- Email: [email protected]
Prehistoric and Recent Populations of Chukotka: A Paleophenetic Analysis
ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY OF EURASIA Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 40/3 (2012) 130–137 E-mail: [email protected]
130
ANTHROPOLOGY A.A. Movsessyan Moscow State University, Leninskie Gory 1, building 12, Moscow 119991, Russia E-mail: [email protected]
PREHISTORIC AND RECENT POPULATIONS OF CHUKOTKA: A PALEOPHENETIC ANALYSIS
Thirty nonmetric traits were studied in two cranial series from prehistoric coastal cemeteries on the Chukchi Peninsula (hereafter Chukotka) – Welen (58 crania) and Ekven (107 crania), representing the Old Bering Sea culture. Both series are close not only to modern Eskimos, Chukchi, and Aleuts but also to Tungus-speaking groups. This may be due both to ancient contacts between continental and coastal populations and to their common origin. Comparisons with the Neolithic groups of Baikal and with southern Mongoloids suggest that Eskoaleuts originated in Siberia, and that admixture between migrants from continental Siberia and those from more southern areas of the Paci¿c coast was one of the key factors in this process. Another factor was adaptation to the extreme Arctic environment. Keywords: Craniology, population history, nonmetric cranial traits, Chukchi Peninsula, Eskimos, Aleuts, Chukchi.
Introduction The purpose of this study is to assess the position of cranial series from two pre-Metal Age cemeteries on the Beringian coast of Chukotka – Welen and Ekven – among other series from Northern Asia, using nonmetric traits. These two groups, representing the Old Bering Sea culture, were ¿rst studied by M.G. Levin (1962), who, based on craniometric data, described them as quite Eskimo-like, concluding that the Eskimo trait combination was very ancient. G.F. Debetz (1975) reached the same conclusion in his study of Eskimo origins. The dental analysis revealed that both groups were similar to each other and to recent Eskimos, Chukchi, and Aleuts, and that both groups had retained ancient trait combinations of the dental structure found in certain Mesolithic and Neolithic populations (Zubov, 1969).
Results of craniometric comparisons between ancient and recent groups are often affected by diachronic variation, which distorts population relationships. These relationships can be more reliably reconstructed if the traits are unaffected by temporal trends. This appears to be the case with nonmetric characters of the cranium. In this study, they provide a basis for a comparison of prehistoric samples from Chukotka with modern Mongoloid groups. Nonmetric traits, known as “phenes” in Russian zoological literature, are used as quasi-genetic markers by zoologists in population studies. Principles of population genetics are thereby extended to cases where genetic analysis is dif¿cult or impossible (Timofeyev-Resovsky, Yablokov, 1973; Timofeyev-Resovsky et al., 1973). Indirect data suggests that nonmetric variations of the cranium result from normal developmental processes and are to some extent controlled by genetic factors
© 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.2012.11.015
A.A. Movsessyan / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/3 (2012) 130–137
(Lane, 1977; Cheverud, Buikstra, 1981; Sjøvold, 1984). Also, numerous studies have demonstrated that groups unrelated by origin differ in the frequencies of these traits, whereas the likelihood of related groups being similar is much higher. Therefore the application of genetic methods appears to be very useful in the analysis of population af¿nities between ancient groups. Materials and methods In our earlier publications we have proposed a list of nonmetric cranial traits and a methodology of their
131
analysis (Movsessyan et al., 1975; Movsessyan, 2005). In this study, these traits were scored on 107 crania from Welen and 58 from Ekven. For comparative purposes, their frequencies in previously published prehistoric and recent Mongoloid series were used (Mamonova, Movsessyan, 1998; Movsessyan, 2005). Frequencies were calculated per individual, i.e. without regard to unilateral or bilateral occurrence. Statistical analysis was conducted using three methods: (1) Nei’s generalized distance (d) (Nei, 1972); (2) classification analysis based on the PHYLIP – Phylogeny Inference Package (Felsenstein, 1989); and (3) canonical variate analysis based on the CANOCLUS package by V.Y. Deryabin.
Table 1. Frequencies of nonmetric cranial traits in ancient populations of Chukotka and modern Eskimos, Chukchi, and Aleuts No.
Traits
Welen
Ekven
Eskimos
Coastal Chukchi
Reindeer Chukchi
Aleuts
1
Sutura frontalis
0.051
0.028
0.049
0.040
0.010
0.054
2
Foramen supraorbitale
0.579
0.443
0.637
0.733
0.777
0.642
3
Foramen frontale
0.129
0.141
0.196
0.160
0.167
0.071
4
Spina trochlearis
0.010
0.019
0.027
0.010
0.010
0.038
5
Foramen infraorbitale accessorium
0.120
0.129
0.151
0.177
0.196
0.250
6
Os zygomaticum bipartitus trace
0.021
0.010
0.029
0.040
0.028
0.167
7
Spina processus frontalis
0.069
0.205
0.315
0.266
0.171
0.163
8
Os Wormii suturae coronalis
0.010
0.018
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
9
Stenocrotaphia
0.043
0.108
0.243
0.134
0.152
0.085
10
Os epiptericum
0.108
0.166
0.045
0.067
0.057
0.100
11
Processus frontalis squamae temporalis
0.010
0.090
0.010
0.013
0.014
0.020
12
Os Wormii suturae squamosum
0.021
0.019
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.020
13
Os postsquamosum
0.103
0.151
0.127
0.120
0.180
0.089
14
Os asterion
0.034
0.122
0.029
0.053
0.029
0.054
15
Foramen parietale
0.327
0.383
0.513
0.400
0.416
0.446
16
Os Incae
0.017
0.047
0.010
0.040
0.014
0.019
17
Os triquetrum
0.030
0.038
0.045
0.053
0.014
0.058
18
Os apicis lambae
0.034
0.010
0.010
0.014
0.027
0.038
19
Os Wormii suturae lambdoideae
0.086
0.113
0.063
0.085
0.083
0.192
20
Os Wormii suturae occipito-mastoideum
0.010
0.010
0.049
0.160
0.039
0.073
21
Processus interparietalis
0.086
0.047
0.039
0.069
0.069
0.010
22
Tuberculum praecondylaris
0.050
0.047
0.050
0.046
0.059
0.022
23
Foramen tympanicum
0.175
0.184
0.167
0.236
0.222
0.178
24
Foramen pterygospinosum
0.034
0.037
0.078
0.093
0.062
0.072
25
Foramen pterygo-alare
26
Sutura palatina transversa (concave)
27
Torus palatinus
0.185
0.208
0.147
0.155
0.223
0.286
28
Torus mandibularis
0.346
0.220
0.075
0.250
0.050
0.238
29
Sulcus mylohyoideus
0.154
0.110
0.125
0.125
0.142
0.142
30
Foramen mentale accessorium
0.077
0.060
0.050
0.250
0.285
0.200
0
0
0.039
0.046
0.078
0.036
0.018
0.019
0.061
0.111
0.061
0.036
132
A.A. Movsessyan / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/3 (2012) 130–137
Results and discussion The resemblance between Welen and Ekven, demonstrated by craniometric and dental analyses, is likewise revealed by the analysis of nonmetric cranial traits. The generalized distance between them is small (d = 0.030). Apparently, both groups represent local populations of the same ethnic group. Both groups are close to recent Eskimo, Chukchi, and Aleuts (Table 1). Importantly, this similarity primarily concerns traits distinguishing these groups from other Northern Asian Mongoloids. For instance, crania from Welen and Ekven, like those of modern Eskimos, Chukchi, and Aleuts and unlike those of continental Siberian Mongoloids, are characterized by a high frequency of infraorbital and frontal foramina and of mandibular tori (the latter trait is especially typical of Eskimos, Chukchi, and Aleuts). On the other hand, frequencies of trochlear spines, lambda bones, and lambdoid Wormians are rather low in all these groups. The similarity is apparent from generalized distances (d) (Table 2). On the other hand, both prehistoric populations of Chukotka resemble the Tungus-speaking people of the Amur – the Ulchi and Negidal. Physical traits suggestive of Tungus af¿nities have been described in modern reindeer and coastal Chukchi (Levin, 1958). The same af¿nities are
revealed by nonmetric cranial traits (Table 3). Generalized distances show the Eskimos to be especially close to coastal Chukchi. Both groups of Chukchi (reindeer and coastal) are rather similar to each other. The Aleuts take a separate position (see below). Chukchi and Eskimos, then, form a cluster separated by moderate distances not only from Aleuts but also from Negidal and Ulchi. This is even more apparent in a plot showing the position of modern Siberian populations on two canonical vectors (Fig. 1). The Tungus-speaking groups – Ulchi, Negidal, Orochi, and Evenki – form a distinct cluster and, together with the Eskimos, Chukchi, and Aleuts, score positively on the ¿rst canonical variate. The results of two independent statistical methods, therefore, are in agreement. They suggest that af¿nities between Chukotkan populations and those speaking Tungus languages are quite ancient (no later than the Old Bering Sea culture and possibly even earlier). This conclusion is supported by ancient cultural links between Chukotka and Eastern Siberia. S.I. Rudenko (1947) suggested that the Old Bering Sea culture might have had a southern origin. Speci¿cally, the curvilinear design on artifacts from ancient Chukotkan cemeteries is close to that typical of the Amur area. It was hypothesized that the Old Bering Sea culture resulted from a blend of paleoEskimo cultures with labrettes and the Ust-Belaya culture,
Table 2. Distances between ancient Chukotkans and modern Siberian groups
Table 3. Distances between Eskimos, Chukchi, and Aleuts and populations of inland Siberia
Groups
Welen
Ekven
Chukchi
Ancient Chukotkans, pooled
Groups
Eskimos
Coastal Reindeer
Aleuts
Eskimos
0.051
0.061
0.050
Coastal Chukchi
0.029
0.000
Coastal Chukchi
0.050
0.068
0.052
Reindeer Chukchi
0.035
0.022
0.000
Reindeer Chukchi
0.041
0.071
0.047
Aleuts
0.070
0.047
0.056
0.000
Aleuts
0.044
0.059
0.046
Negidal
0.055
0.051
0.056
0.062
Negidal
0.044
0.051
0.041
Ulchi
0.040
0.039
0.055
0.034
Ulchi
0.048
0.055
0.043
Orochi
0.070
0.050
0.069
0.039
Evenki
0.056
0.075
0.060
Evenki
0.065
0.059
0.073
0.039
Orochi
0.071
0.074
0.069
Beltyr
0.084
0.092
0.130
0.075
Selkup
0.075
0.071
0.066
Sagay
0.109
0.104
0.120
0.089
Beltyr
0.143
0.127
0.130
Shorians
0.080
0.088
0.113
0.058
Sagay
0.111
0.090
0.096
Koibal
0.078
0.115
0.140
0.075
Shorians
0.098
0.077
0.079
Kachin
0.077
0.073
0.082
0.033
Koibal
0.109
0.081
0.090
Telengit
0.092
0.085
0.099
0.052
Kachin
0.076
0.085
0.073
Byryat
0.072
0.041
0.071
0.044
Telengit
0.101
0.106
0.095
Tuvans
0.081
0.052
0.071
0.038
0.072
0.078
0.096
0.043
0.066
0.074
0.087
0.044
Buryat
0.099
0.115
0.100
Mansi
Tuvans
0.068
0.093
0.075
Khanty
A.A. Movsessyan / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/3 (2012) 130–137
which lacked labrettes. By the end of the 1st millennium BC, the Ust-Belaya culture spread toward the northern and eastern coast of Chukotka. This culture displays both Eskimo features and those typical of inland Siberia (Dikov, 1974). I.I. Gokhman (1961), who studied a cranium from UstBelaya cemetery, concluded that it evidenced af¿nities with Eskimos, Chukchi, and Aleuts, on the one hand, and Tungus-speaking groups, on the other. V.P. Alekseyev (1967) described the Ust-Belaya cranium as “protoEskimoid,” i.e., showing a more generalized morphology compared to that of extant Eskimos. Therefore our result indicating biological affinities between ancient Chukotkans and the Tungus speakers may attest both to contacts and to a common origin. An important aspect of group differentiation is “genetic memory,” implying that extant populations related by origin, preserve various characteristics of the ancestral population. This feature of population systems was first discovered by A.S. Serebrovsky (1935) and was later experimentally demonstrated by Y.G. Rychkov and Y.P. Altukhov (Rychkov, 1969, 1973; Altukhov, Rychkov, 1970; Rychkov, Movsessyan, 1972; Altukhov, Pobedonostseva, 1978). Under this approach, a population system is regarded as a subdivided population having its own microevolutionary history and consisting of subpopulations related by origin. The studies cited above have convincingly demonstrated that such a system is genetically stable in both time and space. Ethnic differentiation, because of being linked to genetic differentiation, follows the same pattern. Therefore ethnic groups, too, may preserve “memories” of ancestral communities despite being separated from them by dozens of generations. By averaging gene (and phene) frequencies across extant populations and ethnic groups one may arrive at a reconstruction of the ancestral group, thus offering the possibility for comparing modern populations with ancient ones. Using this approach, we can assume that the characteristics of modern Siberian groups and those of ancient groups of Chukotka to some extent mirror those of the hypothetical ancestral group. If so, comparing modern averages is tantamount to comparing ancestral populations. Such a comparative analysis has revealed that the ancient inhabitants of Chukotka were virtually
133
Fig. 1. Results of the canonical variate analysis of nonmetric cranial traits in modern Siberian populations.
equally close to the ancestors of modern Eskimos, Chukchi, and Aleuts, on the one hand, and those of the Tungus speakers, on the other (Table 4). This may attest to southwestern af¿nities of the ancient Chukotkans. However, populations of inland Siberia including the Tungus speakers are much closer to the Neolithic population of Baikal. In a dendrogram, ancient Chukotkans cluster with modern Eskimos, Chukchi, and Aleuts (or, under the approach outlined above, with their common ancestors), whereas continental Siberians join the Baikal Neolithic groups (Fig. 2). The continuity between ancient and modern populations is especially apparent in diagrams showing the combinations of frequencies of the ¿fteen most polymorphic traits in separate groups and in reconstructed ancestral groups (Fig. 3). In sum, our results suggest that modern Eskimos, Chukchi, and Aleuts are not only similar to each other in terms of nonmetric cranial traits, but retain the “memory” of their prehistoric ancestors – people of the Old Bering Sea culture. This culture, in turn, was a stage in the evolution of the paleo-Eskimo sea hunters, which originated in the 2nd millennium BC on the Beringian coast of Chukotka as an adaptation to a speci¿c environment. The paleo-Eskimos are believed to be descendents of Late Paleolithic proto-Eskoaleuts, who in the Late Pleistocene and early Holocene spread across the
Table 4. Distances between ancient groups and pooled modern groups of Siberia Groups
Eskimos, Aleuts, Chukchi
Tungus-speaking groups
Western Siberians
Turks and Mongols
Welen
0.035
0.037
0.065
0.061
Ekven
0.048
0.046
0.053
0.074
Ancient Chukotkan, pooled
0.034
0.036
0.052
0.062
Baikal Neolithic
0.038
0.028
0.024
0.025
134
A.A. Movsessyan / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/3 (2012) 130–137
Fig. 2. Dendrogram based on pairwise differences between modern and ancient Siberian populations.
Fig. 3. Graphs showing patterns of frequencies of the ¿fteen most polymorphic traits in separate groups and in reconstructed ancestral groups. Frequencies of traits plotted along the radii, clockwise: sutura frontalis, foramen frontale, spina processus frontalis, stenocrotaphia, os epiptericum, os postsquamosum, os asterion, os apicis lambdae, os Wormii suturae lambdoideae, os Wormii suturae occipito-mastoideum, processus interparietalis, tuberculum praecondylaris, foramen tympanicum, torus palatinus, sulcus mylohyoideus. The center of the circle corresponds to zero, the circle, to 0.25.
Beringian landbridge from Asia to northwestern America (Dikov, 1974). The genetic sources of the Old Bering Sea people are obscure. We can try, following A.M. Zolotarev (1937), to trace these sources in continental Siberia. Regrettably,
ancient skeletal materials from territories immediately adjoining Chukotka are quite fragmentary. It appears warranted, however, to compare ancient Chukotkans with people of the Baikal Neolithic, dated to 7th– 2nd millennia BC. The results demonstrate that in terms of nonmetric trait frequencies, the “paleo-Eskimos” differ from the Neolithic people of the Baikal no more than from modern Eskimos, Chukchi, and Aleuts, being closest to the earliest group – Kitoy (7th–6th millennia BC) (Table 5). Graphs showing patterns of trait distribution in ancient populations of Chukotka and Baikal, demonstrate Serovo and Glazkovo groups as resembling one another while differing from the Kitoy group, which is to some extent close to the reconstructed ancestral Chukotkan group (Fig. 4). Results of the canonical variate analysis of modern and ancient populations of Siberia fully agree with the above results and supplement them (Fig. 5). Modern Eskimos, Chukchi, Aleuts, and Tungus-speakers as well as Welen, Ekven, and Kitoy show positive scores on the second canonical variate. Modern Turks, Mongols, and Uralians, on the other hand, join Serovo and Glazkovo (they all score negatively on this CV). Notably, Aleuts differ from Eskimos and Chukchi and resemble inland North and Central Asians. The uniqueness of Aleuts has already been noted. Being culturally and linguistically close to Eskimos, Aleuts are anthropometrically distinct from them (Tokareva, 1937; Hrdliþka, 1944; Debetz, 1951; Rychkov, Sheremetyeva, 1972; Sheremetyeva, Rychkov, 1978; Alekseyev, 1981). Whereas G.F. Debetz believed that the Aleuts were related to Eskimos and Chukchi, N.N. Cheboksarov (1947) linked them to Buryats, Tuvans, and Mongols. Results of nonmetric cranial analysis indicate the same. Speci¿cally, canonical variate analysis shows the Aleuts to be much closer to Tuvans and Evenki than to Eskimos and Chukchi (Fig. 1, 5). If the ancestors of ancient Chukotkans lived in Central Siberia, the biological peculiarities of Aleuts can be explained by isolation, which contributed to the conservation of traits of a population that was ancestral to proto-Eskimos and Aleuts, and was close to ancient Central Siberians. According to T.Y. Tokareva, who discussed craniometric af¿nities between Aleuts, Evenki, and the Neolithic Baikalians, Aleut ancestors
Table 5. Distances between ancient Chukotkans and the Baikal Neolithic groups Kitoy
Serovo
Glazkovo
Baikal Neolithic, pooled
Welen
0.035
0.047
0.051
0.037
Ekven
0.041
0.05
0.038
0.036
Ancient Chukotkans, pooled
0.032
0.043
0.039
0.031
Groups
A.A. Movsessyan / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/3 (2012) 130–137
Fig. 5. Results of the canonical variate analysis of nonmetric cranial traits in modern and ancient Siberian populations.
Fig. 4. Graphs showing patterns of trait frequencies in ancient populations of Chukotka and Baikal. See Fig. 3 for explanations.
were related to Neolithic Baikalians. She believed that sometime in the past those people spread across a vast territory that included the Bering Sea Basin and possibly northwestern America (Tokareva, 1937). In support of this view, V.P. Alekseyev wrote that the morphophysiological peculiarities of modern Aleuts could be due to the conservation of proto-Mongoloid traits (Alekseyev, Trubnikova, 1984: 75). Indeed, in terms of cranial nonmetrics, Aleuts are rather close to the pooled Neolithic group from Baikal (d = 0,036). If ancient populations are included in the canonical variate analysis, people of Welen and Ekven shift toward modern Eskimos, Chukchi, and Aleuts (Fig. 6), in agreement with the results shown in the dendrogram (Fig. 2). The Neolithic Baikalians, on the other hand, shift toward the center of the continental Siberian cluster. Thanks to the inclusion of the supposed ancestral Chukotkans, Aleuts cluster with Eskimos, and Chukchi, showing positive scores of the second canonical variate and negative scores of the ¿rst. They are equally removed from the Neolithic Baikal group and from modern Turks and Mongols. It can be concluded that the average characteristics of ancient populations indeed reflect those of ancestral groups: proto-Eskoaleut and protoContinental Siberian. Apparently, proto-Eskoaleuts, like the Neolithic Baikal populations, originated from the same proto-Mongoloid Paleolithic population of Siberia which, in the course of dispersal and ¿ssion, had given rise to local Neolithic populations.
Fig. 6. Results of the canonical variate analysis of nonmetric cranial traits in modern and ancient Siberian populations (pooled ancient groups added).
Our results are supported by archaeological data, suggesting that the Neolithic culture of the Angara and Baikal began to expand in the late 4th millennium BC. The Lena–Aldan Neolithic culture spread via the upper Lena, down the Angara, and further northwest and north, to Khatanga and the lower Lena as well as eastwards along the Okhotsk Sea coast toward northeastern Asia (Chernetsov, 1973). A.P. Okladnikov (1948) has demonstrated that the Neolithic people of Baikal maintained contacts with remote areas of Western Siberia and those west of the Urals. According to Okladnikov, ties with the Baikal Neolithic are present in Neolithic cultures of the Yenisei and are due to the spread of Early Neolithic Baikalians in the southern and western direction. In fact, the Kitoy culture displays especially close ties with remote groups
135
136
A.A. Movsessyan / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/3 (2012) 130–137
Table 6. Distances between Eskimos, Chukchi, Aleuts, and ancient Chukotkans and southern groups Groups
Eskimos
Chukchi Coastal
Reindeer
Aleuts
Welen
Ekven
Ancient Chukotkan, pooled
Burmese
0.109
0.106
0.130
0.090
0.065
0.063
0.058
Indians
0.187
0.183
0.191
0.130
0.129
0.126
0.120
Malays
0.154
0.107
0.132
0.102
0.107
0.123
0.109
Australians
0.268
0.285
0.303
0.192
0.194
0.138
0.164
Papuans, Murua
0.105
0.088
0.113
0.077
0.057
0.073
0.059
Papuans, Awayama
0.122
0.132
0.145
0.098
0.084
0.082
0.078
Papuans, pooled
0.109
0.105
0.125
0.083
0.066
0.072
0.064
Melanesians
0.250
0.228
0.260
0.178
0.188
0.152
0.171
both in the east and in the west (Okladnikov, 1974). The Lake Baikal area appears to have been the source of migrations to northern Yakutia, where Neolithic sites are markedly similar to those of Baikal. The Yakutian Neolithic, in turn, inÀuenced the Neolithic of Chukotka, affecting the course of further cultural evolution in that region, including the emergence of the Chukchi, Koryak, and Itelmen cultures (Dikov, 1974). At the same time, the possibility of ancient migrations to Chukotka from the south, along the Pacific coast, cannot be ruled out. Certain writers pointed to the Paci¿c Asian route of the peopling of America via Beringia (Zubov, 2002; Neves et al., 2003). With this in view, we compared prehistoric Chukotkans and recent Eskimos, Chukchi, and Aleuts with southern Mongoloids, Indians, Australians, Papuans, and Melanesians (Table 6). Whereas none of the modern Paci¿c groups show any southern links, the ancient Chukotkans do display a certain similarity with modern Burmese and Papuans. Notably, the southern Pacific tendency of Welen and Ekven was also demonstrated using another battery of nonmetric cranial traits (Kozintsev, 1988). Therefore the admixture of migrants from inland Siberian populations with those from more southern areas of the Paci¿c Basin and the adaptation of both to the extreme environment of Chukotka were likely important factors in proto-Eskoaleut origins.
References Alekseyev V.P. 1967 K kraniologii aziatskikh eskimosov. Zapiski Chukot. kraeved. muzeya, iss. 4: 22–26. Alekseyev V.P. 1981 Aleuty Komandorskikh ostrovov (somatologicheskiye nabliudeniya). In Traditsionnye kultury Severnoi Sibiri i Severnoi Ameriki. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 6–33.
Alekseyev V.P., Trubnikova O.B. 1984 Nekotorye problemy taksonomii i genealogii aziatskikh mongoloidov. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Altukhov Yu.P., Pobedonostseva E.Yu. 1978 Eksperimentalnoye modelirovaniye geneticheskikh protsessov v podrazdelennykh populyatsiyakh. Doklady AN, vol. 238, No. 2: 466–469. Altukhov Yu.P., Rychkov Yu.G. 1970 Populyatsionnye sistemy i ikh strukturnye komponenty: Geneticheskaya stabilnost i izmenchivost. Zhurnal obschei biologii, vol. 31, No. 5: 507–526. Cheboksarov N.N. 1947 Osnovnye napravleniya rasovoi differentsiatsii v Vostochnoi Azii. TIE, N.s., vol. 2: 96–120. Chernetsov V.N. 1973 Etnokulturnye arealy v lesnoi i subarkticheskoi zonakh Evrazii v epokhu neolita. In Problemy arkheologii Urala i Sibiri. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 10–17. Cheverud J.M., Buikstra J.F. 1981 Quantitative genetics of skeletal non-metric traits in the rhesus macaques on Cayo Santiago. I. Single trait heritabilities. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, vol. 54: 43–49. Debetz G.F. 1951 Antropologicheskiye issledovaniya v Kamchatskoi oblasti. TIE, N.s., vol. 17: 68–119. Debetz G.F. 1975 Paleoantropologicheskiye materialy iz drevneberingomorskikh mogilnikov Uelen i Ekven. In Problemy etnicheskoi istorii Beringomorya. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 198–201. Dikov N.N. 1974 Ocherki istorii Chukotki s drevneishikh vremen do nashikh dnei. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Felsenstein J. 1989 PHYLIP – Phylogeny Inference Package (Version 3.2). Cladistics, vol. 5: 164–166. Gokhman I.I. 1961 Drevnii cherep s Chukotki. Zapiski Chukot. kraeved. muzeya, iss. 2: 14–18. Hrdliþka A. 1944 Non-Eskimo people of the Northwest coast of Alaska and Siberia. Proceedings of the U.S. National Museum, vol. 94: 1–172.
A.A. Movsessyan / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/3 (2012) 130–137
Kozintsev A.G. 1988 Etnicheskaya kranioskopiya. Leningrad: Nauka. Lane R.A. 1977 The Allegany Seneca: A test of the genetic reliability of non-metric osteological traits for intrapopulation analysis. Ph.D. Diss. Univ. of Texas at Austin. Levin M.G. 1958 Etnicheskaya antropologiya i problemy etnogeneza narodov Dalnego Vostoka. Moscow: Izd. AN SSSR. (TIE, N.s.; vol. 36). Levin M.G. 1962 Ob antropologicheskikh materialakh iz drevneeskimosskikh mogilnikov. Zapiski Chukot. kraeved. muzeya, iss. 3: 25–26. Mamonova N.N., Movsessyan A.A. 1968 Neoliticheskoye naseleniye Pribaikalya (paleofeneticheskii analiz). Vestnik antropologii, iss. 5: 221–240. Movsessyan A.A. 2005 Feneticheskii analiz v paleoantropologii. Moscow: Universitetskaya kniga. Movsessyan A.A., Mamonova N.N., Rychkov Yu.G. 1975 Programma i metodika issledovaniya anomalii cherepa. Voprosy antropologii, iss. 51: 58–77. Nei M. 1972 Genetic distance between populations. American Naturalist, vol. 106: 283–292. Neves W.A., Prous A., Gonzales-Jose R., Kipnis R., Powell J. 2003 Early Holocene human skeletal remains from Santana do Riacho, Brasil: Implications for the settlement of the New World. Journal of Human Evolution, vol. 45: 19–42. Okladnikov A.P. 1948 O pervonachalnom zaselenii chelovekom doliny r. Leny. KSIIMK, iss. 23: 25–29. Okladnikov A.P. 1974 Neoliticheskie pamyatniki Angary (ot Sɫhukino do Bureti). Novosibirsk: Nauka. Rudenko S.I. 1947 Drevnyaya kultura Beringova morya i eskimosskaya problema. Moscow, Leningrad: Glavsevmorput. Rychkov Yu.G. 1969 Nekotorye populyatsionno-geneticheskie podkhody k antropologii Sibiri. Voprosy antropologii, iss. 33: 3–22. Rychkov Yu.G. 1973 Sistema drevnikh izolyatov cheloveka v Severnoi Azii v svete problem stabilnosti i evolyutsii populyacii: Poiski i resheniya na putyakh populyatscionnoi genetiki. Voprosy antropologii, iss. 44: 3–22.
Rychkov Yu.G., Movsessyan A.A. 1972 Genetiko-antropologicheskii analiz raspredeleniya ano malii cherepa u mongoloidov Sibiri v svyazi s problemoi ikh proiskhozhdeniya. Bull. MOIP. Otd. biologii, iss.. 43: 114–132. Rychkov Yu.G., Sheremetyeva V.A. 1972 Populyatsionnaya genetika aleutov Komandorskikh ostrovov (v svyazi s problemami istorii narodov i adaptatsii naseleniya drevnei Beringii). Voprosy antropologii, iss. 40: 45–58. Serebrovsky A.S. 1935 Genogeogra¿ya kur Armenii. Uspekhi zootekhnicheskikh nauk, vol. 1, iss. 3: 11–15. Sheremetyeva V.A., Rychkov Yu.G. 1978 Populyatsionnaya genetika narodov Severo-Vostochnoi Azii. Moscow: Izd. Mosk. Gos. Univ. Sjøvold T. 1984 A report on the heritability of some cranial measurements and non-metric traits. In Multivariate Statistical Methods in Physical Anthropology, G.N. Van Vark, W.W. Howells (eds.). Boston: D. Reidel, pp. 23–246. Timofeyev-Resovsky N.V., Yablokov A.V. 1973 Feny, fenetika i evolyutsionnaya biologiya. Priroda, No. 5: 40–51. Timofeyev-Resovsky N.V., Yablokov A.V., Glotov V.V. 1973 Ocherk ucheniya o populyatsii. Moscow: Nauka. Tokareva T.Ya. 1937 Materialy po kraniologii aleutov. Antropologicheskii zhurnal, No. 1: 57–73. Zolotarev A.M. 1937 K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii eskimosov. Antropologicheskii zhurnal, No. 1: 47–56. Zubov A.A. 1969 Odontologicheskii analiz cherepnykh serii iz Ekvenskogo i Uelenskogo mogilnikov. In Drevnie kultury aziatskikh eskimosov. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 185–203. Zubov A.A. 2002 Nekotorye spornye momenty v traditsionnykh vzglyadakh na formirovanie fizicheskogo tipa amerikanskikh indeitsev. In Istoriya i semiotika indeiskikh kultur Ameriki. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 388–399.
Received September 1, 2011.
137
130
ANTHROPOLOGY A.A. Movsessyan Moscow State University, Leninskie Gory 1, building 12, Moscow 119991, Russia E-mail: [email protected]
PREHISTORIC AND RECENT POPULATIONS OF CHUKOTKA: A PALEOPHENETIC ANALYSIS
Thirty nonmetric traits were studied in two cranial series from prehistoric coastal cemeteries on the Chukchi Peninsula (hereafter Chukotka) – Welen (58 crania) and Ekven (107 crania), representing the Old Bering Sea culture. Both series are close not only to modern Eskimos, Chukchi, and Aleuts but also to Tungus-speaking groups. This may be due both to ancient contacts between continental and coastal populations and to their common origin. Comparisons with the Neolithic groups of Baikal and with southern Mongoloids suggest that Eskoaleuts originated in Siberia, and that admixture between migrants from continental Siberia and those from more southern areas of the Paci¿c coast was one of the key factors in this process. Another factor was adaptation to the extreme Arctic environment. Keywords: Craniology, population history, nonmetric cranial traits, Chukchi Peninsula, Eskimos, Aleuts, Chukchi.
Introduction The purpose of this study is to assess the position of cranial series from two pre-Metal Age cemeteries on the Beringian coast of Chukotka – Welen and Ekven – among other series from Northern Asia, using nonmetric traits. These two groups, representing the Old Bering Sea culture, were ¿rst studied by M.G. Levin (1962), who, based on craniometric data, described them as quite Eskimo-like, concluding that the Eskimo trait combination was very ancient. G.F. Debetz (1975) reached the same conclusion in his study of Eskimo origins. The dental analysis revealed that both groups were similar to each other and to recent Eskimos, Chukchi, and Aleuts, and that both groups had retained ancient trait combinations of the dental structure found in certain Mesolithic and Neolithic populations (Zubov, 1969).
Results of craniometric comparisons between ancient and recent groups are often affected by diachronic variation, which distorts population relationships. These relationships can be more reliably reconstructed if the traits are unaffected by temporal trends. This appears to be the case with nonmetric characters of the cranium. In this study, they provide a basis for a comparison of prehistoric samples from Chukotka with modern Mongoloid groups. Nonmetric traits, known as “phenes” in Russian zoological literature, are used as quasi-genetic markers by zoologists in population studies. Principles of population genetics are thereby extended to cases where genetic analysis is dif¿cult or impossible (Timofeyev-Resovsky, Yablokov, 1973; Timofeyev-Resovsky et al., 1973). Indirect data suggests that nonmetric variations of the cranium result from normal developmental processes and are to some extent controlled by genetic factors
© 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.2012.11.015
A.A. Movsessyan / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/3 (2012) 130–137
(Lane, 1977; Cheverud, Buikstra, 1981; Sjøvold, 1984). Also, numerous studies have demonstrated that groups unrelated by origin differ in the frequencies of these traits, whereas the likelihood of related groups being similar is much higher. Therefore the application of genetic methods appears to be very useful in the analysis of population af¿nities between ancient groups. Materials and methods In our earlier publications we have proposed a list of nonmetric cranial traits and a methodology of their
131
analysis (Movsessyan et al., 1975; Movsessyan, 2005). In this study, these traits were scored on 107 crania from Welen and 58 from Ekven. For comparative purposes, their frequencies in previously published prehistoric and recent Mongoloid series were used (Mamonova, Movsessyan, 1998; Movsessyan, 2005). Frequencies were calculated per individual, i.e. without regard to unilateral or bilateral occurrence. Statistical analysis was conducted using three methods: (1) Nei’s generalized distance (d) (Nei, 1972); (2) classification analysis based on the PHYLIP – Phylogeny Inference Package (Felsenstein, 1989); and (3) canonical variate analysis based on the CANOCLUS package by V.Y. Deryabin.
Table 1. Frequencies of nonmetric cranial traits in ancient populations of Chukotka and modern Eskimos, Chukchi, and Aleuts No.
Traits
Welen
Ekven
Eskimos
Coastal Chukchi
Reindeer Chukchi
Aleuts
1
Sutura frontalis
0.051
0.028
0.049
0.040
0.010
0.054
2
Foramen supraorbitale
0.579
0.443
0.637
0.733
0.777
0.642
3
Foramen frontale
0.129
0.141
0.196
0.160
0.167
0.071
4
Spina trochlearis
0.010
0.019
0.027
0.010
0.010
0.038
5
Foramen infraorbitale accessorium
0.120
0.129
0.151
0.177
0.196
0.250
6
Os zygomaticum bipartitus trace
0.021
0.010
0.029
0.040
0.028
0.167
7
Spina processus frontalis
0.069
0.205
0.315
0.266
0.171
0.163
8
Os Wormii suturae coronalis
0.010
0.018
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
9
Stenocrotaphia
0.043
0.108
0.243
0.134
0.152
0.085
10
Os epiptericum
0.108
0.166
0.045
0.067
0.057
0.100
11
Processus frontalis squamae temporalis
0.010
0.090
0.010
0.013
0.014
0.020
12
Os Wormii suturae squamosum
0.021
0.019
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.020
13
Os postsquamosum
0.103
0.151
0.127
0.120
0.180
0.089
14
Os asterion
0.034
0.122
0.029
0.053
0.029
0.054
15
Foramen parietale
0.327
0.383
0.513
0.400
0.416
0.446
16
Os Incae
0.017
0.047
0.010
0.040
0.014
0.019
17
Os triquetrum
0.030
0.038
0.045
0.053
0.014
0.058
18
Os apicis lambae
0.034
0.010
0.010
0.014
0.027
0.038
19
Os Wormii suturae lambdoideae
0.086
0.113
0.063
0.085
0.083
0.192
20
Os Wormii suturae occipito-mastoideum
0.010
0.010
0.049
0.160
0.039
0.073
21
Processus interparietalis
0.086
0.047
0.039
0.069
0.069
0.010
22
Tuberculum praecondylaris
0.050
0.047
0.050
0.046
0.059
0.022
23
Foramen tympanicum
0.175
0.184
0.167
0.236
0.222
0.178
24
Foramen pterygospinosum
0.034
0.037
0.078
0.093
0.062
0.072
25
Foramen pterygo-alare
26
Sutura palatina transversa (concave)
27
Torus palatinus
0.185
0.208
0.147
0.155
0.223
0.286
28
Torus mandibularis
0.346
0.220
0.075
0.250
0.050
0.238
29
Sulcus mylohyoideus
0.154
0.110
0.125
0.125
0.142
0.142
30
Foramen mentale accessorium
0.077
0.060
0.050
0.250
0.285
0.200
0
0
0.039
0.046
0.078
0.036
0.018
0.019
0.061
0.111
0.061
0.036
132
A.A. Movsessyan / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/3 (2012) 130–137
Results and discussion The resemblance between Welen and Ekven, demonstrated by craniometric and dental analyses, is likewise revealed by the analysis of nonmetric cranial traits. The generalized distance between them is small (d = 0.030). Apparently, both groups represent local populations of the same ethnic group. Both groups are close to recent Eskimo, Chukchi, and Aleuts (Table 1). Importantly, this similarity primarily concerns traits distinguishing these groups from other Northern Asian Mongoloids. For instance, crania from Welen and Ekven, like those of modern Eskimos, Chukchi, and Aleuts and unlike those of continental Siberian Mongoloids, are characterized by a high frequency of infraorbital and frontal foramina and of mandibular tori (the latter trait is especially typical of Eskimos, Chukchi, and Aleuts). On the other hand, frequencies of trochlear spines, lambda bones, and lambdoid Wormians are rather low in all these groups. The similarity is apparent from generalized distances (d) (Table 2). On the other hand, both prehistoric populations of Chukotka resemble the Tungus-speaking people of the Amur – the Ulchi and Negidal. Physical traits suggestive of Tungus af¿nities have been described in modern reindeer and coastal Chukchi (Levin, 1958). The same af¿nities are
revealed by nonmetric cranial traits (Table 3). Generalized distances show the Eskimos to be especially close to coastal Chukchi. Both groups of Chukchi (reindeer and coastal) are rather similar to each other. The Aleuts take a separate position (see below). Chukchi and Eskimos, then, form a cluster separated by moderate distances not only from Aleuts but also from Negidal and Ulchi. This is even more apparent in a plot showing the position of modern Siberian populations on two canonical vectors (Fig. 1). The Tungus-speaking groups – Ulchi, Negidal, Orochi, and Evenki – form a distinct cluster and, together with the Eskimos, Chukchi, and Aleuts, score positively on the ¿rst canonical variate. The results of two independent statistical methods, therefore, are in agreement. They suggest that af¿nities between Chukotkan populations and those speaking Tungus languages are quite ancient (no later than the Old Bering Sea culture and possibly even earlier). This conclusion is supported by ancient cultural links between Chukotka and Eastern Siberia. S.I. Rudenko (1947) suggested that the Old Bering Sea culture might have had a southern origin. Speci¿cally, the curvilinear design on artifacts from ancient Chukotkan cemeteries is close to that typical of the Amur area. It was hypothesized that the Old Bering Sea culture resulted from a blend of paleoEskimo cultures with labrettes and the Ust-Belaya culture,
Table 2. Distances between ancient Chukotkans and modern Siberian groups
Table 3. Distances between Eskimos, Chukchi, and Aleuts and populations of inland Siberia
Groups
Welen
Ekven
Chukchi
Ancient Chukotkans, pooled
Groups
Eskimos
Coastal Reindeer
Aleuts
Eskimos
0.051
0.061
0.050
Coastal Chukchi
0.029
0.000
Coastal Chukchi
0.050
0.068
0.052
Reindeer Chukchi
0.035
0.022
0.000
Reindeer Chukchi
0.041
0.071
0.047
Aleuts
0.070
0.047
0.056
0.000
Aleuts
0.044
0.059
0.046
Negidal
0.055
0.051
0.056
0.062
Negidal
0.044
0.051
0.041
Ulchi
0.040
0.039
0.055
0.034
Ulchi
0.048
0.055
0.043
Orochi
0.070
0.050
0.069
0.039
Evenki
0.056
0.075
0.060
Evenki
0.065
0.059
0.073
0.039
Orochi
0.071
0.074
0.069
Beltyr
0.084
0.092
0.130
0.075
Selkup
0.075
0.071
0.066
Sagay
0.109
0.104
0.120
0.089
Beltyr
0.143
0.127
0.130
Shorians
0.080
0.088
0.113
0.058
Sagay
0.111
0.090
0.096
Koibal
0.078
0.115
0.140
0.075
Shorians
0.098
0.077
0.079
Kachin
0.077
0.073
0.082
0.033
Koibal
0.109
0.081
0.090
Telengit
0.092
0.085
0.099
0.052
Kachin
0.076
0.085
0.073
Byryat
0.072
0.041
0.071
0.044
Telengit
0.101
0.106
0.095
Tuvans
0.081
0.052
0.071
0.038
0.072
0.078
0.096
0.043
0.066
0.074
0.087
0.044
Buryat
0.099
0.115
0.100
Mansi
Tuvans
0.068
0.093
0.075
Khanty
A.A. Movsessyan / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/3 (2012) 130–137
which lacked labrettes. By the end of the 1st millennium BC, the Ust-Belaya culture spread toward the northern and eastern coast of Chukotka. This culture displays both Eskimo features and those typical of inland Siberia (Dikov, 1974). I.I. Gokhman (1961), who studied a cranium from UstBelaya cemetery, concluded that it evidenced af¿nities with Eskimos, Chukchi, and Aleuts, on the one hand, and Tungus-speaking groups, on the other. V.P. Alekseyev (1967) described the Ust-Belaya cranium as “protoEskimoid,” i.e., showing a more generalized morphology compared to that of extant Eskimos. Therefore our result indicating biological affinities between ancient Chukotkans and the Tungus speakers may attest both to contacts and to a common origin. An important aspect of group differentiation is “genetic memory,” implying that extant populations related by origin, preserve various characteristics of the ancestral population. This feature of population systems was first discovered by A.S. Serebrovsky (1935) and was later experimentally demonstrated by Y.G. Rychkov and Y.P. Altukhov (Rychkov, 1969, 1973; Altukhov, Rychkov, 1970; Rychkov, Movsessyan, 1972; Altukhov, Pobedonostseva, 1978). Under this approach, a population system is regarded as a subdivided population having its own microevolutionary history and consisting of subpopulations related by origin. The studies cited above have convincingly demonstrated that such a system is genetically stable in both time and space. Ethnic differentiation, because of being linked to genetic differentiation, follows the same pattern. Therefore ethnic groups, too, may preserve “memories” of ancestral communities despite being separated from them by dozens of generations. By averaging gene (and phene) frequencies across extant populations and ethnic groups one may arrive at a reconstruction of the ancestral group, thus offering the possibility for comparing modern populations with ancient ones. Using this approach, we can assume that the characteristics of modern Siberian groups and those of ancient groups of Chukotka to some extent mirror those of the hypothetical ancestral group. If so, comparing modern averages is tantamount to comparing ancestral populations. Such a comparative analysis has revealed that the ancient inhabitants of Chukotka were virtually
133
Fig. 1. Results of the canonical variate analysis of nonmetric cranial traits in modern Siberian populations.
equally close to the ancestors of modern Eskimos, Chukchi, and Aleuts, on the one hand, and those of the Tungus speakers, on the other (Table 4). This may attest to southwestern af¿nities of the ancient Chukotkans. However, populations of inland Siberia including the Tungus speakers are much closer to the Neolithic population of Baikal. In a dendrogram, ancient Chukotkans cluster with modern Eskimos, Chukchi, and Aleuts (or, under the approach outlined above, with their common ancestors), whereas continental Siberians join the Baikal Neolithic groups (Fig. 2). The continuity between ancient and modern populations is especially apparent in diagrams showing the combinations of frequencies of the ¿fteen most polymorphic traits in separate groups and in reconstructed ancestral groups (Fig. 3). In sum, our results suggest that modern Eskimos, Chukchi, and Aleuts are not only similar to each other in terms of nonmetric cranial traits, but retain the “memory” of their prehistoric ancestors – people of the Old Bering Sea culture. This culture, in turn, was a stage in the evolution of the paleo-Eskimo sea hunters, which originated in the 2nd millennium BC on the Beringian coast of Chukotka as an adaptation to a speci¿c environment. The paleo-Eskimos are believed to be descendents of Late Paleolithic proto-Eskoaleuts, who in the Late Pleistocene and early Holocene spread across the
Table 4. Distances between ancient groups and pooled modern groups of Siberia Groups
Eskimos, Aleuts, Chukchi
Tungus-speaking groups
Western Siberians
Turks and Mongols
Welen
0.035
0.037
0.065
0.061
Ekven
0.048
0.046
0.053
0.074
Ancient Chukotkan, pooled
0.034
0.036
0.052
0.062
Baikal Neolithic
0.038
0.028
0.024
0.025
134
A.A. Movsessyan / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/3 (2012) 130–137
Fig. 2. Dendrogram based on pairwise differences between modern and ancient Siberian populations.
Fig. 3. Graphs showing patterns of frequencies of the ¿fteen most polymorphic traits in separate groups and in reconstructed ancestral groups. Frequencies of traits plotted along the radii, clockwise: sutura frontalis, foramen frontale, spina processus frontalis, stenocrotaphia, os epiptericum, os postsquamosum, os asterion, os apicis lambdae, os Wormii suturae lambdoideae, os Wormii suturae occipito-mastoideum, processus interparietalis, tuberculum praecondylaris, foramen tympanicum, torus palatinus, sulcus mylohyoideus. The center of the circle corresponds to zero, the circle, to 0.25.
Beringian landbridge from Asia to northwestern America (Dikov, 1974). The genetic sources of the Old Bering Sea people are obscure. We can try, following A.M. Zolotarev (1937), to trace these sources in continental Siberia. Regrettably,
ancient skeletal materials from territories immediately adjoining Chukotka are quite fragmentary. It appears warranted, however, to compare ancient Chukotkans with people of the Baikal Neolithic, dated to 7th– 2nd millennia BC. The results demonstrate that in terms of nonmetric trait frequencies, the “paleo-Eskimos” differ from the Neolithic people of the Baikal no more than from modern Eskimos, Chukchi, and Aleuts, being closest to the earliest group – Kitoy (7th–6th millennia BC) (Table 5). Graphs showing patterns of trait distribution in ancient populations of Chukotka and Baikal, demonstrate Serovo and Glazkovo groups as resembling one another while differing from the Kitoy group, which is to some extent close to the reconstructed ancestral Chukotkan group (Fig. 4). Results of the canonical variate analysis of modern and ancient populations of Siberia fully agree with the above results and supplement them (Fig. 5). Modern Eskimos, Chukchi, Aleuts, and Tungus-speakers as well as Welen, Ekven, and Kitoy show positive scores on the second canonical variate. Modern Turks, Mongols, and Uralians, on the other hand, join Serovo and Glazkovo (they all score negatively on this CV). Notably, Aleuts differ from Eskimos and Chukchi and resemble inland North and Central Asians. The uniqueness of Aleuts has already been noted. Being culturally and linguistically close to Eskimos, Aleuts are anthropometrically distinct from them (Tokareva, 1937; Hrdliþka, 1944; Debetz, 1951; Rychkov, Sheremetyeva, 1972; Sheremetyeva, Rychkov, 1978; Alekseyev, 1981). Whereas G.F. Debetz believed that the Aleuts were related to Eskimos and Chukchi, N.N. Cheboksarov (1947) linked them to Buryats, Tuvans, and Mongols. Results of nonmetric cranial analysis indicate the same. Speci¿cally, canonical variate analysis shows the Aleuts to be much closer to Tuvans and Evenki than to Eskimos and Chukchi (Fig. 1, 5). If the ancestors of ancient Chukotkans lived in Central Siberia, the biological peculiarities of Aleuts can be explained by isolation, which contributed to the conservation of traits of a population that was ancestral to proto-Eskimos and Aleuts, and was close to ancient Central Siberians. According to T.Y. Tokareva, who discussed craniometric af¿nities between Aleuts, Evenki, and the Neolithic Baikalians, Aleut ancestors
Table 5. Distances between ancient Chukotkans and the Baikal Neolithic groups Kitoy
Serovo
Glazkovo
Baikal Neolithic, pooled
Welen
0.035
0.047
0.051
0.037
Ekven
0.041
0.05
0.038
0.036
Ancient Chukotkans, pooled
0.032
0.043
0.039
0.031
Groups
A.A. Movsessyan / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/3 (2012) 130–137
Fig. 5. Results of the canonical variate analysis of nonmetric cranial traits in modern and ancient Siberian populations.
Fig. 4. Graphs showing patterns of trait frequencies in ancient populations of Chukotka and Baikal. See Fig. 3 for explanations.
were related to Neolithic Baikalians. She believed that sometime in the past those people spread across a vast territory that included the Bering Sea Basin and possibly northwestern America (Tokareva, 1937). In support of this view, V.P. Alekseyev wrote that the morphophysiological peculiarities of modern Aleuts could be due to the conservation of proto-Mongoloid traits (Alekseyev, Trubnikova, 1984: 75). Indeed, in terms of cranial nonmetrics, Aleuts are rather close to the pooled Neolithic group from Baikal (d = 0,036). If ancient populations are included in the canonical variate analysis, people of Welen and Ekven shift toward modern Eskimos, Chukchi, and Aleuts (Fig. 6), in agreement with the results shown in the dendrogram (Fig. 2). The Neolithic Baikalians, on the other hand, shift toward the center of the continental Siberian cluster. Thanks to the inclusion of the supposed ancestral Chukotkans, Aleuts cluster with Eskimos, and Chukchi, showing positive scores of the second canonical variate and negative scores of the ¿rst. They are equally removed from the Neolithic Baikal group and from modern Turks and Mongols. It can be concluded that the average characteristics of ancient populations indeed reflect those of ancestral groups: proto-Eskoaleut and protoContinental Siberian. Apparently, proto-Eskoaleuts, like the Neolithic Baikal populations, originated from the same proto-Mongoloid Paleolithic population of Siberia which, in the course of dispersal and ¿ssion, had given rise to local Neolithic populations.
Fig. 6. Results of the canonical variate analysis of nonmetric cranial traits in modern and ancient Siberian populations (pooled ancient groups added).
Our results are supported by archaeological data, suggesting that the Neolithic culture of the Angara and Baikal began to expand in the late 4th millennium BC. The Lena–Aldan Neolithic culture spread via the upper Lena, down the Angara, and further northwest and north, to Khatanga and the lower Lena as well as eastwards along the Okhotsk Sea coast toward northeastern Asia (Chernetsov, 1973). A.P. Okladnikov (1948) has demonstrated that the Neolithic people of Baikal maintained contacts with remote areas of Western Siberia and those west of the Urals. According to Okladnikov, ties with the Baikal Neolithic are present in Neolithic cultures of the Yenisei and are due to the spread of Early Neolithic Baikalians in the southern and western direction. In fact, the Kitoy culture displays especially close ties with remote groups
135
136
A.A. Movsessyan / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/3 (2012) 130–137
Table 6. Distances between Eskimos, Chukchi, Aleuts, and ancient Chukotkans and southern groups Groups
Eskimos
Chukchi Coastal
Reindeer
Aleuts
Welen
Ekven
Ancient Chukotkan, pooled
Burmese
0.109
0.106
0.130
0.090
0.065
0.063
0.058
Indians
0.187
0.183
0.191
0.130
0.129
0.126
0.120
Malays
0.154
0.107
0.132
0.102
0.107
0.123
0.109
Australians
0.268
0.285
0.303
0.192
0.194
0.138
0.164
Papuans, Murua
0.105
0.088
0.113
0.077
0.057
0.073
0.059
Papuans, Awayama
0.122
0.132
0.145
0.098
0.084
0.082
0.078
Papuans, pooled
0.109
0.105
0.125
0.083
0.066
0.072
0.064
Melanesians
0.250
0.228
0.260
0.178
0.188
0.152
0.171
both in the east and in the west (Okladnikov, 1974). The Lake Baikal area appears to have been the source of migrations to northern Yakutia, where Neolithic sites are markedly similar to those of Baikal. The Yakutian Neolithic, in turn, inÀuenced the Neolithic of Chukotka, affecting the course of further cultural evolution in that region, including the emergence of the Chukchi, Koryak, and Itelmen cultures (Dikov, 1974). At the same time, the possibility of ancient migrations to Chukotka from the south, along the Pacific coast, cannot be ruled out. Certain writers pointed to the Paci¿c Asian route of the peopling of America via Beringia (Zubov, 2002; Neves et al., 2003). With this in view, we compared prehistoric Chukotkans and recent Eskimos, Chukchi, and Aleuts with southern Mongoloids, Indians, Australians, Papuans, and Melanesians (Table 6). Whereas none of the modern Paci¿c groups show any southern links, the ancient Chukotkans do display a certain similarity with modern Burmese and Papuans. Notably, the southern Pacific tendency of Welen and Ekven was also demonstrated using another battery of nonmetric cranial traits (Kozintsev, 1988). Therefore the admixture of migrants from inland Siberian populations with those from more southern areas of the Paci¿c Basin and the adaptation of both to the extreme environment of Chukotka were likely important factors in proto-Eskoaleut origins.
References Alekseyev V.P. 1967 K kraniologii aziatskikh eskimosov. Zapiski Chukot. kraeved. muzeya, iss. 4: 22–26. Alekseyev V.P. 1981 Aleuty Komandorskikh ostrovov (somatologicheskiye nabliudeniya). In Traditsionnye kultury Severnoi Sibiri i Severnoi Ameriki. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 6–33.
Alekseyev V.P., Trubnikova O.B. 1984 Nekotorye problemy taksonomii i genealogii aziatskikh mongoloidov. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Altukhov Yu.P., Pobedonostseva E.Yu. 1978 Eksperimentalnoye modelirovaniye geneticheskikh protsessov v podrazdelennykh populyatsiyakh. Doklady AN, vol. 238, No. 2: 466–469. Altukhov Yu.P., Rychkov Yu.G. 1970 Populyatsionnye sistemy i ikh strukturnye komponenty: Geneticheskaya stabilnost i izmenchivost. Zhurnal obschei biologii, vol. 31, No. 5: 507–526. Cheboksarov N.N. 1947 Osnovnye napravleniya rasovoi differentsiatsii v Vostochnoi Azii. TIE, N.s., vol. 2: 96–120. Chernetsov V.N. 1973 Etnokulturnye arealy v lesnoi i subarkticheskoi zonakh Evrazii v epokhu neolita. In Problemy arkheologii Urala i Sibiri. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 10–17. Cheverud J.M., Buikstra J.F. 1981 Quantitative genetics of skeletal non-metric traits in the rhesus macaques on Cayo Santiago. I. Single trait heritabilities. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, vol. 54: 43–49. Debetz G.F. 1951 Antropologicheskiye issledovaniya v Kamchatskoi oblasti. TIE, N.s., vol. 17: 68–119. Debetz G.F. 1975 Paleoantropologicheskiye materialy iz drevneberingomorskikh mogilnikov Uelen i Ekven. In Problemy etnicheskoi istorii Beringomorya. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 198–201. Dikov N.N. 1974 Ocherki istorii Chukotki s drevneishikh vremen do nashikh dnei. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Felsenstein J. 1989 PHYLIP – Phylogeny Inference Package (Version 3.2). Cladistics, vol. 5: 164–166. Gokhman I.I. 1961 Drevnii cherep s Chukotki. Zapiski Chukot. kraeved. muzeya, iss. 2: 14–18. Hrdliþka A. 1944 Non-Eskimo people of the Northwest coast of Alaska and Siberia. Proceedings of the U.S. National Museum, vol. 94: 1–172.
A.A. Movsessyan / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/3 (2012) 130–137
Kozintsev A.G. 1988 Etnicheskaya kranioskopiya. Leningrad: Nauka. Lane R.A. 1977 The Allegany Seneca: A test of the genetic reliability of non-metric osteological traits for intrapopulation analysis. Ph.D. Diss. Univ. of Texas at Austin. Levin M.G. 1958 Etnicheskaya antropologiya i problemy etnogeneza narodov Dalnego Vostoka. Moscow: Izd. AN SSSR. (TIE, N.s.; vol. 36). Levin M.G. 1962 Ob antropologicheskikh materialakh iz drevneeskimosskikh mogilnikov. Zapiski Chukot. kraeved. muzeya, iss. 3: 25–26. Mamonova N.N., Movsessyan A.A. 1968 Neoliticheskoye naseleniye Pribaikalya (paleofeneticheskii analiz). Vestnik antropologii, iss. 5: 221–240. Movsessyan A.A. 2005 Feneticheskii analiz v paleoantropologii. Moscow: Universitetskaya kniga. Movsessyan A.A., Mamonova N.N., Rychkov Yu.G. 1975 Programma i metodika issledovaniya anomalii cherepa. Voprosy antropologii, iss. 51: 58–77. Nei M. 1972 Genetic distance between populations. American Naturalist, vol. 106: 283–292. Neves W.A., Prous A., Gonzales-Jose R., Kipnis R., Powell J. 2003 Early Holocene human skeletal remains from Santana do Riacho, Brasil: Implications for the settlement of the New World. Journal of Human Evolution, vol. 45: 19–42. Okladnikov A.P. 1948 O pervonachalnom zaselenii chelovekom doliny r. Leny. KSIIMK, iss. 23: 25–29. Okladnikov A.P. 1974 Neoliticheskie pamyatniki Angary (ot Sɫhukino do Bureti). Novosibirsk: Nauka. Rudenko S.I. 1947 Drevnyaya kultura Beringova morya i eskimosskaya problema. Moscow, Leningrad: Glavsevmorput. Rychkov Yu.G. 1969 Nekotorye populyatsionno-geneticheskie podkhody k antropologii Sibiri. Voprosy antropologii, iss. 33: 3–22. Rychkov Yu.G. 1973 Sistema drevnikh izolyatov cheloveka v Severnoi Azii v svete problem stabilnosti i evolyutsii populyacii: Poiski i resheniya na putyakh populyatscionnoi genetiki. Voprosy antropologii, iss. 44: 3–22.
Rychkov Yu.G., Movsessyan A.A. 1972 Genetiko-antropologicheskii analiz raspredeleniya ano malii cherepa u mongoloidov Sibiri v svyazi s problemoi ikh proiskhozhdeniya. Bull. MOIP. Otd. biologii, iss.. 43: 114–132. Rychkov Yu.G., Sheremetyeva V.A. 1972 Populyatsionnaya genetika aleutov Komandorskikh ostrovov (v svyazi s problemami istorii narodov i adaptatsii naseleniya drevnei Beringii). Voprosy antropologii, iss. 40: 45–58. Serebrovsky A.S. 1935 Genogeogra¿ya kur Armenii. Uspekhi zootekhnicheskikh nauk, vol. 1, iss. 3: 11–15. Sheremetyeva V.A., Rychkov Yu.G. 1978 Populyatsionnaya genetika narodov Severo-Vostochnoi Azii. Moscow: Izd. Mosk. Gos. Univ. Sjøvold T. 1984 A report on the heritability of some cranial measurements and non-metric traits. In Multivariate Statistical Methods in Physical Anthropology, G.N. Van Vark, W.W. Howells (eds.). Boston: D. Reidel, pp. 23–246. Timofeyev-Resovsky N.V., Yablokov A.V. 1973 Feny, fenetika i evolyutsionnaya biologiya. Priroda, No. 5: 40–51. Timofeyev-Resovsky N.V., Yablokov A.V., Glotov V.V. 1973 Ocherk ucheniya o populyatsii. Moscow: Nauka. Tokareva T.Ya. 1937 Materialy po kraniologii aleutov. Antropologicheskii zhurnal, No. 1: 57–73. Zolotarev A.M. 1937 K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii eskimosov. Antropologicheskii zhurnal, No. 1: 47–56. Zubov A.A. 1969 Odontologicheskii analiz cherepnykh serii iz Ekvenskogo i Uelenskogo mogilnikov. In Drevnie kultury aziatskikh eskimosov. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 185–203. Zubov A.A. 2002 Nekotorye spornye momenty v traditsionnykh vzglyadakh na formirovanie fizicheskogo tipa amerikanskikh indeitsev. In Istoriya i semiotika indeiskikh kultur Ameriki. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 388–399.
Received September 1, 2011.
137