New craniological materials from the burial ground of the Early Metal Age on Bolshoy Oleniy Island in the Kola Bay of the Barents Sea are being introduced into scientific circulation. This is the only current craniological series from the Far North of Europe and the Trans-Urals. As a result of the analysis of canonical correlations of 27 groups of the ancient population of Northern Eurasia, its specificity is established. The greatest similarity is noted with the Asian series of Western Siberia and Altai of the Neolithic - Early Iron Age. The population that left the burial ground belonged to an ancient protomorphic anthropological community, different from both the "classical" Mongoloids of Eastern Siberia and Central Asia, and from the Caucasoids of Eastern and Western Europe. Probably, the main distribution area of this community in ancient times included most of the tundra zone of Northern Europe and the taiga zone of the Urals and Trans-Urals.
Key words: paleoanthropology, craniology, Northern Eurasia, Kola Peninsula, Early Metal age, Ural-speaking peoples.
Introduction
The burial ground on Bolshoy Oleniy Island in the Kola Bay of the Barents Sea is a unique archaeological site of the Early Metal Age in Northern Eurasia. Its high scientific significance is determined by the extremely rare for the Arctic good preservation of organic materials: bone and horn products, wooden structures, bone remains of ancient people.
Bolshoy Oleniy Island is located in the northern part of the Kola Bay, 6 km south of the entrance to the Barents Sea, separated from the mainland by Catherine Island and two narrow straits (Fig. 1). Its base is composed of gneiss and granite. In some places there are deposits of pebbles and sea sand. The largest sand deposits (approx. 1000 m 2) are located in the southern part of the island, on the saddle between two gneissogranite elevations. A burial ground was found in these deposits.
Archaeological study of the area began in 1925 with the discovery by G. D. Richter and S. F. Yegorov of the remains of a ruined burial site on Bolshoy Oleniy Island (Schmidt, 1930). The first excavations of the burial ground were carried out by a detachment of the Kola expedition of the USSR Academy of Sciences under the leadership of A.V. Schmidt in 1928.11 burials were discovered, accompanied by a variety of stone and bone tools. The results of the research are reflected in a series of publications by A. V. Schmidt and other members of the expedition [Kola Collection, 1930], and the materials were transferred to the ethnographic department of the Russian Museum. In 1934, during the construction of coastal fortifications on the island, a sand quarry was developed on the site of the burial ground. During the work, military engineer A. V. Tsiplenkov collected archaeological and anthropological material from about 25 burials. Four finds he handed over to the USSR Academy of Sciences, the fate of the rest of the collection is unknown. In 1947-1948. Kola Archaeological Expedition of the Leningrad branch of Insti-
page 145
Figure 1. Map of the location of Bolshoy Oleniy Island in the Kola Bay of the Barents Sea.
The Department of Archeology of the USSR Academy of Sciences (now IIMC RAS) under the leadership of N. N. Gurina continued excavations at the burial ground. The excavation area was approximately 56 m2, and 10 burials were uncovered (Gurina, 1953). The materials were transferred to the Leningrad Branch of the Institute of Ethnography of the USSR Academy of Sciences (now MAE RAS) and partly to the Murmansk Museum of Local Lore.
Since 1998, the study of the area has been resumed by the Kola Archaeological Expedition of the IIMC RAS under the leadership of V. Ya. Shumkin. Surveys in 1998 and 1999 showed that the burial ground is unlikely to be fully explored, and undiscovered areas are destroyed as a result of erosion. In 2001-2004, approximately 120 m2 of the burial ground was examined. Nine burial chambers were discovered and studied, five of them - single, four - collective. All burials were accompanied by a rich inventory. The collective ones contained two, four, five, and six bones, including children's bones and one of the fetal bones. 19 well-preserved bones of individuals of different ages and more than 250 archaeological artefacts were obtained (Shumkin and Murashkin, 2003; Murashkin and Shumkin, 2004; Shumkin et al., 2005; Shumkin, Kolpakov and Murashkin, 2006; Murashkin, 2007).
History of the study of anthropological materials from the burial ground on Bolshoy Oleniy Island
The first general descriptions of the then very few bone materials from the burial ground (excavations by A. V. Schmidt) were given by S. D. Sinitsyn (1930). Separate characteristics of seven adult skeletons, three male and four female, were considered, and only four (one male and three female) had skulls. Based on a comparison of a small number of features, mainly the shape of the skull, it is noted that " all the bones are from the burial ground... they belong to the same ethnic group", and also "that the head shape of the population from B. Olenyi Island was very close to the modern Lopar population of this region" [Ibid., p. 182]. At the same time, the author emphasized: "...the question of the actual kinship of the peoples of two distant epochs still requires a very large and thorough study and collection of more material" [Ibid., p. 183].
V. P. Yakimov (1953) made a monographic description of skulls from the burial ground according to a broad craniological program that is close to the modern one, and their comparative analysis against the background of ancient and modern series from the territory of Eurasia that were known at that time. They already took into account materials from the excavations of A. V. Schmidt and N. N. Gurina. The author noted that the buried "are characterized by the presence of a number of anthropological features, on the basis of which they can be brought closer to the representatives of the great Mongoloid race" [Ibid., p. 459]. These features included a wide face with a large index of protrusion; rather significant angles of horizontal profiling of the facial skeleton; moderate protrusion of the nasal bones relative to the profile line. At the same time, V. P. Yakimov noted that according to such indicators as small height dimensions of the face (absolute and relative), low orbits, relatively wide forehead, etc., Oleneostrov skulls either occupy an intermediate position between Mongoloids and Caucasoids, or are close to representatives of the Caucasian racial trunk. When comparing with materials close to modern times, the author emphasized the" non-identity "of the skulls of the" Oleneostrovtsy " and the Sami, and the greater similarity of the ancient inhabitants of Bolshoy Oleny Island with the Nenets, Khanty, and Mansi. All the features taken together give this series a distinctive morphological appearance, different from the anthropological complexes typical of the modern population.
When comparing with ancient craniological materials, the skulls from Bolshoy Oleny Island and Lugovsky burial ground of the Ananyin culture were exceptionally close.V. P. Yakimov, in an extremely cautious form, allowed the possibility of considering such morphological similarity as an argument in favor of the theory of the Ananyin population moving west and northwest from the Volga region. This hypothesis was first proposed by M. E. Foss [1948] on the basis of an analysis of archaeological data, and she emphasized that the final solution of the problem depends on anthropological materials.
page 146
Considering the general problem of the genesis of the anthropological type represented by skulls from the Oleneostrovsky and Lugovsky burial grounds, V. P. Yakimov gave two hypotheses. This anthropological type could be the result of a mixture of Caucasoid and Mongoloid elements that occurred in the zone of their contact, or it could be "a special proto-Mongoloid variant of one of the branches of the Asian racial trunk" (Yakimov, 1953, p.467). In general, the researcher concluded that due to the small number of materials, the issues raised cannot be resolved and the accumulation of new paleoanthropological data is necessary for a reasoned choice of hypotheses.
Later, after the publication of V. P. Yakimov, the craniological series from the burial ground on Bolshoy Oleniy Island, unfortunately, for a long time practically fell out of scientific circulation, extremely rarely being used in research even as comparative materials. In our opinion, finding out the systematic position of this series in the composition of the ancient and modern populations of the north of Eastern Europe can serve as a key to solving many controversial issues of the ancient history of the area.
Research materials
As a result of the work of the Kola Archaeological Expedition of the IIMC RAS in 2001-2004, 16 skeletons of individuals of different ages, including 13 adults, were collected on Bolshoy Oleniy Island. It is obvious that the series is not so large that the available parameters become "final", and the burial ground has probably not yet been fully explored. Nevertheless, the new data allow us to more confidently judge the anthropological features of the inhabitants of the Kola Peninsula in the mid-late II millennium BC. To date, the following absolute dates have been obtained for human bones from the excavations of V. Ya. Shumkin: border 12, rib fragment - 3,237 ± 32 BP, calibrated - 1525-1440 (68.2 %) and 1610-1420 (95.4 %) BC; border 13, patella - 3,195 ± 39 BP. calibrated-1500-1430 (68.2 %) and 1530-1390 (95.4 %) BC (ORAU, University of Oxford, UK).
The present study is based on both published craniological materials from the burial ground on Bolshoy Oleniy Island (Yakimov, 1953) and new ones received as a result of the expedition work of the Kola Archaeological Expedition in 2001-2004. All of them are kept in the Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography. Peter the Great (Kunstkamera) of the Russian Academy of Sciences: collections N 4952 (excavations by A. V. Schmidt), 5715 (excavations by N. N. Gurina), 7265 (excavations by V. Ya. Shumkin). Anthropological materials from border 13 (excavations in 2002) were transferred to the City Museum of Local Lore in Polyarny (Murmansk region).
The analysis of the features of postcranial skeletons was carried out in the studies of S. B. Borutskaya and S. V. Vasiliev (Borutskaya, 2005, 2006; Vasiliev and Borutskaya, 2006a, b). The increased number of skeletons made sexual dimorphism in the series more distinct. In this connection, the skeletons N 5715-1, 5715-3 (in the publication of V. P. Yakimov - female), taking into account the structural features of both skulls and postcranial skeletons, are classified as male. In addition to V. P. Yakimov's measurements, the parameters of a separate frontal bone with nasal bones from the excavations of N. N. Gurina - N 5715-2 were determined. Craniological measurements were carried out according to the standard program for the Russian anthropological school.
General characteristics of skulls from the burial ground on Bolshoy Oleniy Island
Craniological materials are very well preserved, which did not require significant restoration before the study, even in the area of the rhinium point. Apparently, this is due to the presence of finely fragmented (naturally occurring) shells of marine organisms in the soil. Skulls are characterized by relatively small size, medium massiveness, or even often gracefulness. Muscle relief in most cases is poorly developed. Signs of sexual dimorphism sometimes have a contradictory combination.
With an increase in the number of craniological series, some of its characteristics changed somewhat (Table 1). The transverse diameter and, accordingly, the cranial index decreased, both height diameters - from basion and from porion. The forehead became somewhat narrower in absolute size, but against the" background " of a decrease in the transverse diameter, the frontal-transverse index even increased. The length of the base of the face and the facial index have been increased. The tendency to prognathism of the facial skeleton in the alveolar part was more pronounced. With a" consistently " very large zygomatic diameter, the horizontal faciocerebral index increased. The upper height of the face, the height of the orbit, and the nose decreased. The horizontal flatness of the face became especially noticeable - both nasomalar and zygomaxillary angles increased. In the nasal region, the dacrial and simotic indicators decreased. The angle of the nose protrusion relative to the profile line remained almost unchanged in the men's part of the series and slightly increased in the women's part.
Thus, the series as a whole consists of skulls with a very low non-massive mesobrachicranial cranium. The forehead is broad. Front page
page 147
Table 1. Average values of skulls from the burial ground on Bolshoy Oleniy Island
Sign
Men's
Female
Excavations by A. V. Schmidt and N. N. Gurina (Yakimov, 1953)
Excavations by A. V. Schmidt, N. N. Gurina, and V. Ya. Shumkin (summary data)
Excavations by A. V. Schmidt and N. N. Gurina (Yakimov, 1953)
Excavations by A. V. Schmidt, N. N. Gurina, and V. Ya. Shumkin (summary data)
n
X
n
X
sd
n
X
n
X
sd
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1. Longitudinal diameter
4
181,3
12
181,2
4,0
4
180,5
8
177,1
4,6
8. Cross diameter
4
150,0
12
146,2
3,7
4
143,3
8
140,8
4,4
8 : 1. Cranial index
4
82,4
12
80,7
2,2
4
79,4
8
79,3
3,4
17. Height diameter
4
132,2
12
128,2
4,6
4
126,3
8
123,9
2,4
17: 1. Height and length indicator
4
73,0
12
70,8
2,7
4
70,0
8
70,0
1,7
17: 8. Height and cross sign
4
79,7
12
87,7
3,5
4
80,0
8
88,3
3,8
20. Ear height
4
119,5
12
114,4
5,1
4
114,5
7
109,0
1,9
5. Length of skull base
4
101,3
12
101,2
4,1
4
96,3
8
95,1
5,4
9. The smallest width of the forehead
4
101,3
13
100,5
3,5
4
97,0
9
92,4
4,5
9: 8. Frontal-transverse index
4
67,5
12
68,8
3,3
4
67,8
8
65,9
4,0
sub. 9. The height of the transverse bend of the forehead
-
-
12
19,2
2,4
-
-
9
19,7
2,8
UPIL. Cross bend angle of the forehead
-
-
12
137,9
4,3
-
-
8
134,9
2,9
32. Forehead profile angle from n
4
76,5
11
81,0
4,2
4
81,3
6
84,0
5,2
g-m. Forehead profile angle from g
4
69,0
11
72,5
4,9
4
73,3
6
75,8
5,6
40. Length of the base of the face
4
101,0
11
103,0
6,3
4
96,8
6
94,7
5,8
40: 5. Face protrusion indicator
6
99,4
11
102,1
3,4
-
-
6
99,4
4,8
72. General face angle
4
84,5
11
84,2
3,1
4
85,3
5
84,6
3,0
73. Middle face corner
4
86,3
11
87,7
2,5
4
88,8
5
88,0
3,3
74. Angle of the alveolar part of the face
4
74,8
11
73,3
6,1
4
73,5
5
74,0
2,4
43. Upper face width
4
111,5
11
108,4
5,0
4
103,7
7
100,4
3,7
45. Zygomatic diameter
4
145,8
12
143,6
4,7
4
134,8
7
130,6
2,6
45: 8. Horizontal faciocerebral index
4
97,2
12
98,3
4,1
4
94,1
7
93,3
3,4
46. Average face width
4
102,3
11
102,6
4,2
4
97,7
5
94,8
4,4
48. Upper face height
4
71,5
12
70,2
3,8
4
70,5
7
63,9
4,5
48: 45. Upper face pointer
4
49,0
11
49,2
3,4
4
52,3
6
48,1
2,9
48: 17. Vertical facio-cerebral index
4
54,0
11
55,1
2,4
4
55,9
7
51,6
3,6
43 (1). Biorbital width
4
101,3
12
101,2
4,2
3
99,0
8
96,0
2,7
sub.n/43(1). Height n above the biorbital chord
4
16,3
12
15,0
1,9
3
14,3
8
14,0
1,9
77. Nasomalar angle
4
144,5
12
147,1
3,5
4
147,7
7
147,1
3,9
zm'-zm'. Zygomaxillary width
4
101,8
11
100,7
5,3
3
95,0
4
94,5
4,4
sub.ss/zm'-zm'. Height ss above the zygomaxillary chord
4
23,0
11
19,9
2,4
3
19,7
4
20,1
2,3
<zm'. Zygomaxillary angle
4
132,5
11
137,1
4,2
3
135,0
4
134,0
5,6
51. Orbit width from mf
4
44,8
11
43,1
3,7
4
43,5
5
41,8
1,5
52. Orbit height
4
36,3
11
33,8
2,1
4
33,5
5
33,4
1,1
52: 51. The orbital pointer from mf
4
81,5
11
79,0
7,9
4
77,1
5
80,0
4,5
page 148
End of Table 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
54. Nose width
4
25,0
12
25,0
1,2
4
25,3
6
23,7
0,8
55. Nose height
4
55,3
12
52,2
2,5
4
52,0
5
47,0
3,7
54: 55. Nasal pointer
4
45,3
12
48,0
3,1
4
48,6
5
50,5
4,6
SC. Simotic width
4
6,1
13
6,2
1,8
4
7,3
9
5,6
1,1
SS. Simotic height
4
3,9
13
3,4
0,9
4
3,4
9
2,9
0,6
SS : SC. Simotic index
4
68,5
13
59,0
21,4
4
47,0
9
52,8
11,4
DC. Dacrial width
2
21,8
11
21,7
1,6
1
19,4
6
21,3
2,2
DS. Dacrial height
2
12,0
11
10,6
0,9
1
8,8
6
9,3
1,1
DS : DC. Dacrial index
2
55,3
11
48,8
4,5
1
45,4
6
43,8
5,2
75. Angle of inclination of the nasal bones
4
66,0
9
63,7
6,3
4
71,0
4
66,3
2,2
75 (1). Nose protrusion angle
4
18,5
10
18,8
4,0
4
14,3
4
18,0
2,3
the skeleton is rather low, very broad, flattened horizontally at both levels, mesognathous, with a large index of protrusion, and a tendency to alveolar prognathism. The orbits and pear-shaped opening are low. The nasal bones protrude very moderately, flattened horizontally. There are no differences in the morphological complexes of individual skulls that suggest mechanical mixing of the series. The values of the square deviations of the features also do not give grounds for assuming that the sample is heterogeneous (Table 1).
It should be emphasized that the new data even more clearly revealed the characteristic features of the Oleneostrov skulls identified by V. P. Yakimov, which determined the specifics of the morphological appearance of this series, which differs from the anthropological complexes of both the ancient and modern populations of Eurasia. Recall that this specificity is expressed in a combination of a number of indicators that bring the "Oleneostrovtsy" closer to representatives of the Mongoloid racial trunk, on the one hand, and features that are not characteristic of the "classical" Asian Mongoloids, on the other. The former include horizontal flatness of the facial skeleton, large width of the face, its mesognathity, moderate protrusion of the nasal bones and their flatness; the latter-low height of the face and orbits, wide forehead.
Position of the series from the burial ground on Bolshoy Oleniy Island among groups of the ancient population of Northern Eurasia
Taking into account the morphological peculiarity of skulls from the burial ground, the contradictory combination of taxonomically important features, it seems appropriate to analyze the position of the series among the groups of the ancient population of Northern Eurasia using the method of canonical correlations. As comparative materials, we used 26 episodes that are closest to Oleneostrovskaya in chronological terms. The analysis includes well-preserved samples with at least five observations (Table 2).
The first two canonical vectors (CV) reflect more than two-thirds of the total variability (Table 3). CV I (50% of the total variability) differentiates the series by the degree of expression of features traditionally considered significant for distinguishing between Caucasoid and Mongoloid groups. So, the nasomalar and zygomaxillary angles, the angle of protrusion of the nose, the simotic index and the smallest width of the forehead are of the greatest importance in this case; the height of the face and orbit, the width of the face, and the height of the cranium are somewhat smaller. According to the loads of features, skulls with a narrow forehead and low cranial height, a wide and high face, and high orbits are simultaneously distinguished by a flat face and slightly protruding nasal bones relative to the profile line.
The majority of ancient European groups are characterized by a Caucasian combination of these indicators, namely small angles of horizontal facial profiling, a strong protrusion of the nose, wide frontal bones and a large simotic index. The only exceptions are a series from the Lugovsky burial ground of the Ananyin culture and, which is especially important for the topic under discussion, skulls from Bolshoy Oleny Island, which have a pronounced "eastern" trend. The Caucasoid combination of features is also pronounced in most South Siberian groups of the Eneolithic-Early Iron Age, namely the Afanasyevites, Andronovites, and Tagars. This result is in good agreement with the prevailing ideas in Russian anthropology
page 149
Table 2. Ancient craniological series from Northern Eurasia used for comparative analysis
N n/a
Series
A source
Europe
1
Vovnigi
Gokhman, 1966
2
Yamniki of Ukraine
Alekseev, Gokhman, 1984a
3
Yamniki of the Volga region
The same thing
4
Catacombs of Ukraine
"
5
Catacombs of the Volga region
"
6
Log cabins of Ukraine
"
7
Log cabins of the Volga region
"
8
Ananyintsy (Lugovskaya burial ground)
Alekseev, 1969
Asia
9
Ust-Isha
Dremov, 1980
10
Itkul
The same thing
11
Afanasyevtsy
Alekseev, Gokhman, 1984a
12
Andronovo residents
Dremov, 1990
13
Okunevtsy
Debets, 1980; Gromov, 1997
14
Karasuk residents
Rykushina, 1980; Gromov, 1995
15
Tagar residents
Kozintsev, 1977; Alekseev and Gokhman, 1984a
16
Kamen-2
Rykun Publ., 2001
17
Bystrovka-1-3
Shpakova, 2001
18
Sargats
Bagashev, 2000
19
Serovtsy, Angara
Levin, 1956; Mamonova, 1973
20
Serovtsy, Lena
The same thing
21
Glazkovtsy, Lena
"
22
Glazkovtsy, Angara
"
23
Kitoytsy, Lena
"
24
Kitoytsy, Angara
"
25
Kitoitsy, Fofanovo
Gerasimova, 1992
26
Boysman-2
Popov, Chikisheva, Shpakova, 1997
Table 3. Correlation coefficients between the initial features and the first three canonical vectors for 27 craniological series from the territory of Northern Eurasia
Attribute number by Martin et al.
KV I
KV II
KV III
1
-0,10
0,49
-0,58
8
0,37
-0,42
-0,21
17
-0,54
0,54
0,34
9
-0,81
-0,28
-0,20
45
0,58
-0,00
0,06
48
0,69
0,33
0,15
55
0,48
0,42
-0,08
54
0,14
0,44
-0,23
51
-0,44
-0,69
0,23
52
0,66
-0,12
0,23
77
0,93
0,15
-0,05
Zm
0,96
-0,15
-0,02
SS : SC
-0,83
-0,40
-0,28
75 (1)
-0,92
0,22
0,07
% of total variability
50,0
17,6
7,3
2. Position of craniological series of the ancient population of Northern Eurasia in the space of the first two canonical vectors. a - series from the territory of Europe; b-from the territory of Asia. Numbering of the series in accordance with Table 2.
on the ancient migrations of European and Asian population groups, confirming the view that early penetration of Caucasoid populations into the territory of Southern Siberia dates back at least to the Eneolithic period (Alekseev and Gokhman, 1984a). Although the differences between Asian Caucasoids and the majority of European series in the degree of expression of the Europoid complex are small, it can still be noted that Andronovtsy and Tagartsy are located on the "eastern" periphery of the European range of HF I values.
This suggests the presence of a small eastern admixture in their composition. The "eastern" trend is even more pronounced among the Karasuk people, who are only slightly inferior to the West Siberian groups of the Early Iron Age (Figure 2).
page 150
The" eastern " pole of KV I is occupied by a series from the Boisman-2 burial ground and the Kitoits of Transbaikalia. They are characterized by extremely large angles of horizontal profiling, a weak protrusion of the nose, narrow frontal bones, and a small simotic index. The eastern complex of features is less pronounced in most Neolithic series of the Baikal region and especially in the West Siberian groups of the Early Iron Age, skulls from the Lugovsky and Oleneostrovsky burial grounds. It is significant that the magnitude of HF I loads in the series from Bolshoy Oleny Island is higher than in Lugovskaya, and is comparable to that in the Baikal Serov and Glazkovsky, as well as in the Altai Neolithic ones from Ust-Isha and Itkul.
It should be noted that the intermediate position of the group within the Europoid-Mongoloid vector may be due to various factors. It can indicate both a mestizo Europoid-Mongoloid origin, and the preservation of ancient protomorphy. In order to determine which of the factors occurred in the history of the formation of a particular population, other areas of variability should also be considered. In this regard, important information is provided by the CV II, which reflects about 18 % of the total variability. First of all, it differentiates the West Siberian and Altai groups, on the one hand, and the East Siberian ones, on the other. At the negative pole of the values are the Early Iron Age series from Western Siberia and the Neolithic series from the Altai, while at the opposite pole are the Lena Kitoi and the series from the Boysman-2 burial ground.Most groups of the Baikal Neolithic occupy an intermediate position, as does the series from the Lugovsky burial ground. The Oleneostrov group is close to the West Siberian and Altai groups in terms of HF II loads, being located on the periphery of the range of values (Fig. 2).
Discussion
In general, based on the location of the groups in the space of the first two KVS, it is possible to distinguish at least three groups of ancient populations that are different in their morphological features and, probably, in their origin in Eastern Europe, Siberia, and the Far East. The first group includes Europoid series from Europe and Southern Siberia. The second group consists of the Mongoloid groups of Eastern Siberia and the Far East, and the center of concentration of the mongoloid complex of traits is located in Transbaikalia and the Far East. The third group includes the Early Iron Age series from Western Siberia, the Neolithic series from the Altai and the Okunevites. These series demonstrate specific features that distinguish them from all others, including those in East Siberia and the Far East. It is with the third group that the materials from the burial ground on Bolshoy Oleny Island are most similar.
If the interpretation of the first two aggregates does not present significant difficulties, fitting into the usual dual picture of Caucasian-Mongoloid differentiation, then the composition of the third one requires additional explanations. The pronounced anthropological similarity of geographically distant groups (Okunevtsy, Sargattsy, series from Ust-Isha, Itkul, Oleneostrovsky burial ground), of course, should not be interpreted as evidence of direct migrations from the south of Western Siberia, Altai to the Far North of Europe or in the opposite direction. What can unite ancient populations that are so different in their historical fate?
Despite the apparent paradox, the results of the canonical analysis, in our opinion, are not random, but reflect the fact that all groups included in the third set retain the features of ancient protomorphy. We emphasize that the mere presence of such traits does not necessarily indicate a direct relationship between the populations in which they are present. For example, today we can assume the existence in ancient times in Siberia of at least two communities with undifferentiated complexes of features. The first group includes primarily native speakers of the Okunev culture (Kozintsev, Gromov, and Moiseyev, 1999; Kozintsev, 2004; Gromov, 1995). This ancient population apparently left no direct descendants among modern populations. It can only be stated that a very moderate cranioscopic similarity with Okunevites is observed in some inhabitants of Southern Siberia, such as Sagai and Shor [Kozintsev, Gromov, and Moiseyev, 1999].
The second community of ancient protomorphic populations was probably much more numerous, geographically widespread, and brought its anthropological features to the present day. Thus, among the modern population of the Arctic (tundra) and subarctic (boreal forests) zones of Eastern Europe and Western Siberia, according to various systems of anthropological characteristics, a group of populations with common specific features is distinguished. It received the names "anthropological community of the Ural type", "Ural small race" (Alekseev, 1974, Proiskhozhdeniye..., 1965). This anthropological type is widespread primarily among the Ugric and Samoyedic peoples of the Uralic language family. As a substrate component, it is also found in representatives of certain Finno-and Turkic-speaking groups living in this region. South of Western Siberia, northern zones of Altai
page 151
They are included in the area of the Ural anthropological community as the southern periphery.
The complex of anthropological characteristics of the " Uralians "is very specific: in some respects they are close to the modern" classical " Mongoloids of Eastern Siberia and the Far East, while in others they tend to be European populations. To explain the reasons for the appearance of such contradictory morphological features, Soviet anthropological science proposed two hypotheses. According to one theory, they were formed as a result of mixing of Caucasians and Mongoloids in the contact zone (Debets, 1961). According to another hypothesis, this is the legacy of an ancient anthropological formation that preserves traces of the stage of the formation of human population diversity, at which the complexes of traits specific to modern European and Asian populations have not yet developed [Bunak, 1924, 1956, 1980]. The mosaic, sometimes intermediate character of the combination of features that reliably separate modern Mongoloid and Europoid groups is not here a consequence of mixing (or at least only mixing), but reflects the protomorphic, "undifferentiated" nature of the Ural anthropological complex in relation to modern Mongoloids and Caucasoids. Until the mid-1980s, the relative preponderance in the discussion was more on the side of the adherents of the mestizo concept, which was shared by most of the leading Russian anthropologists. However, later, with the introduction of new systems of anthropological features and methods of statistical analysis, new data on the ancient and modern population of Eurasia, the situation began to change [Alekseev, 1984; Alekseev and Gokhman, 1984b; Gokhman, 1986; Moiseev, 1999, 2001, 2006a, b; Neolithic..., 1997; Khartanovich, 2006]. As a result, V. V. Bunak's theory about the origins of the anthropological specificity of the Ural-speaking peoples looks more and more convincing.
One of the main difficulties encountered by researchers in studying the origin of the Ural-speaking peoples was the almost complete absence of paleoanthropological materials from the territory of the supposed Ural ancestral homeland, located, according to linguistic data, in the taiga zone of Western Siberia. As a result, all retrospective anthropological reconstructions were based on the anthropological characteristics of modern inhabitants of the region, close to the present craniological series and, accordingly, were hypothetical in nature. According to paleoanthropological data, the possible presence of the Ancient Uralic component was first observed in the carriers of the Kamenskaya (Bolsherechenskaya) and Sargat cultures of the West Siberian forest-steppe zone of the Early Iron Age (Moiseev, 2006b). However, this component was present in their composition only as an admixture, along with the ancient Europoid component (Bagashev, 2000; Rykun, 2001).
It should be noted that based on the analysis of ancient groups, it is impossible to conclude that the "Oleneostrovtsy" belong to one or another group of undifferentiated populations, however, based on indirect circumstances - the geographical proximity of the northern regions of Eastern Europe and the Urals, the presence of representatives of Ural-speaking peoples in the territory of the European North at the present time-the kinship ties of the population that left a burial ground on Bolshoy Oleniy Island, with a Ural anthropological community, can be considered as quite probable.
At this stage of the study, we will confine ourselves to stating the presence of pronounced protomorphic features in the Oleneostrov skulls and their undoubted similarity to a number of ancient series from the territory of Western Siberia and Altai. It should be emphasized that such features in the composition of the ancient population of Europe are now reliably identified only in the presented series, i.e., among the inhabitants of the Far North of the continent, who inhabited the coastal strip of the Kola Peninsula since the middle of the II millennium BC. The territory of distribution of this anthropological type, the time and ways of its penetration into Europe are still debatable due to the small number of inhabitants of the Kola Peninsula. comparative paleoanthropological data. Note only that the skulls from the burial ground on Bolshoy Oleniy Island differ significantly from the known Mesoneolithic craniological materials from the burial grounds on Yuzhny Oleniy Island in Lake Onega (Karelia), Zveynieki (Latvia), and Dudka (Poland) (Hartanovich, 2006).
In conclusion, it is advisable to touch upon another topic related to the problem of the origin of the ancient and modern population of Fennoscandia. As we recall, V. P. Yakimov pointed out the general morphological similarity of skulls from Bolshoy Oleny Island and from the Lugovsky burial ground of the Ananyin culture, which was considered as the main argument in favor of the hypothesis about the movement of the Ananyin population to the Far North of Europe and the participation of the Sami as the main element in the ethnogenesis. According to the results of our analysis, the skulls from Oleneostrovsky and Lugovsky burial grounds differ quite clearly. The former show significant anthropological distinctiveness, while the latter occupy an intermediate position between the Europoid and Mongoloid series. The bones from the burial ground on Bolshoy Oleniy Island are almost a thousand years older than the Lugovsky ones. Thus, the anthropological data can not be used for this purpose right now.
page 152
to serve as an argument in favor of the hypothesis about the participation of native speakers of the Ananyin culture in the genesis of the population of the Kola Peninsula of the Early Metal Age. V. P. Yakimov's conclusion about the similarity of the characteristics of skulls from Oleneostrovsky and Lugovsky burial grounds remains valid in the general statement of the presence of pronounced "eastern" features in these two groups of the European population. The increase in the number of materials from the north of the Kola Peninsula and the addition of comparative data on the territory of Eurasia as a whole allow us to detail the genesis of such features. In all likelihood, they were different in origin.
Conclusions
Thus, in the craniological series from the burial ground on Bolshoy Oleny Island in the Kola Bay of the Barents Sea, no traces of mechanical mixing are observed. The anthropological characteristics of the" Oleneostrovtsy " show their specificity against the background of the ancient population of the north of Eurasia, with a gravitation to the Asian populations of Western Siberia and Altai. Probably, this similarity can be explained by their belonging to an ancient protomorphic anthropological community, different from the" classical " Mongoloids of Eastern Siberia and Central Asia. Apparently, the main distribution area of this community, starting at least from the Early Metal epoch, included most of the tundra zone of Northern Europe and the taiga zone of the Urals and Trans-Urals.
List of literature
Alekseev V. P. Origin of the peoples of Eastern Europe. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1969, 324 p. (in Russian)
Alekseev V. P. Geografiya chelovecheskikh ras [Geography of human races], Moscow: Mysl, 1974, 352 p.
Alekseev V. P. Fizicheskie osobennosti mezoliticheskogo i ranneneoliticheskogo naseleniya Vostochnoi Evropy v svyazi s probleme drevnego zaseleniya eto territorii [Physical features of the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic population of Eastern Europe in connection with the problem of ancient settlement of this territory].
Alekseev V. P., Gokhman I. I. Anthropology of the Asian part of the USSR, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1984a, 208 p.
Alekseev V. P., Gokhman I. I. the results of the examination of the reliability of craniometrical indicators anthropological materials from the burial ground on South deer island, Onega lake (due to their safety and features restoration) // Problems of anthropology of the ancient and modern populations of Northern Eurasia. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1984b, pp. 155-158.
Bagashev A. N. Paleoanthropology of Western Siberia: forest-steppe in the Early Iron age. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 2000, 374 p. (in Russian)
Borutskaya S. B. Paleopathology of the Late Neolithic burial ground on Bolshoy Oleniy Island of the Barents Sea // Vestn. anthropology. - 2005. - Vol. 12. pp. 98-105.
Borutskaya S. B. Osteometric analysis of skeletons of the burial ground on the Big Deer Island of the Barents Sea / / Scientific Almanac of the Department of Anthropology of Lomonosov Moscow State University. 2006, Issue 4, pp. 120-133.
Bunak V. V. Antropologicheskiy tip cheremis [The anthropological type of cheremis]. Zhurnal, 1924, vol. 13, No. 3/4, pp. 137-177.
Bunak V. V. Chelovecheskie rasy i puti ikh obrazovaniya [Human races and ways of their education].
Bunak V. V. The genus Homo, its occurrence and subsequent evolution. - Moscow: Nauka, 1980. - 328 p.
Vasiliev S. V., Borutskaya S. B. Reconstruction of the physical type and stress effects on the population that left the burial ground on Bolshoy Oleniy Island (Barents Sea) // Primitive and medieval history and culture of the European North: problems of study and scientific reconstruction. Solovki: SOLTI Publ., 2006a, pp. 376-381.
Vasiliev S. V., Borutskaya S. B. Analiz morfologicheskogo tipa, fizicheskikh nagruzok i paleopatologii pozdneneoliticheskogo naseleniya severa Kolskogo peninsulrova [Analysis of morphological type, physical loads and paleopathologies of the Late Neolithic population of the north of the Kola Peninsula].
Gerasimova M. M. Skulls from the Fofanovsky burial ground (Oka River, Selenga). Irkutsk: Publishing House of the Irkutsk State University, 1992, pp. 97-111.
Gokhman I. I. Population of Ukraine in the Mesolithic and Neolithic period: Anthropological essay, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1966, 224 p.
Gokhman I. I. Antropologicheskie osobennosti drevnego naseleniya severa Evropeyskoy chasti SSSR i puti ikh formirovaniya [Anthropological features of the ancient population of the north of the European part of the USSR and ways of their formation].
Gromov A.V. Popula-tion of the South of Khakassia in the Late Bronze Age and the problem of the origin of the Karasuk culture. St. Petersburg: MAE RAS Publishing House, 1995, issue 1, pp. 130-150.
Gromov A.V. Proiskhozhdenie i svyazi okunevskogo naseleniya Minusinskaya kotloviny [Origin and relations of the Okunevsky population of the Minusinsk depression]. - SPb.: Publishing House of SPb. State University, 1997, pp. 301-345.
Gurina, N. N., Monuments of the Early Metal Age on the Northern coast of the Kola Peninsula, MIA, 1953, No. 39, pp. 347-407.
Debets, G. F., On the ways of settling the northern strip of the Russian Plain and the Eastern Baltic, SE. - 1961. - N 6. - pp. 52-69.
Debets G. F. Paleoanthropology of Okunevskaya culture / / Paleoanthropology of Siberia, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1980, pp. 7-8.
Dremov V. A. Antropologicheskie materialy iz mogilnikov Ust-Isha i Itkul': (K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii neoliticheskogo naseleniya Verkhnih Priob'ya) [Anthropological materials from the Ust-Isha and Itkul burial grounds: (On the question of the origin of the Neolithic population of the Upper Ob region)].
Dremov V. A. Antropologicheskiy sostav naseleniya andronovskoy i andronoidnykh kul'tury Zapadnoy Sibiri [Anthropological composition of the population of the Andronovo and Andronoid cultures of Western Siberia]. and philos. - 1990. - Issue 2. - pp. 56-62.
Kozintsev A. G. Antropologicheskiy sostav i proiskhozhdeniye naseleniya tagarskoy kul'tury [The anthropological composition and origin of the Tagar culture population].
page 153
Kozintsev A. G. Kety, uraltsy, "Americanoids": Integration of craniological data / / Paleoanthropology, ethnic anthropology, ethnogenesis. St. Petersburg: MAE RAS Publishing House, 2004, pp. 172-185.
Kola Collection: Materials of the Expedition Research Commissions, Leningrad: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1930. 23. - 184 p.
Levin M. G. Antropologicheskie materialy iz Verkholenskogo mogilnika [Anthropological materials from the Verkholensk burial ground].
Mamonova N. N. K voprosu o drevnem naselenii Priangariya po paleoanthropologicheskim dannym [On the question of the ancient population of the Angara region based on paleoanthropological data]. Problemy arkheologii Urala i Sibiri [Problems of Archeology of the Urals and Siberia], Moscow: Nauka, 1973, pp. 18-28.
Moiseev V. G. Origin of Ural-speaking peoples according to craniology data. Saint Petersburg: Nauka Publ., 1999, 133 p. (in Russian)
Moiseev V. G. Severnaya Evraziya: yazykovaya differentsiatsiya i dannye fizicheskoi antropologii [Northern Eurasia: linguistic differentiation and data from Physical Anthropology]. - 2001. - N 4. - p. 154-159.
Moiseev V. G. Kranioskopicheskaya kharakteristika naseleniya Zapadnoy i Yuzhnoy Sibiri scifskogo vremeni [Cranioscopic characteristics of the population of Western and Southern Siberia of the Scythian period]. - 2006a. - N 1. - p. 145-152.
Moiseev V. G. Proiskhozhdenie uraloyazychnykh narodov po antropologicheskim dannym: rezultaty mezhsistemnogo analiza [The origin of Ural-speaking peoples based on anthropological data: results of intersystem analysis].
Murashkin A. I. Bone and horn inventory of the Bolshoy Oleniy Island burial ground in the Kola Bay of the Barents Sea (based on excavations in 2002-2004). Saint Petersburg: Elexis Print Publ., 2007, pp. 192-220.
Murashkin A. I., Shumkin V. Ya. New objects of ancient art from the burial ground of the Big Deer Island in the Barents Sea / / Visual monuments: style, epoch, compositions: materials of temat. Scientific Conference, St. Petersburg, 2004, pp. 97-101.
Neolith of the forest belt of Eastern Europe (anthropology of the Sakhtysh sites) - Moscow: Nauch. mir, 1997. 190 p.
Popov A. N., Chikisheva T. A., Shpakova E. G. Boisman archaeological culture of Southern Primorye. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of IAET SB RAS, 1997, 95 p. (in Russian)
Proiskhozhdeniye i etnicheskaya istoriya russkogo naroda (po antropologicheskim dannym) [Origin and Ethnic History of the Russian people (according to anthropological data)].
Rykun M. P. To the question about the origin of the population of the Upper Ob region in the early iron age (according to the burial Stone-2) // Space culture in archaeological and ethnographic dimension: Western Siberia and adjacent territories: Mat-ly XII Zap.-Sib. Archeol. - ethnogr. conf. - Tomsk, 2001, pp. 301-303.
Rykushina G. V. Naselenie srednego Yenisei v karasukskuyu epokhu (kraniologicheskii ocherk) [Population of the Middle Yenisei in the Karasuk epoch (craniological essay)].
Sinitsyn S. D. Kostnye ostanki cheloveka v raskopkakh A.V. Shmidta [Human bone remains in the excavations of A.V. Schmidt]. Kola Collection: Materials of the Expedition Research Commission, Leningrad: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1930. 23. pp. 181-183.
Foss M. E. Kul'turnye svyazi Severa Vostochnoi Evropy v II millennii b.c. Kul'turnye svyazi Severa Vostochnoi Evropy v II millennii B.C. Cultural relations of the North of Eastern Europe in the second millennium BC.
Khartanovich V. I. O "laponoidnosti" na Severo Evropy (po antropologicheskim materialam iz mogilnikov Bolshogo Oleniy ostrov v Kola zaliv Barentseva morya i Yuzhnogo Oleniy ostrov Onezhskogo ozero) [On the "laponoid" in the North of Europe (based on anthropological materials from the burial grounds of the Big Oleniy Island in the Kola Bay of the Barents Sea and the Southern Oleniy Island of Lake Onega)]. Primeval and medieval history and Culture of the European North: problems of study and scientific reconstruction. Solovki: SOLTI Publ., 2006, pp. 143-156.
Schmidt A.V. Drevnyj mogilnik na Kola zalve [The ancient burial ground on the Kola Bay]. - L.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences. - 1930. - Issue. 23. pp. 119-169.
Shpakova M. V. Kraniologicheskie osobennosti muzhskikh serii mogilnogo kompleksa Bystrovka i ikh statisticheskii analiz [Craniological features of the male series of the Bystrovka grave complex and their statistical analysis]. - Barnaul: Alt Publishing House. State University, 2001, pp. 176-180.
Shumkin, V. Ya., Kolpakov, E. M., and Murashkin, A. I., Some results of new excavations of the burial ground on Bolshoy Oleniy Island in the Barents Sea, Zap. IIMK RAS, 2006, No. 1, pp. 42-52.
Shumkin V. Ya., Murashkin A. I. Novye dannye o mogilnikom na Bolshoy Oleniy ostrov Barentseva morya [New data on the burial ground on the Big Deer Island of the Barents Sea]. - 2003. - Issue 10. - pp. 26-30.
Shumkin, V. Ya., Sapelko, T. V., Ludikova, A. N., and Murashkin, A. I., A comprehensive study of the burial ground on Bolshoy Oleniy Island in the Kola Bay of the Barents Sea, Kvarter 2005: IV Vseros. the second one. on the study of the Quaternary period. Syktyvkar: Geoprint, 2005, pp. 470-471.
Yakimov V. P. Antropologicheskaya kharakteristika kostyakov iz pogrebenii na Bolshoy Oleniy ostrov (Barents Sea) [Anthropological characteristics of skeletons from burials on Bolshoy Oleniy Island (Barents Sea)]. - M.; L.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1953. - Vol. 15. - pp. 449-485.
Kozintsev A.G., Gromov A.V., Moiseyev V.G. Collateral Relatives of American Indians Among the Bronze Age Populations of Siberia? // Am. J. of Physical Anthropology. - 1999. - Vol. 108. - P. 193-204.
The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 02.09.09.
page 154
New publications: |
Popular with readers: |
News from other countries: |
 |
Editorial Contacts |
About · News · For Advertisers |
 Digital Library of Japan ® All rights reserved.
2023-2025, ELIB.JP is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map) Preserving the Japan heritage |
|
US-Great Britain
Sweden
Serbia
Russia
Belarus
Ukraine
Kazakhstan
Moldova
Tajikistan
Estonia
Russia-2
Belarus-2
