Island crania are very different from earlier ones excavated from the Mesolithic burials on Yuzhny Oleniy Island in Lake Onega, Karelia and in Zveinieki, Latvia, and from Dudka, Poland (Khartanovich, 2006). Finally, one more aspect of the ancient population history of northwestern Russia and Fennoscandia must be discussed with regard to the origin of modern populations of those regions. As mentioned above, V.P. Yakimov has noted the general morphological similarity between Bolshoy Oleniy Island crania and those from the Ananyino burial ground at Lugovskoy in Tataria. He regarded this similarity as an argument in favor of idea that the Ananyino people had migrated to the subarctic regions of Europe from Western Siberia, having played the key role in the origin of the Sami. Our results, however, reveal a substantial difference between Bolshoy Oleniy Island group and that from Lugovskoy. The former is peculiar, whereas the latter is intermediate between Caucasoids and Mongoloids. Also, the Bolhoy Oleniy Island crania are nearly a thousand years earlier. Cranial data, then, do not uphold the idea that Ananyino people had migrated to the Kola Peninsula in the Early Metal Age. Yakimov’s conclusion holds only insofar as the markedly “eastern” traits in both ancient European populations are concerned. When new skeletal materials from the Kola region and from Northern Eurasia at large are obtained, we will hopefully gain a clearer idea of how the northern European populations marked by those traits originated. To all appearances, their origins were different.
Conclusions The Bolshoy Oleniy series generally reveals no evidence of heterogeneity. Its comparison with other Northern Eurasian groups indicates, on the one hand, its speci¿city, and on the other hand, its af¿nities with Asiatic populations, speci¿cally those of Western Siberia and the Altai. The Bolshoy Oleniy population was apparently related to a distinct human variety which differed from Mongoloids of Eastern Siberia and Eastern Central Asia and, from at least the Early Metal Age onward, was distributed across most of the tundra zone of Northern Europe and the taiga zone of the Urals.
References Alekseyev V.P. 1969 Proiskhozhdeniye narodov Vostochnoi Evropy. Moscow: Nauka. Alekseyev V.P. 1974 Geogra¿ya chelovecheskikh ras. Moscow: Mysl. Alekseyev V.P. 1984 Fizicheskiye osobennosti mezoliticheskogo i ranneneoliticheskogo naseleniya Vostochnoi Evropy v svyazi s problemoi drevnego zaseleniya etoi territorii. In Problemy antropologii drevnego i sovremennogo naseleniya severa Evrazii. Leningrad: Nauka, pp. 28–36. Alekseyev V.P., Gokhman I.I. 1984a Antropologiya aziatskoi chasti SSSR. Moscow: Nauka. Alekseyev V.P., Gokhman I.I. 1984b Rezultaty ekspertizy nadezhnosti kraniometricheskikh pokazatelei antropologicheskikh materialov iz mogilnika na Yuzhnom Olenyem ostrove Onezhskogo ozera (v svyazi s ikh sokhrannostyu i osobennostyami restavratsii). In Problemy antropologii drevnego i sovremennogo naseleniya severa Evrazii. Leningrad: Nauka, pp. 155–158. Bagashev A.N. 2000 Paleoantropologiya Zapadnoi Sibiri: Lesostep v epokhu rannego zheleza. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Borutskaya S.B. 2005 Paleopatologiya pozdneneoliticheskogo mogilnika na Bolshom Olenyem ostrove Barentseva moray. Vestnik antropologii, iss. 12: 98–105. Borutskaya S.B. 2006 Osteometricheskii analiz skeletov mogilnika na Bolshom Olenyem ostrove Barentseva moray. Nauchnyi almanakh kafedry antropologii MGU im. M.V. Lomonosova, iss. 4: 120–133. Bunak V.V. 1924 Antropologicheskiy tip cheremis. Russ. antropol. zhurnal, vol. 13, No. 3/4: 137–177. Bunak V.V. 1956 Chelovecheskiye rasy i puti ikh obrazovaniya. Sovetskaya etnogra¿ya, No. 1: 86–104. Bunak V.V. 1980 Rod Homo, ego vozniknoveniye i posleduyuschaya evolyutsiya. Moscow: Nauka.
V.G. Moiseyev and V.I. Khartanovich / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 145–154
Debetz G.F. 1961 O putyakh zaseleniya severnoi polosy russkoi ravniny i vostochnoi Pribaltiki. Sovetskaya etnogra¿ya, No. 6: 52–69. Debetz G.F. 1980 Paleoantropologiya okunevskoi kultury. In Paleoantropologiya Sibiri. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 7–8. Dremov V.A. 1980 Antropologicheskiye materialy iz mogilnikov Ust-Isha i Itkul: K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii neoliticheskogo naseleniya Verkhnego Priobya. In Paleoantropologiya Sibiri. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 19–46. Dremov V.A. 1990 Antropologicheskiy sostav naseleniya andronovskoi i andronoidnykh kultur Zapadnoi Sibipi. Izvestiya SO AN SSSR. Ser. ist., ¿lol. i ¿los., iss. 2: 56–62. Foss M.E. 1948 Kulturnye svyazi Severa Vostochnoi Evropy vo II tysyacheletii do nashei ery. Sovetskaya etnogra¿ya, No. 4: 23–35. Gerasimova M.M. 1992 Cherepa iz Fofanovskogo mogilnika (r. Oka, Selenga). In Drevnosti Baikala. Irkutsk: Izd. Irkutsk. Gos. Univ., pp. 97–111. Gokhman I.I. 1966 Naseleniye Ukrainy v epokhu mezolita i neolita: Antropologicheskiy ocherk. Moscow: Nauka. Gokhman I.I. 1986 Antropologicheskiye osobennosti drevnego naseleniya severa Evropeiskoi chasti SSSR i puti ikh formirovaniya. In Antropologiya sovremennogo i drevnego naseleniya Evropeiskoi chasti SSSR. Leningrad: Nauka, pp. 216–222. Gromov A.V. 1995 Naseleniye yuga Khakasii v epokhu pozdnei bronzy i problema proiskhozhdeniya karasukskoi kultury. In Antropologiya segodnya, iss. 1. St. Petersburg: Izd. MAE RAN, pp. 130–150. Gromov A.V. 1997 Proiskhozhdeniye i svyazi okunevskogo naseleniya Minusinskoi kotloviny. In Okunevskiy sbornik. St. Petersburg: Izd. SPb. Gos. Univ., pp. 301–345. Gurina N.N. 1953 Pamyatniki epokhi rannego metalla na severnom poberezhye Kolskogo poluostrova. MIA, No. 39: 347–407. Khartanovich V.I. 2006 O “laponoidnosti” na Severe Evropy (po antropologicheskim materialam iz mogilnikov Bolshogo Olenyego ostrova v Kolskom zalive Barentseva morya i Yuzhnogo Olenyego ostrova Onezhskogo ozera). In Pervobytnaya i srednevekovaya istoriya i kultura Evropeiskogo Severa: Problemy izucheniya i nauchnoi rekonstruktsii. Solovki: SOLTI, pp. 143–156. Kolskiy sbornik: Materialy komissii ekspeditsionnykh issledovaniy. 1930 Iss. 23. Leningrda: Izd. AN SSSR. Kozintsev A.G. 1977 Antropologicheskiy sostav i proiskhozhdeniye naseleniya tagarskoi kultury. Leningrad: Nauka. Kozintsev A.G. 2004 Kety, uraltsy, “amerikanoidy”: Integratsiya kraniologicheskikh dannykh. In Paleoantropologiya, etnicheskaya antropologiya, etnogenez. St. Petersburg: Izd. MAE RAN, pp. 172–185.
Levin M.G. 1956 Antropologicheskiye materialy iz Verkholenskogo mogilnika. TIE, vol. 33: 299–339. Mamonova N.N. 1973 K voprosu o drevnem naselenii Priangarya po paleoantropologicheskim dannym. In Problemy arkheologii Urala i Sibiri. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 18–28. Moiseyev V.G. 1999 Proiskhozhdeniye uraloyazychnykh narodov po dannym kraniologii. St. Petersburg: Nauka. Moiseyev V.G. 2001 North Eurasian populations: Linguistic versus biological differentiation. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, No. 4: 154–159. Moiseyev V.G. 2006a Nonmetric traits in Early Iron Age cranial series from Western and Southern Siberia. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, No. 1: 145–152. Moiseyev V.G. 2006b Proiskhozhdeniye uraloyazychnykh narodov po antropologicheskim dannym: Rezultaty mezhsistemnogo analiza. In II Severnyi arkheologicheskiy kongress: Doklady. Yekaterinburg, Khanty-Mansiysk: Charoid, pp. 240–263. Murashkin A.I. 2007 Kostyanoi i rogovoi inventar mogilnika Bolshogo Olenyego ostrova v Kolskom zalive Barentseva morya (po raskopkam 2002–2004 gg.). In Kolskiy sbornik. St. Petersburg: Eleksis Print, pp. 192–220. Murashkin A.I., Shumkin V.Y. 2004 Novye predmety drevnego iskusstva iz mogilnika Bolshogo Olenyego ostrova v Barentsevom more. In Izobrazitelnye pamyatniki: Stil, epokha, kompozitsii: Materialy temat. nauch. konf. St. Petersburg: 97–101. Neolit lesnoi polosy Vostochnoi Evropy (antropologiya sakhtyshskikh stoyanok). 1997 Moscow: Nauchny mir. Popov A.N., Chikisheva T.A., Shpakova E.G. 1997 Boismanskaya arkheologicheskaya kultura Yuzhnogo Primorya. Novosibirsk: Izd. IAE SO RAN. Proiskhozhdeniye i etnicheskaya istoriya russkogo naroda (po antropologicheskim dannym). 1965 Moscow: Nauka. (TIE; vol. 88). Rykun M.P. 2001 K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii naseleniya Verkhnego Priobya rannego zheleznogo veka (po materialam mogilnika Kamen-2). In Prostranstvo kultury v arkheologo-etnograficheskom izmerenii: Zapadnaya Sibir i sopredelnye territorii: Materialy XII Zap.-Sib. arkheol.-etnogr. konf. Tomsk : pp. 301–303. Rykushina G.V. 1980 Naseleniye srednego Eniseya v karasukskuyu epokhu (kraniologicheskii ocherk). In Paleoantropologiya Sibiri. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 47–63. Schmidt A.V. 1930 Drevnii mogilnik na Kolskom zalive. In Kolskiy sbornik: Materialy komissii ekspeditsionnykh issledovaniy, iss. 23. Leningrad: Izd. AN SSSR, pp. 119–169. Shpakova M.V. 2001 Kraniologicheskiye osobennosti muzhskikh serii mogilnogo kompleksa Bystrovka i ikh statisticheskii analiz. In Istoriko-
153
154
V.G. Moiseyev and V.I. Khartanovich / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 145–154
kulturnoye naslediye Severnoi Azii. Barnaul: Izd. Altai. Gos. Univ., pp. 176–180. Shumkin V.Y., Kolpakov E.M., Murashkin A.I. 2006 Nekotorye itogi novykh raskopok mogilnika na Bolshom Olenyem ostrove Barentseva moray. Zapiski IIMK RAN, No. 1: 42–52. Shumkin V.Y., Murashkin A.I. 2003 Novye dannye o mogilnike na Bolshom Olenyem ostrove Barentseva moray. Arkheologicheskiye vesti, iss. 10: 26–30. Shumkin V.Y., Sapelko T.V., Ludikova A.N., Murashkin A.I. 2005 Kompleksnoye issledovaniye mogilnika na Bolshom Olenyem ostrove v Kolskom zalive Barentseva moray. In Quarter 2005: IV Vseros. sovesch. po izucheniyu chetvertichnogo perioda. Syktyvkar: Geoprint, pp. 470–471. Sinitsyn S.D. 1930 Kostnye ostatki cheloveka v raskopkakh A.V. Schmidta. In Kolskiy sbornik: Materialy komissii ekspeditsionnykh issledovaniy, iss. 23. Leningrad: Izd. AN SSSR, pp. 181–183.
Vasiliyev S.V., Borutskaya S.B. 2006a Rekonstruktsiya ¿zicheskogo tipa i stressovykh vliyanii na naseleniye, ostavivshee mogilnik na Bolshom Olenyem ostrove (Barentsevo more). In Pervobytnaya i srednevekovaya istoriya i kultura Evropeiskogo Severa: Problemy izucheniya i nauchnoi rekonstruktsii. Solovki: SOLTI, pp. 376–381. Vasiliyev S.V., Borutskaya S.B. 2006b Analiz morfologicheskogo tipa, fizicheskikh nagruzok i paleopatologii pozdneneoliticheskogo naseleniya severa Kolskogo poluostrova. In II Severnyi arkheologicheskii kongress: Tezisy dokladov. Yekaterinburg, Khanty-Mansiysk: Charoid, pp. 45–46. Yakimov V.P. 1953 Antropologicheskaya kharakteristika kostyakov iz pogrebenii na Bolshom Olenyem ostrove (Barentsevo more). In Sbornik MAE, vol. 15. Moscow, Leningrad: Izd. AN SSSR, pp. 449–485.
Received September 2, 2009.