- Email: [email protected]
NEW CRANIOMETRIC EVIDENCE ON THE ORIGIN OF THE KARELIANS (the Kylalahti Kalmistomäki Burial Ground)
ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY OF EURASIA Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 38/1 (2010) 138–147 E-mail: [email protected]
2
PALEOENVIRONMENT. THE STONE AGE V.I. Khartanovich and I.G. Shirobokov Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya Nab. 3, St. Petersburg, 199034, Russia E-mail: [email protected]
NEW CRANIOMETRIC EVIDENCE ON THE ORIGIN OF THE KARELIANS (the Kylalahti Kalmistomäki Burial Ground)*
In 2006–2007, the expedition from Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, St. Petersburg excavated 52 inhumation burials at a 13th-14th- century cemetery in Kylalahti Kalmistomäki, Karelia. The burial goods are unusual for Karelia, eastern Finland, or other parts of northwestern Russia. The skeletal remains provide the ¿rst chance of assessing the biological af¿nities of the medieval “Korela.” The group displays a trait combination similar to that observed in modern Karelians and opposing them to other recent Eurasian populations. The same combination is observed in Mesolithic and Neolithic crania from the Eastern Baltic. The Kylalahti Kalmistomäki series supports the hypothesis stating that features of the early inhabitants of Europe have survived in certain populations of northwestern Eurasia up to the present time. Keywords: Craniology, population history, ethnic history, Middle Ages, Finnic peoples, Karelians.
Introduction Until recently, the study of the origin and ethnic history of the population of northwestern Ladoga area was almost exclusively based on archaeological, linguistic, and historical sources. The latter suggest that in the ¿rst half of the 2nd millennium AD, the northwestern Ladoga coast, the Karelian Isthmus, and Eastern Bothnia were parts of the distribution area of people whom the medieval chronicles call “Korela” and who were ancestors of the modern Karelians. After Russia’s defeat by Sweden in the 17th century, the Orthodox Karelians of those areas, who suffered religious persecution, began emigrating in large numbers to northern parts of what is now Karelia as well as to Tver Province and to the Tikhvin Uyezd of Petersburg Province. The abandoned places of the *Supported by the Russian Foundation for the Humanities (Projects 07-01-18066e and 08-01-18022e).
Karelian Isthmus and the northwestern Ladoga coast were occupied by settlers from various parts of Finland and Sweden (Karely…, 1983). However, the origin of tribes referred to by the name “Korela” is still unclear. A theory that was popular in Finland in the early 1900s holds that those people were direct descendents of the Häme tribe, part of which migrated to the east and assimilated into a small group of natives (Zherbin, Shaskolsky, 1976). The alternative view, which was widespread in the Soviet pre-war scholarship, was that Karelians were a single people native to the Karelian and Olonets Isthmuses (Gadzyatsky, 1941). While the key archaeological sites associated with medieval “Korela” indeed concentrate on the northwestern Ladoga coast and in southeastern Finland, these tribes may have occupied a larger territory (Kochkurkina, 1982). Archaeological sites in Karelia mostly date from 1100 to 1500, the blossom of the medieval Korela. Earlier stages
Copyright © 2010, 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.2010.05.015
V.I. Khartanovich and I.G. Shirobokov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 38/1 (2010) 138–147
of Karelian history are underepresented by the available sources, and some of them are undocumented altogether. Thus, the antiquity of the Korela is a disputed issue. Certain researchers regard it as a comparatively recent tribal unity that formed in the Karelian Isthmus from 1000 to 1200. S.I. Kochkurkina, drawing on a variety of sources disagrees; in her view, “speaking of Korela as a late ethnic phenomenon is hardly justi¿ed” (Ibid.: 13). However, Kochkurkina admits that earlier materials do not provide a simple solution and do not allow us to establish the precise period of ultimate consolidation of Karelians as an ethnic group. A.I. Saksa (2001) believes that the emergence of settlements on the Ladoga coast, the likely center of medieval Karelian culture partly resulted from contacts with immigrants from western Finland. According to Saksa, the permanent settlement in Karelia and eastern Finland began in the mid-1st millennium AD. It is likewise unclear from where the Karelian Isthmus was populated and who its ¿rst inhabitants were. V.I. Ravdonikas (1934) believed that initially Karelians lived in the Olonets Isthmus and shifted to the Karelian Isthmus only in the late 11th century. D.V. Bubrich (1947) formulated a theory which stated that before the emergence of the Old Russian state, the Karelian Isthmus was populated only by dispersed nomadic groups of Sami, and after the state had emerged, immigrants from the Lake Chudskoye coast and from the land of Häme appeared there. Human skeletal remains may be relevant for many issues outlined above. Specifically, it is important to compare medieval “Korela” with contemporary populations of northeastern Europe and the Baltic region on the one hand and with modern Karelians and other Finnic peoples on the other. Until recently, however no medieval crania from either the Ladoga coast or Karelia at large were available. Over the last decades, large cranial samples representing recent 18th – early 19th century Finnic peoples were collected, including several series of Karelian crania from the principal modern distribution area, the Republic of Karelia. Karelians display a rather unusual trait combination, characterized by mesobrachycrany and a relatively short, wide, robust and extremely high braincase. The face is medium high and medium wide (it is wide in northern Karelia). The upper horizontal facial pro¿le is Àattened by European standards, but the midfacial pro¿le is sharp. The nose is sharply protruding and convex. This trait combination opposes the Karelians to all modern and recent groups of Eurasia including the closest linguistic relatives of Karelians, the Baltic Finns, specifically the Suomi Finns and Estonians (Khartanovich, 1986, 1990). Among the prehistoric series, the same trait combination is observed in the Meso-Neolithic sample from Zvejnieki, Latvia (Khartanovich, 1991b).
This fact along with the slight flattening of the upper facial pro¿ le in modern Karelians once again raises the issue of the so-called “prehistoric Mongoloid admixture” in Eastern Europe which has been discussed by Russian anthropologists since the 1950s. Details of these debates were described in a number of publications (Neolit…, 1997; Khartanovich, 2006). Specialists who contributed to the discussion were the leading ¿gures in Soviet physical anthropology – V. P. A l e k s e y e v, M . S . A k i m o v a , V. V. B u n a k , M.V. Vitov, G.F. Debetz, R.Ya. Denisova, I.I. Gokhman, E.V. Zhirov, A.A. Zubov, K.J. Mark, N.N. Cheboksarov, G.L. Khit, and V.P. Yakimov. The list of names itself testi¿es to the importance of the issue. A signi¿cant contribution to the study of the early population history of Eastern Europe and of the origins of the contradictory trait combinations distributed on that territory was made by T.I. Alekseyeva. In a joint monograph describing the Neolithic cranial series from Sakhtysh in the Upper Volga area, she notes that certain European Mesolithic groups were characterized by large dimensions of the braincase and especially by its conspicuous height. The face was wide and relatively low and a Àattened upper facial pro¿le co-occurred with a sharp midfacial pro¿le and sharply protruding nasal bones (Alekseyeva, 1997). In Alekseyeva’s words, this unusual trait combination, which was more than once revealed by multivariate statistics, was widely distributed and was typical of Mesolithic Caucasoids of the forest and forest-steppe zones of Eastern Europe as evidenced by groups such as Zvejnieki, Popovo, Southern Oleniy (Reindeer) Island, and Vasilievka I and III. In her words, there is no doubt that robustness and upper facial Àatness were inherited from earlier Caucasoid populations of Eastern Europe (Ibid.: 26). In the joint monograph integrating the anthropological studies of the Eastern Slavs, Alekseyeva formulated her conclusions regarding the origin of this trait combination: “Judging by the concentration of these unusual features in Scandinavia, the Baltic and the Onega area, people displaying them had migrated to Eastern Europe from the northwest and were possibly associated with the Mesolithic cultures of the circum-Baltic region. Revisiting the long-standing issue of admixture versus evolutionary conservatism in the Mesolithic population of Eastern Europe in the light of new data, we must reject the admixture hypothesis. The location of this peculiar type and its expansion from the west to the east suggest that it should be regarded as an independent ancient type which originated in northwestern Europe” (Alekseyeva, 1999: 254–255). In the Neolithic, biological continuity with the Mesolithic population was preserved but the diversity increased. Importantly, according to Alekseyeva (Ibid.: 255), the population which in the Mesolithic had been quite Caucasoid despite the unusual combination of the two
139
140
V.I. Khartanovich and I.G. Shirobokov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 38/1 (2010) 138–147
facial pro¿les (Àattened in the upper part and sharp in the middle part; one might add that the face was very broad and the braincase was very high) began to assume a somewhat “Mongoloid” appearance. After the Neolithic, groups marked by the trait combination noted by Alekseyeva and others seem to have disappeared from Eastern Europe. This may have been partly due to the scarcity of cranial remains from the Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, and medieval burials in the Eastern Baltic area and to the complete absence of such remains from Karelia. However, none of the large series of 11th–17th-century crania from Leningrad Oblast, Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia too, reveal the combination described above. By contrast, several large 18th–19th-century Karelian cranial samples very clearly exhibit precisely this combination, which Alekseyeva demonstrated to be peculiar to the Circum-Baltic region in the Mesolithic. The only noteworthy difference is a larger cranial index and a somewhat less robust braincase in the late groups. These changes are readily explainable by the two diachronic tendencies – brachycephalization and gracilization. The question arises: was this ancient morphological type also peculiar to the chronologically intermediate medieval population of the Ladoga coast – the “Korela” of the Russian chronicles? The question is relevant not merely for the origin of the Karelians, but also for a broader issue of evolutionary conservatism in European populations.
The Kylalahti Kalmistomäki group Excavations conducted by the Northern European Expedition from the Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography RAS in 2006 to 2007 yielded the ¿rst cranial series attributable to medieval Korela. The excavations were carried out at Kylalahti Kalmistomäki in the Lahdenpohja Region of the Republic of Karelia. The cemetery is situated 2 km southwest of Tiurula, 0.5 km southeast of the foundation of the Orthodox church, 0.1 km south of the southwestern coast of Tiurulanselka Bay. The total number of excavated burials was 52. All were made according to the inhumation rite (Fig. 1) and the burial goods are unique for Karelia, eastern Finland, and northwestern Russia in general. Some of them are of late 13th–14th century Novgorodian and Northern European manufacture. Many are items of medieval jewelry. In some burials, pieces of textile, remains of leather belts, bags and shoes, and fragments of birch bark, felt and other organic materials were found. Apart from late medieval items, certain 10th–11th century artifacts were unearthed associated with an earlier cemetery which had been demolished. The earlier suggestion that a Bronze or Early Iron Age site was situated on that place as well has been supported (Belsky, Khartanovich, 2006; Khartanovich, Belsky, Laakso, 2007; Belsky, Laakso, 2008). The preservation of bone is generally poor due to soil conditions. Only six male and ¿ve female crania were suitable for measurement (Table 1) (Khartanovich,
Fig. 1. Burials 25–27 at Kylalahti Kalmistomäki. Eastern view.
V.I. Khartanovich and I.G. Shirobokov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 38/1 (2010) 138–147
141
Table 1. Average measurements of male and female crania from Kylalahti Kalmistomäki Traits
Male
Female
N
X
SD
N
X
SD
2
3
4
5
6
7
1. Cranial length
6
186.2
7.9
4
171.0
7.2
8. Cranial breadth
4
150.3
6.0
4
136.3
4.8
8:1. Cranial index
4
80.3
2.8
4
79.8
3.8
17. Basion–bregma height
6
144.0
7.2
4
130.5
5.3
17:1. Height–length index
6
77.4
2.9
4
76.3
1.4
17:8. Height–breadth index
4
96.6
3.7
4
95.8
4.0
20. Porion–bregma height
5
125.8
2.3
4
110.5
0.6
5. Cranial base length
6
102.8
7.3
5
95.4
6.0
9. Minimal frontal breadth
3
102.7
10.0
5
94.0
1.9
9:8. Transverse fronto-cerebral index
3
67.6
4.9
4
68.8
1.3
10. Maximal frontal breadth
3
130.7
8.1
3
111.0
4.4
32. Frontal pro¿le angle (nasion)
2
88.5
0.7
3
87.0
2.0
g-m Frontal pro¿le angle (glabella)
2
79.0
0.0
3
80.3
4.7
12. Occipital breadth
4
117.5
3.4
5
106.4
4.8
40. Basion–prosthion length
4
95.5
1.7
3
91.0
4.0
40:5. Flower’s index
4
96.1
5.5
3
97.5
1.2
43. Upper facial breadth
3
108.0
7.5
4
98.8
3.1
45. Bizygomatic breadth
3
135.0
2.6
2
124.0
7.1
45:8. Horizontal facio-cerebral index
3
88.9
4.3
2
90.1
2.8
46. Mid-facial breadth
3
97.3
5.5
2
91.0
1.4
48. Upper facial height
4
73.8
0.5
5
63.8
4.5
48:45. Upper facial index
2
55.2
1.2
2
49.8
5.7
48:17. Vertical facio-cerebral index
4
50.4
2.3
4
47.7
1.1
51. Orbital breadth (mf)
6
42.2
1.2
5
41.0
1.2
1
51a. Orbital breadth (d)
6
38.8
1.7
5
37.4
1.5
52. Orbital height
6
31.3
2.8
5
30.4
1.1
52:51a. Orbital index (d)
6
80.6
5.7
5
81.4
4.4
54. Nasal breadth
5
25.0
1.9
4
24.3
2.1
55. Nasal height
6
49.7
3.7
5
47.6
2.1
54:55. Nasal index
5
49.2
5.3
4
51.7
5.0
SC. Simotic chord
4
9.0
2.4
5
8.6
0.8
SS. Simotic subtense
4
4.6
1.4
5
3.7
0.7
SS:SC. Simotic index
4
51.1
5.6
5
44.0
9.2
DC. Dacryal chord
2
23.5
1.3
5
19.9
0.5
DS. Dacryal subtense
2
13.1
2.2
5
11.2
1.3
DS:DC. Dacryal index
2
55.5
6.2
5
56.0
5.5
43 (1). Bimalar breadth
3
100.0
5.2
5
91.8
2.5
142
V.I. Khartanovich and I.G. Shirobokov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 38/1 (2010) 138–147
Table 1 continued 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Nasion subtense above bimalar breadth
3
17.0
0.4
5
17.1
1.8
77. Naso-malar angle
3
142.4
2.5
5
139.2
4.0
Zm’-zm’. Zygo-maxillary breadth
3
98.0
5.3
2
89.0
0.0
Sub.ss. Subspinale subtense above zygo-maxillary breadth
3
23.2
2.4
2
22.8
0.4
zm’. Zygo-maxillary angle
3
129.4
2.3
2
125.9
0.8
72. Total facial angle
4
86.8
1.9
3
83.3
1.2
73. Middle facial angle
4
91.3
2.8
4
87.0
2.3
74. Alveolar angle
4
73.5
1.7
3
67.7
2.9
75(1). Nasal protrusion angle
1
31.0
–
0
–
–
FC. Canine fossa depth
2
4.1
1.8
5
4.2
1.8
Shirobokov, 2008). So far, this small series* is the only group from the Ladoga area which predates the 18th – early 19th century group from the nearby village of Kurkijoki on the northwestern coast of the lake (Khartanovich, 1990). New materials, for the ¿rst time, provide a chance to evaluate the biological af¿nities of the 13th–14th- century native population of the region. On average, male crania from Kylalahti Kalmistomäki (Table 1) are mesobrachycranic and the braincase is long and wide. The muscular relief is rather pronounced. The vault is very high, both absolutely and relative to its length and width. The frontal bone is wide and straight. The face is high, wide, and orthognathic. It is somewhat Àattened on the naso-malar level and sharply pro¿led on the zygo-maxillary level. The orbits are medium wide and low, both absolutely and relatively. The pyrifirm aperture is rather low and medium wide. The nasal bones are medium wide and convex. The dacryal and simotic indices are large. Due to poor preservation, the nasal protrusion angle was measured on one cranium only and turned out to be large. The distinctive characteristics of the Kylalahti Kalmistomäki series then are general robustness, a long, wide, and extremely high vault, slight facial Àattening at the upper level, combined with sharp midfacial pro¿le and convex, sharply protruding nasalia. Between-group comparison To evaluate the af¿nities of the series, it was compared with other male groups from northeastern Europe (Table 2). The resemblance with recent Karelians is apparent. Similarities include high vault, mesobrachycrany, *Hopefully more crania will be obtained during the next ¿eld seasons.
the combination of moderate upper facial pro¿le with sharp midfacial pro¿le, and convex, sharply protruding nasal bones. Apparently, not only cultural but also biological continuity existed between the medieval “Korela” and the Karelians of recent centuries. Both exhibit a very peculiar trait combination distinguishing both groups from others and evidently attesting to genetic af¿nity. To test these conclusions, we conducted a canonical variate analysis of nine dimensions of 46 cranial series from northeastern Europe using software written by B.A. Kozintsev (Table 3). Modern and recent groups compared with Kylalahti Kalmistomäki are Karelians, Ingrians (Izhorians), Finns, Estonians, Komi Zyrians, Kola Sami, northern and northwestern Russians, Letts, Swedes of Finland and of Ruhnu Island, Estonia. The loadings of traits on the canonical variates are given in Table 4, and Fig. 2 shows the position of groups on canonical variates I and II, which jointly account for 56.8 % of the total variance. Traits with the highest positive loadings on CV I (32 % of variance) are cranial height and nasal protrusion angle, implying that on the between group level, groups with high vaults tend to display sharply protruding noses. As seen from Fig. 2, Karelians, Komi Zyrians, Ingrians as well as the Kylalahti Kalmistomäki group cluster on the positive extreme of CV I. The opposite extreme is taken by Sami groups, which demonstrate maximal gracility, low vault, and relatively weakly protruding noses. The Karelian series from Kompakovo falls in the center and is isolated from other Karelian groups due to a combination of medium high vault, mesobrachycrany, and a face that is Àat by Karelian standards. Apparently, this group differs from other Karelians by origin (Khartanovich, 1986). Also intermediate between the Karelian and Finnish groups is a recent series from Kurkijoki, which was shown to be admixed (Khartanovich,
V.I. Khartanovich and I.G. Shirobokov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 38/1 (2010) 138–147
143
N
X
N
1. Cranial length
6
186.2
15
8. Cranial breadth
4
150.3
8:1. Cranial index
4
17. Cranial height (ba-b)
X
Zvejnieki, Middle and Late Neolithic (Denisova, 1975)
Zvejnieki, Early Neolithic (Denisova, 1975)
Raginenai, Barciunai, Noruisiai, 2nd–6th centuries (Denisova, 1975)
N
X
N
X
N
X
N
X
182.0 179.2
13
179.3
8
192.3
14
190.4
35
188.1
15
145.5 145.2
13
146.6
8
143.5
14
144.7
38
142.0
80.3
15
80.,0
81.0
13
81.7
8
74.7
14
71.6
35
75.4
6
144.0
15
141.5 139.6
12
141.1
7
141.0
14
144.7
32
139.3
9. Minimal frontal breadth
3
102.7
17
99.7
97.8
13
99.2
8
96.9
15
99.3
36
99.3
32. Nasal pro¿le angle (n-m)
2
88.5
13
83.5
85.0
8
87.4
2
82.5
9
80.9
23
81.1
45. Bizygomatic breadth
3
135.0
13
139.5 134.4
7
136.9
7
136.0
12
139.1
27
139.9
48. Upper facial height
4
73.8
14
71.6
71.3
12
71.2
8
70.6
12
71.3
28
69.5
72. Total facial angle
4
86.3
12
83.2
84.7
8
86.7
7
87.1
8
83.1
22
83.7
77. Naso-malar angle
3
142.4
15
141.3 141.5
9
141.2
3
142.2
11
138.2
27
141.9
zm’. Zygo-maxillary angle
3
129.4
14
126.1 127.1
7
127.3
3
130.7
8
122.0
19
130.1
51. Orbiral breadth (mf)
6
42.2
14
43.3
41.8
12
40.7
8
41.9
11
44.7
35
44.2
52. Orbital height
6
31.3
14
34.1
33.1
11
32.2
8
31.9
11
33.9
34
32.4
52:51. Orbital index (d)
6
80.6
14
78.9
79.3
10
79.6
3
80.5
10
75.9
33
73.4
54. Nasal breadth
5
25.0
15
23.9
24.7
12
24.7
8
24.9
12
25.0
28
25.4
55. Nasal height
6
49.7
15
52.3
51.3
12
51.1
8
51.6
11
53.6
29
51.8
54:55. Nasal index
5
49.2
15
45.9
48.3
11
48.0
8
48.3
10
46.9
28
49.0
DC. Dacryal chord
2
23.5
12
22.6
22.85
–
–
3
23.1
9
20.9
20
21.8
DS. Dacryal subtense
2
13.1
12
12.7
12.1
–
–
3
13.1
9
11.9
20
13.0
DS:DC. Dacryal index
2
55.5
12
56.7
53.2
–
–
3
60.1
9
57.3
20
59.9
SC. Simotic chord
4
9.0
15
9.4
9.6
8
9.9
3
8.2
9
8.6
22
5.0
SS. Simotic subtense
4
4.6
15
4.7
4.4
8
4.4
3
4.0
8
4.5
22
9.9
SS:SC. Simotic index
4
51.1
15
50.6
46.5
8
45.1
3
54.3
7
53.2
22
50.9
75(1). Nasal protrusion angle
1
31.0
11
31.3
29.4
8
30.0
3
34.3
7
32.3
21
28.9
1990). Nevertheless, it is closer to Karelians and Komi Zyrians than to Finns. Traits with maximal loadings on CV II, which explains 25 % of the variation are nasal protrusion angle, simotic index, bizygomatic width, and length and width of the braincase. ɋV II demonstrates that a lesser nasal protrusion angle co-occurs with a shorter braincase and a higher simotic index. The Sami living in the central parts of the Kola Peninsula in relative isolation from others score highest on CV II due to brachycrany and small nasal protrusion angle combined with the convex nasal bridge.
X
Raglitsy, cairns, 14th–16th centuries (Sankina, 2000)
Karelians, pooled (Khartanovich, 1986)
Kylalahti Kalmistomäki (14th century)
Traits
Karelians, Chiksha (Khartanovich, 1986)
Table 2. Average dimensions of male crania from Kylalahti Kalmistomäki and other male series from northeastern Europe
Coastal Sami from Jokanga, and to a lesser degree those from Varzino, deviate from others and show a “Finnish” tendency probably because of a late northern Caucasoid admixture (Khartanovich, 1991b, 2004a). Certain groups of Swedes and Letts score lowest on CV II. Generally, as seen from Fig. 2, Finnish, Estonian, Lettish, and Russian groups form no distinct clusters and display a high between-group variation, possibly because of their complex population history. Results of the multivariate analysis suggest that the Kylalahti Kalmistomäki group exhibits a distinctly Karelian
144
V.I. Khartanovich and I.G. Shirobokov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 38/1 (2010) 138–147
Table 3. Comparative cranial series from northeastern Europe Series 1
Ethnic af¿liation
Source
2
3
–
Present study
Karelians
Khartanovich, 1986
3. Turha
»
»
4. Kondievuara
»
»
1. Kylalahti Kalmistomäki 2. Suistamo
5. Pekkavuara
»
»
6. Bokonvuara
»
»
7. Kompakovo
»
»
8. Chiksha
»
»
»
»
10. Lippovo
9. Regjärvi
Ingrians (Izhora)
Khartanovich, 2004b
11. Kurkijoki
Finns
Khartanovich, 1990
12. Savo
»
Khartanovich, 1995
13. Häme
»
»
14. Uusimaa
»
»
15. Helsinki
»
»
16. Varsinais-Suomi
»
»
17. Pedersöre
»
»
18. South Pohjanmaa
»
»
19. North Pohjanmaa
»
»
20. Satakunta
»
»
21. Muonioniska
»
»
22. Ingria
»
Alekseyev, 1969
Estonians
Mark, 1956
23. Kabina 24. Jarve
»
»
25. Varbola
»
»
Komi Zyrians
Khartanovich, 1991a
»
»
Sami
Khartanovich, 2004a
29. Chalmny-Varre
»
Khartanovich, 1980
30. Pulozero
»
»
31. Varzino
»
»
32. Jokanga
»
»
Russians
Alekseyev, 1969
26. Podyelsk 27. Griva 28. North Salma
33. Archangel Province 34. Olonets Province
»
»
35. Petersburg Province
»
»
36. Novgorod Province
»
»
37. Pskov Province
»
»
38. Vologda Province
»
»
»
»
Letts
»
39. Old Ladoga 40. Durbe
V.I. Khartanovich and I.G. Shirobokov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 38/1 (2010) 138–147
145
Table 3 continued 1
2
3
41. Western Letts
»
»
42. Ludza
»
»
43. Ratulani
»
ZariƼa, 1990
44. Ormankalns
»
»
45. Ruhnu
Swedes
Alekseyev, 1974
46. Finland
»
»
Table 4. Trait loadings on the ¿rst three canonical variates derived from the analysis of 46 cranial series from northeastern Europe Traits
CV I
CV II
CV III
–0.310
–0.625
0.317
8. Cranial breadth
0.173
0.416
–0.208
17. Cranial height
0.905
–0.037
–0.232
9. Minimal frontal breadth
0.115
–0.312
–0.174
45. Bizygomatic diameter
–0.013
0.388
0.949
0.205
0.248
0.009
zm’. Zygo-maxillary angle
–0.261
0.093
0.227
SS:SC. Simotic index
–0.256
0.540
0.067
75(1). Nasal protrusion angle
0.403
–0.811
0.246
Percent of variance
31.9
24.9
12.5
1. Cranial length
77. Naso-malar angle
trait combination, being closest to Karelians from Chiksha and Turha who retain the morphological speci¿city of ancient groups with their robust and very high braincase, a broad face, which is slightly Àattened on the upper level and sharply pro¿led at the middle level, and a sharply protruding nose. This combination, which opposes Karelians to other modern groups of northeastern Europe and links them to prehistoric inhabitants of the region, is even more expressed in the medieval group from Kylalahti Kalmistomäki than in the 18th – early 20th century Karelians. Among the numerous late medieval groups from the territory of the Novgorodian Republic and the Eastern Baltic, the only parallel to these groups is shown by a series from the 14th–16th century cairns at Raglitsy in Novgorod Province (Sankina, 2000). The only early medieval group with a similar combination is that from the 2nd– 6th century mounds from Zhemaitia, Latvia (Denisova, 1975). The only difference is that the Zhemaitians display a longer and narrower braincase (Table 2).
ɚ b c d e
f g h i j
Fig. 2. The position of Kylalahti Kalmistomäki and other male groups from northeastern Europe on the ¿rst two canonical vectors (CV I and CV II). a – Kylalahti Kalmistomäki; b – Karelians; c – Ingrians (Izhorians); d – Finns of Finland and of the Ingrian Plateau; e – Estonians; f – Komi Zyrians; g – Sami; h – northern and northwestern Russians; i – Letts; j – Swedes. The groups are numbered as in Table 3.
146
V.I. Khartanovich and I.G. Shirobokov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 38/1 (2010) 138–147
Discussion and conclusions Clearly, the general resemblance between the Kylalahti Kalmistomäki crania, those of modern Karelians, and certain medieval, Neolithic, and Mesolithic groups does not necessarily indicate direct genetic continuity. More likely, it indicates evolutionary conservatism, whereby ancient trait combinations have been preserved in certain populations of northern Europe. V.P. Alekseyev (1984) suggested that evolutionary conservatism might have resulted in the preservation of ancient and “neutral” trait combinations in isolated forest regions of Eastern Europe (1984). This mostly concerned Mesolithic and Neolithic groups which evidently retained the Upper Paleolithic morphology. At the time when Alekseyev made this suggestion, no instances of “evolutionary conservatism” in medieval or recent groups were known because late medieval and modern cranial remains from Karelia were quite scarce. The conservation of ancient trait combinations in Eastern Europe may follow at least two different patterns (Khartanovich, 2004b): either it occurs within a single rather isolated territory, as in the case of Karelians, Ingrians, and Komi Zyrians, or it concerns populations that are widely separated in both space and time like medieval groups from Raglitsy and Zhemaitia. Examples of the latter category are rather few so far, but their number may increase with the growth of the database. The first medieval series from the Ladoga coast, the one from Kylalahti Kalmistomäki, provides yet another instance of regional evolutionary conservatism. Also, it suggests that modern Karelians are not only culturally but also biologically related to medieval “Korela.” This group to some extent bridges a chronological gap between the Mesolithic and the recent period, demonstrating the minimal duration of the period over which the peculiar morphological trait combination existed. Small as it is, the Kylalahti Kalmistomäki group is a valuable source of information about population processes that occurred both in the Ladoga area and in northeastern Europe as a whole. Future excavations will hopefully extend the existing database and thus provide a basis for understanding the reasons behind the preservation of ancient morphological complexes.
References Alekseyev V.P. 1969 Proiskhozhdeniye narodov Vostochnoi Evropy: Kraniologicheskoye issledovanie. Moscow: Nauka. Alekseyev V.P. 1974 Kraniologicheskaya kharakteristika naseleniya Vostochnoi Fennoskandii. In Rasogeneticheskiye protsessy v etnicheskoi istorii. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 85–105.
Alekseyev V.P. 1984 Fizicheskiye osobennosti mezoliticheskogo i ranneneoliticheskogo naseleniya Vostochnoi Evropy v svyazi s problemami zaseleniya etoi territorii. In Problemy drevnego i sovremennogo naseleniya Severa Evrazii. Leningrad: Nauka, pp. 28–36. Alekseyeva T.I. 1997 Neoliticheskoye naseleniye lesnoi polosy Vostochnoi Evropy: Sravnitelnyi antropologicheskiy aspekt. In Neolit lesnoi polosy Vostochnoi Evropy (antropologiya sakhtyshskikh stoyanok). Moscow: Nauch. mir, pp. 18–41. Alekseyeva T.I. 1999 Drevneishee naseleniye Vostochnoi Evropy. In Vostochnye slavyane: Antropologiya i etnicheskaya istoriya, T.I. Alekseeva (ed.). Moscow: Nauch. mir. Belsky S.V., Laakso V. 2008 Rezultaty polevykh issledovanii Karelskogo arkheologicheskogo otryada MAE RAN na mogilnike Kiulyalahti Kalmistomyaki v Severo-Zapadnom Priladozhye v 2007 g. (arkheologicheskiy aspekt). In Radlovsky sbornik: Nauchnye issledovaniya i muzeinye proekty MAE RAN v 2007 g. St. Petersburg: Izd. MAE RAN, pp. 178–183. Belsky S.V., Khartanovich V.I. 2006 Perspektivy izucheniya mogilnikov epokhi Srednevekovya v Severo-Zapadnom Priladozhye (otsenka sovremennogo sostoyaniya). In Radlovsky sbornik: Nauchnye issledovaniya i muzeinye proekty MAE RAN v 2006 g. St. Petersburg: Izd. MAE RAN, pp. 244–247. Bubrich D.V. 1947 Proiskhozhdeniye karelskogo naroda: Povest o soyuznike i druge russkogo naroda na Severe. Petrozavodsk: GIZ KareloFinskoi SSR. Denisova R.Ya. 1975 Antropologiya drevnikh baltov. Riga: Zinatne Gadzyatsky S.S. 1941 Karely i Kareliya v novgorodskoe vremya. Petrozavodsk: GIZ Karelo-Finskoi SSR. Karely Karelskoi ASSR. 1983 Petrozavodsk: Kareliya. Khartanovich V.I. 1980 Novye materialy k kraniologii saamov Kolskogo p-ova. Sbornik MAE, vol. 36: 35–47. (Issledovaniya po paleoantropologii i kraniologii SSSR). Khartanovich V.I. 1986 Kraniologiya karel. In Antropologiya sovremennogo i drevnego naseleniya evropeiskoi chasti SSSR. Leningrad: Nauka, pp. 63–120. Khartanovich V.I. 1990 K kraniologii naseleniya severo-zapadnogo Priladozhya XIX – nachala XX v. In Balty, slavyane, ¿nny: Etnogeneticheskiye protsessy. Riga: Zinatne, pp. 216–229. Khartanovich V.I. 1991a Novye materialy k kraniologii komi-zyryan. Sbornik MAE, vol. 44: 108–125. (Novye kollektsii i issledovaniya po antropologii i arkheologii). Khartanovich V.I. 1991b O vzaimootnoshenii antropologicheskikh tipov saamov i karel po dannym kraniologii. In Proiskhozhdenie saamov. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 19–33. Khartanovich V.I. 1995 Materialy k kraniologii ¿nnov. In Antropologiya segodnya, iss. 1. St. Petersburg: Izd. MAE RAN, pp. 71–89.
V.I. Khartanovich and I.G. Shirobokov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 38/1 (2010) 138–147
Khartanovich V.I. 2004a Novye kraniologicheskiye materialy po saamam Kolskogo poluostrova. In Paleoantropologiya, etnicheskaya istoriya, etnogenez. Sbornik k 75-letiyu I.I. Gokhmana. St. Petersburg: Izd. MAE RAN, pp. 108–125. Khartanovich V.I. 2004b Kraniologiya izhor. In Rasy i narody, iss. 30. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 96–124. Khartanovich V.I. 2006 O “laponoidnosti” na Severe Evropy (po antropologicheskim materialam iz mogilnikov Bolshogo Olenego ostrova v Kolskom zalive Barentseva morya i Yuzhnogo Olenego o-va Onezhskogo ozera). In Pervobytnaya i srednevekovaya istoriya i kultura Evropeiskogo severa: Problemy izucheniya i nauchnoi rekonstruktsii. Solovki: SOLTI, pp. 143–156. Khartanovich V.I., Belsky S.V., Laakso V. 2007 Monitoring sovremennogo sostoyaniya mogilnikov epokhi Srednevekovya – Novogo vremeni v Severo-Zapadnom Priladozhye v 2005–2006 godakh (nekotorye rezultaty i perspektivy izucheniya). In Istoriya i kulturnoe naslediye Severnogo Priladozhyja: Vzglyad iz Rossii i Finlyandii. Petrozavodsk: Izd. Karel. nauch. tsentra RAN, pp. 38–42. Khartanovich V.I., Shirobokov I.G. 2008 K kraniologii srednevekovogo naseleniya severo-zapadnogo Priladozhya: Predvaritelnyi analiz materialov iz mogilnika Kiulyalahti-Kalmistomyaki. In Radlovsky sbornik: Nauchnye issledovaniya i muzeinye proekty MAE RAN v 2007 g. St. Petersburg: Izd. MAE RAN, pp. 222–230. Kochkurkina S.I. 1956 Drevnyaya korela. Leningrad: Nauka.
Mark K.J. 1956 Paleoantropologiya Estonskoi SSR. TIE, vol. 32: 170–228. (Baltiysky etnogra¿cheskiy sbornik). Neolit lesnoi polosy Vostochnoi Evropy (antropologiya sakhtyshskikh stoyanok). 1997 Moscow: Nauch. mir. Ravdonikas V.I. 1934 Pamyatniki epokhi vozniknoveniya feodalizma v Karelii i v Yugo-Vostochnom Priladozhye. Izvestiya Gos. akademii istorii materialnoi kultury, No. 94: 16–43. Saksa A.I. 2001 Istoriya naseleniya priladozhskoi Karelii i oblasti Savo s drevneishikh vremen i do XIV v. In Ocherki istoricheskoi geogra¿i: Severo-Zapad Rossii: Slavyane i ¿nny. St. Petersburg: Izd. SPb. Gos. Univ., pp. 257–271. Sankina S.L. 2000 Etnicheskaya istoriya srednevekovogo naseleniya Novgorodskoi zemli po dannym antropologii. St. Petersburg: Dmitriy Bulanin. Zarina G. 1990 Antropologicheskiy sostav naseleniya Augszeme. In Balty, slavyane, ¿nny: Etnogeneticheskie processy. Riga: Zinatne, pp. 109–123. Zherbin A.S., Shaskolsky I.P. 1976 Sovetskaya nauka o proiskhozhdenii karel. In Proiskhozhdeniye Karelii. Ioensuu: Izd. Univ. Ioensuu, pp. 19–40.
Received May 7, 2008.
147
2
PALEOENVIRONMENT. THE STONE AGE V.I. Khartanovich and I.G. Shirobokov Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya Nab. 3, St. Petersburg, 199034, Russia E-mail: [email protected]
NEW CRANIOMETRIC EVIDENCE ON THE ORIGIN OF THE KARELIANS (the Kylalahti Kalmistomäki Burial Ground)*
In 2006–2007, the expedition from Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, St. Petersburg excavated 52 inhumation burials at a 13th-14th- century cemetery in Kylalahti Kalmistomäki, Karelia. The burial goods are unusual for Karelia, eastern Finland, or other parts of northwestern Russia. The skeletal remains provide the ¿rst chance of assessing the biological af¿nities of the medieval “Korela.” The group displays a trait combination similar to that observed in modern Karelians and opposing them to other recent Eurasian populations. The same combination is observed in Mesolithic and Neolithic crania from the Eastern Baltic. The Kylalahti Kalmistomäki series supports the hypothesis stating that features of the early inhabitants of Europe have survived in certain populations of northwestern Eurasia up to the present time. Keywords: Craniology, population history, ethnic history, Middle Ages, Finnic peoples, Karelians.
Introduction Until recently, the study of the origin and ethnic history of the population of northwestern Ladoga area was almost exclusively based on archaeological, linguistic, and historical sources. The latter suggest that in the ¿rst half of the 2nd millennium AD, the northwestern Ladoga coast, the Karelian Isthmus, and Eastern Bothnia were parts of the distribution area of people whom the medieval chronicles call “Korela” and who were ancestors of the modern Karelians. After Russia’s defeat by Sweden in the 17th century, the Orthodox Karelians of those areas, who suffered religious persecution, began emigrating in large numbers to northern parts of what is now Karelia as well as to Tver Province and to the Tikhvin Uyezd of Petersburg Province. The abandoned places of the *Supported by the Russian Foundation for the Humanities (Projects 07-01-18066e and 08-01-18022e).
Karelian Isthmus and the northwestern Ladoga coast were occupied by settlers from various parts of Finland and Sweden (Karely…, 1983). However, the origin of tribes referred to by the name “Korela” is still unclear. A theory that was popular in Finland in the early 1900s holds that those people were direct descendents of the Häme tribe, part of which migrated to the east and assimilated into a small group of natives (Zherbin, Shaskolsky, 1976). The alternative view, which was widespread in the Soviet pre-war scholarship, was that Karelians were a single people native to the Karelian and Olonets Isthmuses (Gadzyatsky, 1941). While the key archaeological sites associated with medieval “Korela” indeed concentrate on the northwestern Ladoga coast and in southeastern Finland, these tribes may have occupied a larger territory (Kochkurkina, 1982). Archaeological sites in Karelia mostly date from 1100 to 1500, the blossom of the medieval Korela. Earlier stages
Copyright © 2010, 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.2010.05.015
V.I. Khartanovich and I.G. Shirobokov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 38/1 (2010) 138–147
of Karelian history are underepresented by the available sources, and some of them are undocumented altogether. Thus, the antiquity of the Korela is a disputed issue. Certain researchers regard it as a comparatively recent tribal unity that formed in the Karelian Isthmus from 1000 to 1200. S.I. Kochkurkina, drawing on a variety of sources disagrees; in her view, “speaking of Korela as a late ethnic phenomenon is hardly justi¿ed” (Ibid.: 13). However, Kochkurkina admits that earlier materials do not provide a simple solution and do not allow us to establish the precise period of ultimate consolidation of Karelians as an ethnic group. A.I. Saksa (2001) believes that the emergence of settlements on the Ladoga coast, the likely center of medieval Karelian culture partly resulted from contacts with immigrants from western Finland. According to Saksa, the permanent settlement in Karelia and eastern Finland began in the mid-1st millennium AD. It is likewise unclear from where the Karelian Isthmus was populated and who its ¿rst inhabitants were. V.I. Ravdonikas (1934) believed that initially Karelians lived in the Olonets Isthmus and shifted to the Karelian Isthmus only in the late 11th century. D.V. Bubrich (1947) formulated a theory which stated that before the emergence of the Old Russian state, the Karelian Isthmus was populated only by dispersed nomadic groups of Sami, and after the state had emerged, immigrants from the Lake Chudskoye coast and from the land of Häme appeared there. Human skeletal remains may be relevant for many issues outlined above. Specifically, it is important to compare medieval “Korela” with contemporary populations of northeastern Europe and the Baltic region on the one hand and with modern Karelians and other Finnic peoples on the other. Until recently, however no medieval crania from either the Ladoga coast or Karelia at large were available. Over the last decades, large cranial samples representing recent 18th – early 19th century Finnic peoples were collected, including several series of Karelian crania from the principal modern distribution area, the Republic of Karelia. Karelians display a rather unusual trait combination, characterized by mesobrachycrany and a relatively short, wide, robust and extremely high braincase. The face is medium high and medium wide (it is wide in northern Karelia). The upper horizontal facial pro¿le is Àattened by European standards, but the midfacial pro¿le is sharp. The nose is sharply protruding and convex. This trait combination opposes the Karelians to all modern and recent groups of Eurasia including the closest linguistic relatives of Karelians, the Baltic Finns, specifically the Suomi Finns and Estonians (Khartanovich, 1986, 1990). Among the prehistoric series, the same trait combination is observed in the Meso-Neolithic sample from Zvejnieki, Latvia (Khartanovich, 1991b).
This fact along with the slight flattening of the upper facial pro¿ le in modern Karelians once again raises the issue of the so-called “prehistoric Mongoloid admixture” in Eastern Europe which has been discussed by Russian anthropologists since the 1950s. Details of these debates were described in a number of publications (Neolit…, 1997; Khartanovich, 2006). Specialists who contributed to the discussion were the leading ¿gures in Soviet physical anthropology – V. P. A l e k s e y e v, M . S . A k i m o v a , V. V. B u n a k , M.V. Vitov, G.F. Debetz, R.Ya. Denisova, I.I. Gokhman, E.V. Zhirov, A.A. Zubov, K.J. Mark, N.N. Cheboksarov, G.L. Khit, and V.P. Yakimov. The list of names itself testi¿es to the importance of the issue. A signi¿cant contribution to the study of the early population history of Eastern Europe and of the origins of the contradictory trait combinations distributed on that territory was made by T.I. Alekseyeva. In a joint monograph describing the Neolithic cranial series from Sakhtysh in the Upper Volga area, she notes that certain European Mesolithic groups were characterized by large dimensions of the braincase and especially by its conspicuous height. The face was wide and relatively low and a Àattened upper facial pro¿le co-occurred with a sharp midfacial pro¿le and sharply protruding nasal bones (Alekseyeva, 1997). In Alekseyeva’s words, this unusual trait combination, which was more than once revealed by multivariate statistics, was widely distributed and was typical of Mesolithic Caucasoids of the forest and forest-steppe zones of Eastern Europe as evidenced by groups such as Zvejnieki, Popovo, Southern Oleniy (Reindeer) Island, and Vasilievka I and III. In her words, there is no doubt that robustness and upper facial Àatness were inherited from earlier Caucasoid populations of Eastern Europe (Ibid.: 26). In the joint monograph integrating the anthropological studies of the Eastern Slavs, Alekseyeva formulated her conclusions regarding the origin of this trait combination: “Judging by the concentration of these unusual features in Scandinavia, the Baltic and the Onega area, people displaying them had migrated to Eastern Europe from the northwest and were possibly associated with the Mesolithic cultures of the circum-Baltic region. Revisiting the long-standing issue of admixture versus evolutionary conservatism in the Mesolithic population of Eastern Europe in the light of new data, we must reject the admixture hypothesis. The location of this peculiar type and its expansion from the west to the east suggest that it should be regarded as an independent ancient type which originated in northwestern Europe” (Alekseyeva, 1999: 254–255). In the Neolithic, biological continuity with the Mesolithic population was preserved but the diversity increased. Importantly, according to Alekseyeva (Ibid.: 255), the population which in the Mesolithic had been quite Caucasoid despite the unusual combination of the two
139
140
V.I. Khartanovich and I.G. Shirobokov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 38/1 (2010) 138–147
facial pro¿les (Àattened in the upper part and sharp in the middle part; one might add that the face was very broad and the braincase was very high) began to assume a somewhat “Mongoloid” appearance. After the Neolithic, groups marked by the trait combination noted by Alekseyeva and others seem to have disappeared from Eastern Europe. This may have been partly due to the scarcity of cranial remains from the Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, and medieval burials in the Eastern Baltic area and to the complete absence of such remains from Karelia. However, none of the large series of 11th–17th-century crania from Leningrad Oblast, Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia too, reveal the combination described above. By contrast, several large 18th–19th-century Karelian cranial samples very clearly exhibit precisely this combination, which Alekseyeva demonstrated to be peculiar to the Circum-Baltic region in the Mesolithic. The only noteworthy difference is a larger cranial index and a somewhat less robust braincase in the late groups. These changes are readily explainable by the two diachronic tendencies – brachycephalization and gracilization. The question arises: was this ancient morphological type also peculiar to the chronologically intermediate medieval population of the Ladoga coast – the “Korela” of the Russian chronicles? The question is relevant not merely for the origin of the Karelians, but also for a broader issue of evolutionary conservatism in European populations.
The Kylalahti Kalmistomäki group Excavations conducted by the Northern European Expedition from the Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography RAS in 2006 to 2007 yielded the ¿rst cranial series attributable to medieval Korela. The excavations were carried out at Kylalahti Kalmistomäki in the Lahdenpohja Region of the Republic of Karelia. The cemetery is situated 2 km southwest of Tiurula, 0.5 km southeast of the foundation of the Orthodox church, 0.1 km south of the southwestern coast of Tiurulanselka Bay. The total number of excavated burials was 52. All were made according to the inhumation rite (Fig. 1) and the burial goods are unique for Karelia, eastern Finland, and northwestern Russia in general. Some of them are of late 13th–14th century Novgorodian and Northern European manufacture. Many are items of medieval jewelry. In some burials, pieces of textile, remains of leather belts, bags and shoes, and fragments of birch bark, felt and other organic materials were found. Apart from late medieval items, certain 10th–11th century artifacts were unearthed associated with an earlier cemetery which had been demolished. The earlier suggestion that a Bronze or Early Iron Age site was situated on that place as well has been supported (Belsky, Khartanovich, 2006; Khartanovich, Belsky, Laakso, 2007; Belsky, Laakso, 2008). The preservation of bone is generally poor due to soil conditions. Only six male and ¿ve female crania were suitable for measurement (Table 1) (Khartanovich,
Fig. 1. Burials 25–27 at Kylalahti Kalmistomäki. Eastern view.
V.I. Khartanovich and I.G. Shirobokov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 38/1 (2010) 138–147
141
Table 1. Average measurements of male and female crania from Kylalahti Kalmistomäki Traits
Male
Female
N
X
SD
N
X
SD
2
3
4
5
6
7
1. Cranial length
6
186.2
7.9
4
171.0
7.2
8. Cranial breadth
4
150.3
6.0
4
136.3
4.8
8:1. Cranial index
4
80.3
2.8
4
79.8
3.8
17. Basion–bregma height
6
144.0
7.2
4
130.5
5.3
17:1. Height–length index
6
77.4
2.9
4
76.3
1.4
17:8. Height–breadth index
4
96.6
3.7
4
95.8
4.0
20. Porion–bregma height
5
125.8
2.3
4
110.5
0.6
5. Cranial base length
6
102.8
7.3
5
95.4
6.0
9. Minimal frontal breadth
3
102.7
10.0
5
94.0
1.9
9:8. Transverse fronto-cerebral index
3
67.6
4.9
4
68.8
1.3
10. Maximal frontal breadth
3
130.7
8.1
3
111.0
4.4
32. Frontal pro¿le angle (nasion)
2
88.5
0.7
3
87.0
2.0
g-m Frontal pro¿le angle (glabella)
2
79.0
0.0
3
80.3
4.7
12. Occipital breadth
4
117.5
3.4
5
106.4
4.8
40. Basion–prosthion length
4
95.5
1.7
3
91.0
4.0
40:5. Flower’s index
4
96.1
5.5
3
97.5
1.2
43. Upper facial breadth
3
108.0
7.5
4
98.8
3.1
45. Bizygomatic breadth
3
135.0
2.6
2
124.0
7.1
45:8. Horizontal facio-cerebral index
3
88.9
4.3
2
90.1
2.8
46. Mid-facial breadth
3
97.3
5.5
2
91.0
1.4
48. Upper facial height
4
73.8
0.5
5
63.8
4.5
48:45. Upper facial index
2
55.2
1.2
2
49.8
5.7
48:17. Vertical facio-cerebral index
4
50.4
2.3
4
47.7
1.1
51. Orbital breadth (mf)
6
42.2
1.2
5
41.0
1.2
1
51a. Orbital breadth (d)
6
38.8
1.7
5
37.4
1.5
52. Orbital height
6
31.3
2.8
5
30.4
1.1
52:51a. Orbital index (d)
6
80.6
5.7
5
81.4
4.4
54. Nasal breadth
5
25.0
1.9
4
24.3
2.1
55. Nasal height
6
49.7
3.7
5
47.6
2.1
54:55. Nasal index
5
49.2
5.3
4
51.7
5.0
SC. Simotic chord
4
9.0
2.4
5
8.6
0.8
SS. Simotic subtense
4
4.6
1.4
5
3.7
0.7
SS:SC. Simotic index
4
51.1
5.6
5
44.0
9.2
DC. Dacryal chord
2
23.5
1.3
5
19.9
0.5
DS. Dacryal subtense
2
13.1
2.2
5
11.2
1.3
DS:DC. Dacryal index
2
55.5
6.2
5
56.0
5.5
43 (1). Bimalar breadth
3
100.0
5.2
5
91.8
2.5
142
V.I. Khartanovich and I.G. Shirobokov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 38/1 (2010) 138–147
Table 1 continued 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Nasion subtense above bimalar breadth
3
17.0
0.4
5
17.1
1.8
77. Naso-malar angle
3
142.4
2.5
5
139.2
4.0
Zm’-zm’. Zygo-maxillary breadth
3
98.0
5.3
2
89.0
0.0
Sub.ss. Subspinale subtense above zygo-maxillary breadth
3
23.2
2.4
2
22.8
0.4
zm’. Zygo-maxillary angle
3
129.4
2.3
2
125.9
0.8
72. Total facial angle
4
86.8
1.9
3
83.3
1.2
73. Middle facial angle
4
91.3
2.8
4
87.0
2.3
74. Alveolar angle
4
73.5
1.7
3
67.7
2.9
75(1). Nasal protrusion angle
1
31.0
–
0
–
–
FC. Canine fossa depth
2
4.1
1.8
5
4.2
1.8
Shirobokov, 2008). So far, this small series* is the only group from the Ladoga area which predates the 18th – early 19th century group from the nearby village of Kurkijoki on the northwestern coast of the lake (Khartanovich, 1990). New materials, for the ¿rst time, provide a chance to evaluate the biological af¿nities of the 13th–14th- century native population of the region. On average, male crania from Kylalahti Kalmistomäki (Table 1) are mesobrachycranic and the braincase is long and wide. The muscular relief is rather pronounced. The vault is very high, both absolutely and relative to its length and width. The frontal bone is wide and straight. The face is high, wide, and orthognathic. It is somewhat Àattened on the naso-malar level and sharply pro¿led on the zygo-maxillary level. The orbits are medium wide and low, both absolutely and relatively. The pyrifirm aperture is rather low and medium wide. The nasal bones are medium wide and convex. The dacryal and simotic indices are large. Due to poor preservation, the nasal protrusion angle was measured on one cranium only and turned out to be large. The distinctive characteristics of the Kylalahti Kalmistomäki series then are general robustness, a long, wide, and extremely high vault, slight facial Àattening at the upper level, combined with sharp midfacial pro¿le and convex, sharply protruding nasalia. Between-group comparison To evaluate the af¿nities of the series, it was compared with other male groups from northeastern Europe (Table 2). The resemblance with recent Karelians is apparent. Similarities include high vault, mesobrachycrany, *Hopefully more crania will be obtained during the next ¿eld seasons.
the combination of moderate upper facial pro¿le with sharp midfacial pro¿le, and convex, sharply protruding nasal bones. Apparently, not only cultural but also biological continuity existed between the medieval “Korela” and the Karelians of recent centuries. Both exhibit a very peculiar trait combination distinguishing both groups from others and evidently attesting to genetic af¿nity. To test these conclusions, we conducted a canonical variate analysis of nine dimensions of 46 cranial series from northeastern Europe using software written by B.A. Kozintsev (Table 3). Modern and recent groups compared with Kylalahti Kalmistomäki are Karelians, Ingrians (Izhorians), Finns, Estonians, Komi Zyrians, Kola Sami, northern and northwestern Russians, Letts, Swedes of Finland and of Ruhnu Island, Estonia. The loadings of traits on the canonical variates are given in Table 4, and Fig. 2 shows the position of groups on canonical variates I and II, which jointly account for 56.8 % of the total variance. Traits with the highest positive loadings on CV I (32 % of variance) are cranial height and nasal protrusion angle, implying that on the between group level, groups with high vaults tend to display sharply protruding noses. As seen from Fig. 2, Karelians, Komi Zyrians, Ingrians as well as the Kylalahti Kalmistomäki group cluster on the positive extreme of CV I. The opposite extreme is taken by Sami groups, which demonstrate maximal gracility, low vault, and relatively weakly protruding noses. The Karelian series from Kompakovo falls in the center and is isolated from other Karelian groups due to a combination of medium high vault, mesobrachycrany, and a face that is Àat by Karelian standards. Apparently, this group differs from other Karelians by origin (Khartanovich, 1986). Also intermediate between the Karelian and Finnish groups is a recent series from Kurkijoki, which was shown to be admixed (Khartanovich,
V.I. Khartanovich and I.G. Shirobokov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 38/1 (2010) 138–147
143
N
X
N
1. Cranial length
6
186.2
15
8. Cranial breadth
4
150.3
8:1. Cranial index
4
17. Cranial height (ba-b)
X
Zvejnieki, Middle and Late Neolithic (Denisova, 1975)
Zvejnieki, Early Neolithic (Denisova, 1975)
Raginenai, Barciunai, Noruisiai, 2nd–6th centuries (Denisova, 1975)
N
X
N
X
N
X
N
X
182.0 179.2
13
179.3
8
192.3
14
190.4
35
188.1
15
145.5 145.2
13
146.6
8
143.5
14
144.7
38
142.0
80.3
15
80.,0
81.0
13
81.7
8
74.7
14
71.6
35
75.4
6
144.0
15
141.5 139.6
12
141.1
7
141.0
14
144.7
32
139.3
9. Minimal frontal breadth
3
102.7
17
99.7
97.8
13
99.2
8
96.9
15
99.3
36
99.3
32. Nasal pro¿le angle (n-m)
2
88.5
13
83.5
85.0
8
87.4
2
82.5
9
80.9
23
81.1
45. Bizygomatic breadth
3
135.0
13
139.5 134.4
7
136.9
7
136.0
12
139.1
27
139.9
48. Upper facial height
4
73.8
14
71.6
71.3
12
71.2
8
70.6
12
71.3
28
69.5
72. Total facial angle
4
86.3
12
83.2
84.7
8
86.7
7
87.1
8
83.1
22
83.7
77. Naso-malar angle
3
142.4
15
141.3 141.5
9
141.2
3
142.2
11
138.2
27
141.9
zm’. Zygo-maxillary angle
3
129.4
14
126.1 127.1
7
127.3
3
130.7
8
122.0
19
130.1
51. Orbiral breadth (mf)
6
42.2
14
43.3
41.8
12
40.7
8
41.9
11
44.7
35
44.2
52. Orbital height
6
31.3
14
34.1
33.1
11
32.2
8
31.9
11
33.9
34
32.4
52:51. Orbital index (d)
6
80.6
14
78.9
79.3
10
79.6
3
80.5
10
75.9
33
73.4
54. Nasal breadth
5
25.0
15
23.9
24.7
12
24.7
8
24.9
12
25.0
28
25.4
55. Nasal height
6
49.7
15
52.3
51.3
12
51.1
8
51.6
11
53.6
29
51.8
54:55. Nasal index
5
49.2
15
45.9
48.3
11
48.0
8
48.3
10
46.9
28
49.0
DC. Dacryal chord
2
23.5
12
22.6
22.85
–
–
3
23.1
9
20.9
20
21.8
DS. Dacryal subtense
2
13.1
12
12.7
12.1
–
–
3
13.1
9
11.9
20
13.0
DS:DC. Dacryal index
2
55.5
12
56.7
53.2
–
–
3
60.1
9
57.3
20
59.9
SC. Simotic chord
4
9.0
15
9.4
9.6
8
9.9
3
8.2
9
8.6
22
5.0
SS. Simotic subtense
4
4.6
15
4.7
4.4
8
4.4
3
4.0
8
4.5
22
9.9
SS:SC. Simotic index
4
51.1
15
50.6
46.5
8
45.1
3
54.3
7
53.2
22
50.9
75(1). Nasal protrusion angle
1
31.0
11
31.3
29.4
8
30.0
3
34.3
7
32.3
21
28.9
1990). Nevertheless, it is closer to Karelians and Komi Zyrians than to Finns. Traits with maximal loadings on CV II, which explains 25 % of the variation are nasal protrusion angle, simotic index, bizygomatic width, and length and width of the braincase. ɋV II demonstrates that a lesser nasal protrusion angle co-occurs with a shorter braincase and a higher simotic index. The Sami living in the central parts of the Kola Peninsula in relative isolation from others score highest on CV II due to brachycrany and small nasal protrusion angle combined with the convex nasal bridge.
X
Raglitsy, cairns, 14th–16th centuries (Sankina, 2000)
Karelians, pooled (Khartanovich, 1986)
Kylalahti Kalmistomäki (14th century)
Traits
Karelians, Chiksha (Khartanovich, 1986)
Table 2. Average dimensions of male crania from Kylalahti Kalmistomäki and other male series from northeastern Europe
Coastal Sami from Jokanga, and to a lesser degree those from Varzino, deviate from others and show a “Finnish” tendency probably because of a late northern Caucasoid admixture (Khartanovich, 1991b, 2004a). Certain groups of Swedes and Letts score lowest on CV II. Generally, as seen from Fig. 2, Finnish, Estonian, Lettish, and Russian groups form no distinct clusters and display a high between-group variation, possibly because of their complex population history. Results of the multivariate analysis suggest that the Kylalahti Kalmistomäki group exhibits a distinctly Karelian
144
V.I. Khartanovich and I.G. Shirobokov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 38/1 (2010) 138–147
Table 3. Comparative cranial series from northeastern Europe Series 1
Ethnic af¿liation
Source
2
3
–
Present study
Karelians
Khartanovich, 1986
3. Turha
»
»
4. Kondievuara
»
»
1. Kylalahti Kalmistomäki 2. Suistamo
5. Pekkavuara
»
»
6. Bokonvuara
»
»
7. Kompakovo
»
»
8. Chiksha
»
»
»
»
10. Lippovo
9. Regjärvi
Ingrians (Izhora)
Khartanovich, 2004b
11. Kurkijoki
Finns
Khartanovich, 1990
12. Savo
»
Khartanovich, 1995
13. Häme
»
»
14. Uusimaa
»
»
15. Helsinki
»
»
16. Varsinais-Suomi
»
»
17. Pedersöre
»
»
18. South Pohjanmaa
»
»
19. North Pohjanmaa
»
»
20. Satakunta
»
»
21. Muonioniska
»
»
22. Ingria
»
Alekseyev, 1969
Estonians
Mark, 1956
23. Kabina 24. Jarve
»
»
25. Varbola
»
»
Komi Zyrians
Khartanovich, 1991a
»
»
Sami
Khartanovich, 2004a
29. Chalmny-Varre
»
Khartanovich, 1980
30. Pulozero
»
»
31. Varzino
»
»
32. Jokanga
»
»
Russians
Alekseyev, 1969
26. Podyelsk 27. Griva 28. North Salma
33. Archangel Province 34. Olonets Province
»
»
35. Petersburg Province
»
»
36. Novgorod Province
»
»
37. Pskov Province
»
»
38. Vologda Province
»
»
»
»
Letts
»
39. Old Ladoga 40. Durbe
V.I. Khartanovich and I.G. Shirobokov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 38/1 (2010) 138–147
145
Table 3 continued 1
2
3
41. Western Letts
»
»
42. Ludza
»
»
43. Ratulani
»
ZariƼa, 1990
44. Ormankalns
»
»
45. Ruhnu
Swedes
Alekseyev, 1974
46. Finland
»
»
Table 4. Trait loadings on the ¿rst three canonical variates derived from the analysis of 46 cranial series from northeastern Europe Traits
CV I
CV II
CV III
–0.310
–0.625
0.317
8. Cranial breadth
0.173
0.416
–0.208
17. Cranial height
0.905
–0.037
–0.232
9. Minimal frontal breadth
0.115
–0.312
–0.174
45. Bizygomatic diameter
–0.013
0.388
0.949
0.205
0.248
0.009
zm’. Zygo-maxillary angle
–0.261
0.093
0.227
SS:SC. Simotic index
–0.256
0.540
0.067
75(1). Nasal protrusion angle
0.403
–0.811
0.246
Percent of variance
31.9
24.9
12.5
1. Cranial length
77. Naso-malar angle
trait combination, being closest to Karelians from Chiksha and Turha who retain the morphological speci¿city of ancient groups with their robust and very high braincase, a broad face, which is slightly Àattened on the upper level and sharply pro¿led at the middle level, and a sharply protruding nose. This combination, which opposes Karelians to other modern groups of northeastern Europe and links them to prehistoric inhabitants of the region, is even more expressed in the medieval group from Kylalahti Kalmistomäki than in the 18th – early 20th century Karelians. Among the numerous late medieval groups from the territory of the Novgorodian Republic and the Eastern Baltic, the only parallel to these groups is shown by a series from the 14th–16th century cairns at Raglitsy in Novgorod Province (Sankina, 2000). The only early medieval group with a similar combination is that from the 2nd– 6th century mounds from Zhemaitia, Latvia (Denisova, 1975). The only difference is that the Zhemaitians display a longer and narrower braincase (Table 2).
ɚ b c d e
f g h i j
Fig. 2. The position of Kylalahti Kalmistomäki and other male groups from northeastern Europe on the ¿rst two canonical vectors (CV I and CV II). a – Kylalahti Kalmistomäki; b – Karelians; c – Ingrians (Izhorians); d – Finns of Finland and of the Ingrian Plateau; e – Estonians; f – Komi Zyrians; g – Sami; h – northern and northwestern Russians; i – Letts; j – Swedes. The groups are numbered as in Table 3.
146
V.I. Khartanovich and I.G. Shirobokov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 38/1 (2010) 138–147
Discussion and conclusions Clearly, the general resemblance between the Kylalahti Kalmistomäki crania, those of modern Karelians, and certain medieval, Neolithic, and Mesolithic groups does not necessarily indicate direct genetic continuity. More likely, it indicates evolutionary conservatism, whereby ancient trait combinations have been preserved in certain populations of northern Europe. V.P. Alekseyev (1984) suggested that evolutionary conservatism might have resulted in the preservation of ancient and “neutral” trait combinations in isolated forest regions of Eastern Europe (1984). This mostly concerned Mesolithic and Neolithic groups which evidently retained the Upper Paleolithic morphology. At the time when Alekseyev made this suggestion, no instances of “evolutionary conservatism” in medieval or recent groups were known because late medieval and modern cranial remains from Karelia were quite scarce. The conservation of ancient trait combinations in Eastern Europe may follow at least two different patterns (Khartanovich, 2004b): either it occurs within a single rather isolated territory, as in the case of Karelians, Ingrians, and Komi Zyrians, or it concerns populations that are widely separated in both space and time like medieval groups from Raglitsy and Zhemaitia. Examples of the latter category are rather few so far, but their number may increase with the growth of the database. The first medieval series from the Ladoga coast, the one from Kylalahti Kalmistomäki, provides yet another instance of regional evolutionary conservatism. Also, it suggests that modern Karelians are not only culturally but also biologically related to medieval “Korela.” This group to some extent bridges a chronological gap between the Mesolithic and the recent period, demonstrating the minimal duration of the period over which the peculiar morphological trait combination existed. Small as it is, the Kylalahti Kalmistomäki group is a valuable source of information about population processes that occurred both in the Ladoga area and in northeastern Europe as a whole. Future excavations will hopefully extend the existing database and thus provide a basis for understanding the reasons behind the preservation of ancient morphological complexes.
References Alekseyev V.P. 1969 Proiskhozhdeniye narodov Vostochnoi Evropy: Kraniologicheskoye issledovanie. Moscow: Nauka. Alekseyev V.P. 1974 Kraniologicheskaya kharakteristika naseleniya Vostochnoi Fennoskandii. In Rasogeneticheskiye protsessy v etnicheskoi istorii. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 85–105.
Alekseyev V.P. 1984 Fizicheskiye osobennosti mezoliticheskogo i ranneneoliticheskogo naseleniya Vostochnoi Evropy v svyazi s problemami zaseleniya etoi territorii. In Problemy drevnego i sovremennogo naseleniya Severa Evrazii. Leningrad: Nauka, pp. 28–36. Alekseyeva T.I. 1997 Neoliticheskoye naseleniye lesnoi polosy Vostochnoi Evropy: Sravnitelnyi antropologicheskiy aspekt. In Neolit lesnoi polosy Vostochnoi Evropy (antropologiya sakhtyshskikh stoyanok). Moscow: Nauch. mir, pp. 18–41. Alekseyeva T.I. 1999 Drevneishee naseleniye Vostochnoi Evropy. In Vostochnye slavyane: Antropologiya i etnicheskaya istoriya, T.I. Alekseeva (ed.). Moscow: Nauch. mir. Belsky S.V., Laakso V. 2008 Rezultaty polevykh issledovanii Karelskogo arkheologicheskogo otryada MAE RAN na mogilnike Kiulyalahti Kalmistomyaki v Severo-Zapadnom Priladozhye v 2007 g. (arkheologicheskiy aspekt). In Radlovsky sbornik: Nauchnye issledovaniya i muzeinye proekty MAE RAN v 2007 g. St. Petersburg: Izd. MAE RAN, pp. 178–183. Belsky S.V., Khartanovich V.I. 2006 Perspektivy izucheniya mogilnikov epokhi Srednevekovya v Severo-Zapadnom Priladozhye (otsenka sovremennogo sostoyaniya). In Radlovsky sbornik: Nauchnye issledovaniya i muzeinye proekty MAE RAN v 2006 g. St. Petersburg: Izd. MAE RAN, pp. 244–247. Bubrich D.V. 1947 Proiskhozhdeniye karelskogo naroda: Povest o soyuznike i druge russkogo naroda na Severe. Petrozavodsk: GIZ KareloFinskoi SSR. Denisova R.Ya. 1975 Antropologiya drevnikh baltov. Riga: Zinatne Gadzyatsky S.S. 1941 Karely i Kareliya v novgorodskoe vremya. Petrozavodsk: GIZ Karelo-Finskoi SSR. Karely Karelskoi ASSR. 1983 Petrozavodsk: Kareliya. Khartanovich V.I. 1980 Novye materialy k kraniologii saamov Kolskogo p-ova. Sbornik MAE, vol. 36: 35–47. (Issledovaniya po paleoantropologii i kraniologii SSSR). Khartanovich V.I. 1986 Kraniologiya karel. In Antropologiya sovremennogo i drevnego naseleniya evropeiskoi chasti SSSR. Leningrad: Nauka, pp. 63–120. Khartanovich V.I. 1990 K kraniologii naseleniya severo-zapadnogo Priladozhya XIX – nachala XX v. In Balty, slavyane, ¿nny: Etnogeneticheskiye protsessy. Riga: Zinatne, pp. 216–229. Khartanovich V.I. 1991a Novye materialy k kraniologii komi-zyryan. Sbornik MAE, vol. 44: 108–125. (Novye kollektsii i issledovaniya po antropologii i arkheologii). Khartanovich V.I. 1991b O vzaimootnoshenii antropologicheskikh tipov saamov i karel po dannym kraniologii. In Proiskhozhdenie saamov. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 19–33. Khartanovich V.I. 1995 Materialy k kraniologii ¿nnov. In Antropologiya segodnya, iss. 1. St. Petersburg: Izd. MAE RAN, pp. 71–89.
V.I. Khartanovich and I.G. Shirobokov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 38/1 (2010) 138–147
Khartanovich V.I. 2004a Novye kraniologicheskiye materialy po saamam Kolskogo poluostrova. In Paleoantropologiya, etnicheskaya istoriya, etnogenez. Sbornik k 75-letiyu I.I. Gokhmana. St. Petersburg: Izd. MAE RAN, pp. 108–125. Khartanovich V.I. 2004b Kraniologiya izhor. In Rasy i narody, iss. 30. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 96–124. Khartanovich V.I. 2006 O “laponoidnosti” na Severe Evropy (po antropologicheskim materialam iz mogilnikov Bolshogo Olenego ostrova v Kolskom zalive Barentseva morya i Yuzhnogo Olenego o-va Onezhskogo ozera). In Pervobytnaya i srednevekovaya istoriya i kultura Evropeiskogo severa: Problemy izucheniya i nauchnoi rekonstruktsii. Solovki: SOLTI, pp. 143–156. Khartanovich V.I., Belsky S.V., Laakso V. 2007 Monitoring sovremennogo sostoyaniya mogilnikov epokhi Srednevekovya – Novogo vremeni v Severo-Zapadnom Priladozhye v 2005–2006 godakh (nekotorye rezultaty i perspektivy izucheniya). In Istoriya i kulturnoe naslediye Severnogo Priladozhyja: Vzglyad iz Rossii i Finlyandii. Petrozavodsk: Izd. Karel. nauch. tsentra RAN, pp. 38–42. Khartanovich V.I., Shirobokov I.G. 2008 K kraniologii srednevekovogo naseleniya severo-zapadnogo Priladozhya: Predvaritelnyi analiz materialov iz mogilnika Kiulyalahti-Kalmistomyaki. In Radlovsky sbornik: Nauchnye issledovaniya i muzeinye proekty MAE RAN v 2007 g. St. Petersburg: Izd. MAE RAN, pp. 222–230. Kochkurkina S.I. 1956 Drevnyaya korela. Leningrad: Nauka.
Mark K.J. 1956 Paleoantropologiya Estonskoi SSR. TIE, vol. 32: 170–228. (Baltiysky etnogra¿cheskiy sbornik). Neolit lesnoi polosy Vostochnoi Evropy (antropologiya sakhtyshskikh stoyanok). 1997 Moscow: Nauch. mir. Ravdonikas V.I. 1934 Pamyatniki epokhi vozniknoveniya feodalizma v Karelii i v Yugo-Vostochnom Priladozhye. Izvestiya Gos. akademii istorii materialnoi kultury, No. 94: 16–43. Saksa A.I. 2001 Istoriya naseleniya priladozhskoi Karelii i oblasti Savo s drevneishikh vremen i do XIV v. In Ocherki istoricheskoi geogra¿i: Severo-Zapad Rossii: Slavyane i ¿nny. St. Petersburg: Izd. SPb. Gos. Univ., pp. 257–271. Sankina S.L. 2000 Etnicheskaya istoriya srednevekovogo naseleniya Novgorodskoi zemli po dannym antropologii. St. Petersburg: Dmitriy Bulanin. Zarina G. 1990 Antropologicheskiy sostav naseleniya Augszeme. In Balty, slavyane, ¿nny: Etnogeneticheskie processy. Riga: Zinatne, pp. 109–123. Zherbin A.S., Shaskolsky I.P. 1976 Sovetskaya nauka o proiskhozhdenii karel. In Proiskhozhdeniye Karelii. Ioensuu: Izd. Univ. Ioensuu, pp. 19–40.
Received May 7, 2008.
147