Libmonster ID: UA-12931

The article discusses the reasons for the peculiarity of the morphology of skulls from the sites of the yamnaya archaeological culture of the North-Western Caspian region. Based on the results of a multidimensional analysis of craniometric data on the population of the Bronze Age, Eneolithic, Neolithic and Mesolithic, a model of the formation of human populations in Eastern Europe in the Neolithic and early Bronze Age is proposed. It is argued that representatives of most regional variants of the Yamnaya culture, as well as the Khvalynskaya and Srednestogovskaya cultures that preceded them, are descendants of Eastern European human populations of the Mesolithic era. The origin of the carriers of the yamnaya culture of the Northwestern Caspian region is associated with a different population layer that appeared in Eastern Europe in the Neolithic era.

Keywords: physical anthropology, craniology, craniometry, pit archaeological culture, Bronze Age, Eneolithic, Neolithic, Mesolithic, Eastern Europe.

The study of the anthropological composition of the carriers of the yamnaya archaeological culture of the Northwestern Caspian region became possible in the late 60s-early 70s of the XX century with the appearance of representative craniological collections [Shevchenko, 1973, 1974a, b, 1980], although individual skulls were described earlier [Debets, 1936, 1948; Ginzburg, 1959; Glazkova and Chtetsov, 1960; Firshtein, 1967]. In the second half of the 1980s, A.V. Shevchenko published his first generalizing work on the anthropology of the Southern Russian steppes in the Bronze Age, which also discussed the origin of the yamnaya culture populations in Kalmykia and the Astrakhan region (Shevchenko, 1986). A little later, the craniological characteristics of the population of the Early Bronze Age of the Stavropol Territory became known (Romanova, 1991). In the first decade of the twenty-first century Data on the preparation for printing of measurements of new skulls from Bronze Age burial mounds in the Stavropol Territory have been published [Gerasimova, 2002, 2011], and fresh data on the craniological features of the Kalmyk Yamna culture carriers have become available [Khokhlov, 2006]. Thus, the number of published materials seems to be sufficient to make an attempt to generalize them again in order to search for the origins of the formation of human populations in the North-Western Caspian region, which left here monuments of the yamnaya archaeological culture.

In the oldest works, the morphological features of skulls from burials of the Yamnaya culture were usually correlated with the proto-Europoid craniological type characteristic of the ancient Eastern European population. Its main distinguishing features were considered to be a significant massiveness of the skull and large transverse dimensions of the facial region, which is quite clinognathous for Caucasians, and the origin of the owners of these features was associated with the Late Paleolithic Cro - Magnons, the first Sapiens of Europe (Debets, 1936, 1948). The expediency of using such general taxonomic categories as "proto-Europeoid type" was later questioned (Vuich, 1958; Gokhman, 1966). Со време-

page 142

It also revealed the fallacy of ideas about the unity of the morphology of craniological series of various local variants of the yamnaya cultural and historical community, which in reality turned out to be quite diverse [Zinevich, 1967; Firshtein, 1967; Kruz, 1972; Konduktorova, 1973; Shevchenko, 1974a, b].

Several points of view have been published on the issue of the origin of representatives of the Caspian territorial group. First of all, this is the opinion of A.V. Shevchenko about the multicomponent anthropological composition of the carriers of the yamnaya culture of the North-Western Caspian region. Using mainly collections of skulls from burial grounds in Kalmykia, he identified three relevant components: first, they are descendants of human collectives that left Neolithic burial grounds in the Dnieper Nadporozhye; second, the population of certain eastern regions of the Yamnaya cultural and historical community; and third, carriers of Srednestogovsky cultural traditions (Shevchenko, 1980, 1986).. However, there are publications with well-reasoned criticism of the methods used to isolate such a large number of components (Romanova, 1991; Yablonsky and Khokhlov, 1994). Nevertheless, the idea of the possible participation of the steppe Neolithic population from the banks of the Dnieper River in the formation of the anthropological composition of the carriers of the Middle Don yamnaya culture was also expressed by V. P. Alekseev [1983].

T. I. Alekseeva and S. I. Kruz, analyzing the Mesolithic, Neolithic, and Bronze Age materials that are significant in number and territorial coverage, expressed doubt that analogies to the morphological complex of craniological series of the Kalmyk Yamnaya culture can be found within Eastern Europe [1999]. The only group of paleopopulations that bears some resemblance to the Caspian yamna was named Andronovskaya, which was widespread in the later period of the developed Bronze Age and much further east in Southern Siberia [Ibid., p. 278].

At the same time, all researchers unanimously recognized the extreme uniqueness of the morphology of skulls from Kalmykia against the background of craniological series from other areas of the yamnaya culture. In search of explanations for this specificity, M. M. Gerasimova pointed out the well-known microevolutionary trend of brachycephalization of human populations, which, in her opinion, was most clearly manifested in the Northwestern Caspian region during the Early Bronze Age (2002). This point of view was met with a logical objection from A. A. Khokhlov, who noted that the cranial index, despite the epochal tendency to increase it, in other pit paleopopulations synchronous with the Caspian region, varied within the dolicho - and mesocrania, and therefore it is impractical to appeal to universal brachycephalization to explain the uniqueness of only the populations of the Caspian region (Khokhlov, 2006).. He also suggested that the peculiarities of the yamnaya culture carriers in the North-Western Caspian region are conditioned by the formation of an independent center of race formation in this region (presumably with the participation of populations known from the Eneolithic burial ground Khlopkov Buhor in the Saratov region).), as well as possible mixing with representatives of an unknown population formation of the Azov-Caspian steppes [Ibid.].

The present paper attempts to search for ancestral populations for the carriers of the yamnaya culture of the Northwestern Caspian region based on the methods of multidimensional statistics adapted for the analysis of craniological series. This is a step-by-step discriminant canonical analysis based on a standardized matrix of intra-group correlations of craniometric features and calculation of generalized Mahalanobis distances (within the framework of B. A. Kozintsev's statistical software package). Published measurements* of more than 1,300 male skulls from 68 paleopopulations in Eastern Europe, Transcaucasia, Trans-Urals, and the steppe zone of Southern Siberia from the Mesolithic to the Late Bronze Age were used as comparative data.

At the first stage of the canonical analysis, we used measurement data from 47 craniological samples of different cultural and territorial affiliation with a total number of about 900 skulls to assess the degree of differences between the Caspian yamnaya culture carriers and all known populations of the Bronze Age of Eastern Europe (Fig. 1).

In the first canonical vector (KB I), which covers 41% of the total variability, the maximum loads were placed on the longitudinal, transverse, zygomatic diameters and nasomalar angle; in the second (KB II) - on the nose protrusion angle and longitudinal diameter (Table 1, Stage 1). The graph (Fig. 2) clearly demonstrates absence of analogs of the craniological complex of carriers of the yamnaya culture of the Northwestern Caspian region among the Eastern European series of the Bronze Age. By coordinates in the most informative first vector, craniological series of the yamnaya culture of Kalmykia, Astrakhan region.


*For each series, 14 parameters were taken into account: longitudinal, transverse, height, zygomatic diameters, the smallest width of the forehead, the upper height of the face, the width and height of the pear-shaped opening and eye sockets, nasomalar and zygomaxillary angles, the simotic index and the angle of nose protrusion relative to the vertical facial profile.

page 143

Figure 1. Geographical location of craniological series used in the first and second stages of canonical analysis.

- a yamnaya culture of the North-Western Caspian region (Kalmykia. Stavropol, Astrakhan region); b-series of the Bronze Age of Eastern Europe; c-Neolithic (Vasilyevka II, Vovnigi, Volnoye, Dereivka, Nikolskoye, Zveynieki, Sakhtysh); d - series of the Middle and Late periods of the Bronze Age of Southern Siberia.

Table 1. Elements of the first two canonical vectors for three stages of analysis

Sign

1

2

3

KB I

KB II

KB I

KB II

KB I

KB II

Longitudinal diameter

-0,638

0,663

-0,747

0,122

0,456

-0,367

Cross diameter

0,934

-0,099

0,812

0,604

-0,802

0,421

Height diameter

-0,099

0,314

-0,235

0,468

0,659

0,406

Smallest width of the forehead

0,544

0,022

0,315

0,600

-0,326

0,549

Zygomatic diameter

0,862

0,052

0,624

0,697

-0,101

0,877

Upper face height

-0,273

0,181

-0,172

0,110

0,126

0,028

Nose height

-0,505

0,169

-0,294

0,078

0,378

0,192

Nose width

0,324

0,214

0,383

0,412

0,000

0,595

Orbit width

0,058

0,320

0,240

0,334

0,065

0,362

Orbit height

-0,595

-0,261

-0,252

-0,613

0,528

-0,290

Nasomalar angle

0,613

-0,370

0,668

0,337

-0,057

0,657

Zygomaxillary angle

0,416

-0,404

0,684

-0,078

-0,143

0,387

Simotic index

0,185

-0,060

-0,162

0,000

-0,393

-0,383

Nose protrusion angle

0,276

0,864

-0,436

0,595

-0,475

-0,624

Percentage of variability

40,837

17,173

44,221

17,565

33,572

21,846



Figure 2. Position of the East European male craniological series of the Bronze Age in the space of the first two canonical vectors (see Figure 1 for a conditional description).

The population of Eastern Europe of the Bronze Age was separated from the rest of the population of the Stavropol Territory due to the maximum width of the brain and facial parts of the skull, combined with the insufficiently sharp (compared to other Caucasian groups) horizontal facial profiling at the upper level.

At the second stage, the intergroup analysis included craniological series that were previously mentioned in publications as similar (possibly related) to the yamna of the Northwestern Caspian region (Shevchenko, 1980, 1986; Alekseev, 1983; Alekseeva and Krutz, 1999): Neolithic samples of the Dnieper Upper Road (Volnensky burial grounds [Surnina,

page 144

Figure 3. Position of the East European and South Siberian male craniological series of the Neolithic and Bronze Age in the space of the first two canonical vectors (see Figure 1 for a conditional description).

4. Geographical location of craniological series used in the third stage of canonical analysis and in calculating Mahalanobis distances.

- a yamnaya culture of the Northwestern Caspian region (Northern and Central Kalmykia, Southern Kalmykia, Southern Eregeni (Kalmykia), Stavropol, Astrakhan region); b-yamnaya culture of the Northern Black Sea region (two series), a series from the Volgograd and Saratov regions, a series from the Samara and Orenburg regions; c-Eneolithic (Srednestogovskaya sample Khvalynsk I and II); d-Neolithic (Vasilyevka II, Vovnigi, Volnoye, Dereivka, Nikolskoye, Zveynieki, Sakhtysh); e-Early Neolithic (Zveynieki); g-Mesolithic (Vasilyevka I and III, Zveynieki); g - Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age series of the North Caucasus and Transcaucasia (Maikop culture, Shengavit burial ground); w-Khlopkov Bugor burial ground (Saratov region); i - Dzhangar burial ground (Kalmykia).

1961], Vovnigi, Vasilyevka II [Gokhman, 1966], Dereivsky, Nikolsky [Zinevich, 1967]) and the Bronze Age series of Southern Siberia (Andronovsky (Fedorovsky) [Dremov, 1997] and later Karasukskaya [Rykushina, 2007], Irmenskaya [Dremov, 1997; Molodin, Chikisheva, 1988; Bobrov, Chikisheva, and Mikhailov, 1993]). In total, data on more than 1,100 male skulls from 57 groups were used (see Figure 1). The first canonical vector reflected the variability mainly in the longitudinal, transverse, zygomatic diameters and facial angles of the horizontal profile; the second allowed us to estimate the range of variability in the height of the orbit and the transverse dimensions of the forehead, braincase and facial region (Table 1). 1, stage 2). In terms of coordinates in KB I, the South Siberian series turned out to be the most peculiar-as brachymorphic as the Caspian yamal series, but with an obviously flattened face, a much less prominent nose, and slightly lower orbits. At the same time, the Caspian groups of the Early Bronze Age are located closer to the population of Eastern Europe, showing the greatest similarity with samples from the Dnieper Neolithic burial grounds (Figure 3).

The results of the second stage of the analysis thus confirm the assumption of A.V. Shevchenko and V. P. Alekseev about the participation of descendants of the Neolithic population of the Dnieper steppes in the formation of some groups of carriers of the yamnaya culture. The third stage of cross-group comparison was carried out to determine the degree of this participation: as one of the constituent components or a key substrate basis. The Middle and Late Bronze Age series were excluded from the comparative materials, and all more or less representative samples of Mesolithic, Neolithic, and Eneolithic skulls were used* 4), which included 413 male skulls of various preservation from 26 groups. The first two vectors covered a combined 55 % of the variance, of which 33% fell on KB I with maximum loads on the transverse and altitude diameters of the brain box and the height of the orbits. In KB II, the smallest forehead width, zygomatic diameter, nasomalar angle, and nose protrusion angle were the most important (Table 1, Step 3).

The Maikop culture series (North Caucasus and Ciscaucasia)received the minimum coordinate values in the second canonical vector 5). Their leptomorphic craniological complex, which combines an absolutely and relatively long cranial box, a narrow or medium-wide clinognathous face with a very prominent nose, is commonly called Mediterranean or Southern European (Debets, 1948; Gerasimov, 1955; Shevchenko, 1986; Alekseeva, 2004;


*Instead of the missing data on the relative height of the nose bridge in skulls from Khvalynsk I (Mkrtchyan, 1988), the value of the simotic index in the series from Khvalynsk II (Khokhlov, 2010) was used.

page 145

5. Position of the Mesolithic, Neolithic, Eneolithic, and Early Bronze Age East European male craniological series in the space of the first two canonical vectors.

1-9-pit culture: 1-Astrakhan region, 2-Northern and Central Kalmykia, 3-Southern Kalmykia (burial grounds of the Eastern Manych), 4-Southern Eregens (Kalmykia) (Khokhlov, 2006), 5 - Stavropol Territory [Romanov, 1991], 6-Orenburg and Samara regions [Yablonsky and Khokhlov, 1994], 7-Volgograd and Saratov regions [Firshtein, 1967] (unpublished materials of A.V. Shevchenko), 8-Ukraine (Zaporizhia-Ingul region) [Kruz, 1984], 9-Ukraine (Kherson region) [Tam 10-12-Eneolithic: 10 - Khvalynsk I burial ground [Mkrtchyan, 1988], 11-Khvalynsk II [Khokhlov, 2010], 12-Srednestogovskaya culture [Surnina, 1963; Zinevich, 1967; Potekhina, 1983]; 13-15 - Mesolithic: 13 - Vasilyevka III [Gokhman, 1966], /14-Vasilyevka I [Konduktorova, 1957], 15-Zveynieki [Denisova, 1975]; 16-Early Neolithic, Zveynieki [Ibid.]; 17-24-Neolithic: 17-Zveynieki, Middle and Late Neolithic [Ibid.], 18-Vovnigi, pravoberezhny [Konduktorova, 1960], 19-Nikolsky [Zinevich 1967], 20-Volnensky [Surnina, 1961], 21-Dereivsky [Zinevich, 1967], 22 - Vovnigi [Gokhman, 1966], 23 - Vasilyevka II [Ibid.], 24 - Sakhtysh [Neolithic..., 1997]; 25, 26 - Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age:25 - Shengavit (Alekseev, 1974), 26 - Maikop culture (Shevchenko, 1986; Khokhlov, 2002; Gerasimova, Pezhemsky, Yablonsky, 2007; Kazarnitsky, 2010).

Gerasimova, Pezhemsky, and Yablonsky, 2007; et al.]. The remaining series used in the analysis were grouped into several groups, demonstrating the morphological diversity of the "proto-European craniological type".

Samples of skulls from burials of the yamnaya culture of the North-Western Caspian region (Astrakhan region).. Stavropol Krai and Kalmykia) obtained the minimum values of coordinates in KB I due to the largest width of the neurocranium at this scale. At the same time, in KB II, where one of the key features is the transverse size of the facial region, they are inferior in face width only to the Neolithic series. The remaining yamal samples are from the territory of Ukraine. The Volgograd and Saratov, Samara and Orenburg regions have average coordinate values for the first vector and minimum values for "Proto - Europeoids" - for the second, forming a group with less broad and more profiled faces than in the Caspian carriers of the yamnaya culture, with an average width of the brain departments. Among them are located one of the Khvalynsk and Srednestogovskaya Eneolithic series. The upper right quadrant was occupied by Neolithic samples from the Dnieper Nadporozhye (Vasilyevka II, Vovnigi, Volnoye, Dereivka, Nikolskoye), and the Baltic States (Zveynieki). and from the upper Volga (Sakhtysh), which are united by a very large width of the facial sections in combination with a weakened horizontal profiling and a small angle of protrusion of the nose. The second Khvalyn Eneolithic group was found to be in close proximity to the set of series formed by Mesolithic and Early Neolithic samples from the Baltic States (Zveinieki) and the Northern Black Sea Region (Vasilyevka I, Vasilyevka III), which are characterized by the least wide skulls in combination with facial parameters close to those of the Yamnaya (except for the Caspian) and Eneolithic series.

So, based on the results of the intergroup analysis, we were able to distinguish four morphological complexes: two yamal (one of them combines only the Priscaspian series, the second - all the others from the Northern Black Sea region to the Southern Urals), one Neolithic, and one mainly Mesolithic (or, more precisely, a combination of the most ancient Mesolithic and early Neolithic samples). The Eneolithic series - Srednestogovskaya and two Khvalynskaya-together demonstrated a complex of morphological features intermediate between the Mesolithic and Yamnaya (except for the Caspian) series.

There are statistically significant differences between populations represented in Mesolithic and Neolithic burial grounds of Eastern Europe in such features as cross-sectional and zygomatic diameters, nasomalar angle: their sizes in the Neolithic are significantly larger than in the previous time. This fact, which was noted long ago by I. I. Gokhman [1966] and again manifested in the multivariate analysis, rather indicates the influx of a new population to Eastern Europe and is unlikely to be explained from the point of view of the autochthonous population process, which was supported by T. P. Alekseeva and SI. Kruz [Neolithic..., 1997; Alekseeva and Kruz, 1999]. At the same time, the Mesolithic substrate does not appear to have completely disappeared. Although it is unknown from Neolithic monuments, it later reappears in the form of native speakers of the Khvalyn and Srednestogovskaya Eneolithic cultures, and later in a number of collectives that became part of the Yamnaya cultural and historical community (Gokhman, 1966). Paleopopulations of the Early Bronze Age of the Northwestern Caspian region, taking into account the peculiarity of their craniological characteristics, were

page 146

outside of this presumed genealogical lineage. Their closest analogue, indeed, may be the Neolithic population of the Dnieper Nadporozhye. Nevertheless, it is impossible to talk about a complete identity, since Neolithic skulls, being totally larger than the Caspian pit skulls, have a smaller both absolutely and relatively width of the brain box, a lower bridge bridge and a less prominent nose.

Undoubtedly, the craniological characteristics change over time, and the continuity of the morphology of Neolithic and Caspian pit skulls could be confirmed by craniological materials from Eneolithic sites of the Northwestern Caspian region or adjacent regions, but unfortunately, there are almost no such materials today. Thanks to the archive of the Department of Anthropology of the MAE RAS, only one male skull from the Eneolithic burial site of the Dzhangar burial ground in Kalmykia is known (Table 2). In addition to this, two male skulls from the Khlopkov Buhor burial ground (Saratov region), also belonging to the Eneolithic era, were published (Khokhlov, 2010).typological similarity between them and the Caspian yamnae [2006]. At this point, the list of available Eneolithic materials of the region of interest to us is still exhausted.

Measurements of skulls from the Jangar and Khlopkov Bugor burial grounds were used along with craniometric parameters of the Mesolithic series,

Table 2. Individual measurements of a male skull from border 3 of mound 1 of the Dzhangar burial ground (measurements were carried out by A.V. Shevchenko)

Sign

Meaning

Sign

Meaning

1. Longitudinal diameter from gl

187,0

54. Nose width

25,5

1b. Longitudinal diameter from oph

184,0

51. Orbit width from mf

45,0

8. Cross diameter

144,0

51 a. Orbit width from d

40,0

17. Height diameter

144,0

52. Orbit height

28,0

20. Ear height

121,0

77. Nasomalar angle

141,8

5. Length of skull base

97,0

zm. Zygomaxillary angle

128,7

9. The smallest width of the forehead

100,0

SC. Simotic width

7,2

10. The greatest width of the forehead

120,0

SS. Simotic height

4,0

11. Width of the skull base

131,0

MC. Maxillo-front width

21,0

12. Nape width

116,0

MS. Maxillo-front height

5,7

29. Frontal chord

116,0

DC. Dacrial width

24,2

30. Parietal chord

116,0

DS. Dacrial height

14,6

31. Occipital chord

103,0

FC. Depth of the canine fossa

7,5

25. Sagittal arc

386,0

32. The angle of the forehead from the nasion

88,0

26. The frontal arch

136,0

GM/FN Angle of the forehead from the glabella

80,0

27. Parietal arch

127,0

72. General face angle

84,0

28. Occipital arch

123,0

73. Middle face corner

85,0

h9. Angle of the horizontal profile of the forehead

21,3

74. Angle of the alveolar part

80,0

45. Zygomatic diameter

143,0

75 (1). Nose protrusion angle

41,0

40. Length of the base of the face

92,0

66. Angular width of the lower jaw

101,0

48. Upper face height

71,0

8:1. Cranial index

77,0

47. Full face height

123,0

17: 1. Height and length indicator

77,0

43. Upper face width

115,0

48: 45. Upper face pointer

49,7

46. Average face width

102,0

40: 5. Face protrusion indicator

94,8

60. Length of the alveolar arch

52,0

63: 62. Palatal index

86,4

61. Width of the alveolar arch

65,0

54: 55. Nasal pointer

49,0

62. The length of the sky

44,0

52: 51. The orbital pointer from mf

62,2

63. The width of the sky

38,0

52:51a. Orbital pointer from d

70,0

55. Nose height

52,0

SS : SC. Simotic index

55,6



page 147

Fig. 6. Position of craniological series according to scaled Mahalanobis distances (see Figure 5 for the standard description).

Neolithic, Eneolithic, and Early Bronze Ages of Eastern Europe for calculating generalized Mahalanobis * distances between them. The disadvantage of this statistical procedure is that it is impossible to interpret the morphological content of the results and discuss the features that differentiate the series involved in the comparison. However, this problem is solved thanks to the canonical analysis performed earlier.

The comparison was carried out in two stages: first, based on the 14 craniometric features mentioned above, using individual data only from the Jangar skull (Figure 6 (a)), and then on 12 parameters, including measurements of skulls from both Jangar and Khlopkov Hillock (Figure 6 (b)). The reduction in the number of features in the second case is due to the lack of data on the height of the arch and the width of the nose in skulls from the last burial ground. According to the results of both analyses, the position of the Mesolithic, Neolithic, Eneolithic, and Early Bronze Age series, which was previously determined by the coordinates in the first two canonical vectors, remained basically the same. Four clusters of proto-Europoid groups are again traced: two Yamal, Mesoranneneolithic and Neolithic. Samples of Khvalynskaya and Srednestogovskaya cultures of the Eneolithic era are again located between the Mesoranneolithic and Yamnaya (without Caspian samples) clusters of series.

Individual characteristics of Eneolithic skulls from Khlopkov Hill and Dzhangar are very similar to the morphology of the Yamnaya culture series of Kalmykia, Astrakhan Region, and Stavropol Krai, but the transverse dimensions of the face and orbits, as well as the angle of the upper horizontal profile, are larger, which determined their shift towards the Neolithic populations of Eastern Europe. Thus, these skulls show features of both Neolithic and Caspian pit groups and are shown in the graphs between the corresponding clusters.

Summarizing the obtained results of multidimensional comparisons of craniological data, we can formulate the following assumption (of course, taking into account the fact that it is only one of the possible options for explaining the facts, a significant drawback of which is their irremediable incompleteness). Apparently, in Eastern Europe, from the Mesolithic to the Early Bronze Age, there were two population genealogical lines that united ancient human collectives of different origins. The first one reflects the continuity between the Mesolithic population, the carriers of the Khvalyn and Srednestogovskaya cultures of the Eneolithic and the populations of the Early Bronze Age, who left monuments of the yamnaya culture from the Northern Black Sea region to the Urals. The origin of the Eastern European population of the Neolithic era, apparently, was not related to the Mesolithic substrate and formed together with it the second population layer. Its distribution has spread to the territories of the Saratov Region and Kalmykia, among others. further continuity was provided by Eneolithic collectives, which included those buried in the Khlopkov burial grounds Bugor and Dzhangar, and later-carriers of the yamnaya culture, known from the monuments of Kalmykia, the Astrakhan region and Stavropol. The steppes of the Northwestern Caspian region were relatively isolated until the middle of the third millennium BC by descendants of the Neolithic population who lived in a much larger area from the Northern Black Sea Coast to the Baltic States and the Upper Volga region.


* Generalized Mahalanobis distances were subjected to multidimensional nonmetric scaling using the L. Guttmann algorithm [1966] within the framework of the B. A. Kozintsev software package.

page 148

List of literature

Alekseev V. P. Proiskhozhdenie narodov Kavkaza [The origin of the peoples of the Caucasus], Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1974, 317 p.

Alekseev V. P. Population of the Bronze Age on the Middle Don (craniology) / / Sinyuk A. T. Kurgany epokhi bronzy Srednego Dona. Voronezh: Voronezh State University Publ., 1983, pp. 183-191.

Alekseeva T. I. K antropologii plemen maikopsko-novosvobodnenskaya obshchnosti na Tsentralnom Predkavkazie [On the anthropology of the tribes of the Maikop-Novosvobodnenskaya community in the Central Ciscaucasia]. Pamyatniki arkheologii i drevnogo iskusstva Evrazii [Monuments of Archeology and Ancient Art of Eurasia], Moscow: PA RAS, 2004, pp. 168-179.

Alekseeva T. I., Kruts S. I. Drevneishee naselenie Vostochnoi Evropy [The oldest population of Eastern Europe]. Vostochnye slavyane: Antropologiya i etnicheskaya istoriya [Eastern Slavs: Anthropology and Ethnic History], Moscow: Nauch. mir, 1999, pp. 254-278.

Bobrov V. V., Chikisheva T. A., Mikhailov Yu. I. Burial ground of the Late Bronze Age Zhuravlevo-4. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1993, 157 p.

Vuich L. G. Skulls from mounds of the Bronze Age and Sarmatian period on the left bank of the Lower Don // Volgo-Don highway. archeol. expeditions. - 1958. - Vol. 1. - P. 417125. - (MIA; N 62).

Gerasimov M. M. Restoration of the face from the skull. - Moscow: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1955. - 585 p. - (TIEI. Nov. ser.; vol. 28).

Gerasimova M. M. [Craniological diversity of the population of the Southern Russian steppes in the Early and Middle Bronze Age period]. - St. Petersburg: State Publishing House. Hermitage, 2002, pp. 125-127.

Gerasimova M. M. K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii yamnoy kul'tury [On the question of the origin of the yamnaya culture]. anthropology. - 2011. - N. 19. - p. 104-111.

Gerasimova M. M., Pezhemsky D. V., Yablonsky L. T. Paleoanthropological materials of the Maikop epoch from the Central Ciscaucasia // Materials for the study of the historical and cultural heritage of the North Caucasus, Moscow: Pamyatniki istoricheskoi mysli, 2007, issue VII, pp. 91-121.

Ginzburg V. V. Etnogeneticheskie svyazi drevnogo naseleniya Stalingradskogo Zavolzhya (po antropologicheskim materialam Kalinovskom mogilnik) [Ethnogenetic relations of the ancient population of the Stalingrad Trans-Volga region (based on anthropological materials of the Kalinovsky burial ground)].

Glazkova I. M., Chtetsov V. P. Paleoanthropological materials of the Lower Volga detachment of the Stalingrad expedition / / MIA. - 1960. - N 78. - pp. 285-292.

Gokhman I. P. Naselenie Ukrainy v epokhu mesolita i neolita [The population of Ukraine in the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods], Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1966, 224 p.

Guttman L. Matematicheskie metody v sovremennoi bourzhuaznoi sotsiologii [Mathematical methods in modern Bourgeois Sociology], Moscow: Progress Publ., 1966, pp. 288-343.

Debets G. F. Materials on paleoanthropology of the USSR: the Lower Volga region. Zhurnal, 1936, No. 1, pp. 65-80.

Debets G. F. Paleoanthropologiya SSSR. - M.; L.: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1948. - 392 p. - (TEE; vol. 4).

Anthropology of the ancient Balts. Riga: Zinatne Publ., 1975, 404 p.

Dremov V. A. Population of the Upper Ob region in the Bronze Age (anthropological essay). - Tomsk: Publishing House of Tomsk State University. Univ., 1997, 264 p. (in Russian)

Zinevich G. P. Essays on paleoanthropology of Ukraine. Kiev: Nauk, Dumka Publ., 1967, 240 p. (in Russian)

Kazarnitsky A. A. Craniology of the population of the Maikop culture: Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2010. - N 1. - p. 148-155.

Konduktorova T. S. Paleoanthropological materials from the Mesolithic burial ground Vasilevka I / / SA. -1957. - N 2. - pp. 189-210.

Кондукторова Т. С. Палеоантропологія матеріали вовнизьких пізньонеолітичних могильників // Матеріали з антропологи України. - 1960. - Vip. 1. - p. 66-97.

Konduktorova T. S. Anthropology of the population of Ukraine of the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age. - Moscow: Nauka, 1973. - 127 p.

Kruts S. I. Population of the territory of Ukraine of the Copper-Bronze Age (according to anthropological data). Kiev: Nauk, dumka Publ., 1972, 192 p. (in Russian)

Kruts S. I. Paleoanthropological studies of the Steppe Dnieper region (Bronze Age). Kiev: Nauk, dumka Publ., 1984, 208 p.

Mkrtchyan R. A. Paleoanthropology of the Neolithic and Eneolithic population of the South of the European part of the USSR. Moscow, 1988, 19 p. (in Russian)

Molodin V. P., Chikisheva T. A. Kurganny mogilnik Preobrazhenka-3 - pamyatnik kul'tury epokhi bronzy Barabinskaya lesostepi [Kurgan burial ground of Preobrazhenka-3-monument of cultures of the Bronze Age of the Barabinsk forest-steppe]. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1988, pp. 125-206.

Neolith of the forest belt of Eastern Europe (anthropology of the Sakhtysh sites) / T. I. Alekseeva, R. Ya. Denisova, M. V. Kozlovskaya, E. L. Kostyleva, D. A. Krainov, G. V. Lebedinskaya, A.V. Utkin, V. N. Fedosova. Mir, 1997. - 191s.

Potekhina P. D. O nositelei kul'tury Sredny Stog II po antropologicheskim dannym [On the carriers of the Sredny Stog II culture according to anthropological data].

Romanova, G. P., Paleoanthropological materials from the steppe regions of Stavropol during the Early and Middle Bronze Age, SA. - 1991. - N 2. - pp. 160-170.

Rykushina G. V. Paleoanthropology of the Karasuk culture. Moscow: Stary Sad Publ., 2007, 198 p.

Surnina, T. S., Paleoanthropological materials from the Volnensky Neolithic burial Ground, TIENOV Ser., 1961, vol. 71, pp. 3-25.

Surnina, T. S., Paleoanthropological materials from the Alexandrian burial Ground, TI. Nov. ser. - 1963, vol. 82, pp. 144-153.

Firshtein B. V. Anthropological characteristics of the population of the Lower Volga region in the Bronze Age: (Based on the materials of excavations in the Volgograd and Saratov regions and in the Kalmyk ASSR) // Monuments of the Bronze Age in the south of the European part of the USSR. Kiev: Nauk, dumka Publ., 1967, pp. 100-140.

Khokhlov A. A. Kraniologicheskiy tip cheloveka, pogrebennogo po traditsii maikopskoy kul'tury epochi rannoy bronzy [Craniological type of a person buried in the tradition of the Maikop culture of the Early Bronze Age]. Volgograd, 2002, issue 5, pp. 174-179.

Khokhlov A. A. On craniological features of the yamnaya culture population of the North-Western Caspian region // Vestn. Anthropology. -2006. - N 14. - p. 136-146.

Khokhlov A. A. Population of the Khvalyn Eneolithic culture: Based on anthropological materials of the ground burial grounds Khvalynsk I, Khvalynsk II, Khlopkov Buhor //

page 149

Khvalyn Eneolithic burial grounds and Khvalyn Eneolithic culture: Materials research. Samara: SROO IEKA "Povolzhye" Publ., 2010, pp. 407-51.

Shevchenko A.V. On the anthropological characteristics of the population of the Lower Volga region of the Bronze Age (based on the materials of the Staritsky burial ground) / / SE. - 1973. - N 6. -pp. 100 - 108.

Shevchenko A.V. Antropologicheskaya kharakteristika naseleniya Kalmykii v epokhu bronzy [Anthropological characteristics of the population of Kalmykia in the Bronze Age]. - 1974a. - Issue VII. - p. 199-203.

Shevchenko Ave. New materials on paleoanthropology of the Lower Volga region (the Bronze Age) / / Problems of ethnic anthropology and human morphology. - L.: Nauka, 19746. - pp. 123-135.

Shevchenko A.V. Paleoanthropology of the Bronze Age of the North-Western Caspian region: abstract of PhD thesis. Sciences'. - M., 1980. - 25 p.

Shevchenko A.V. Anthropology of the population of the South Russian steppes in the Bronze Age // Anthropology of the modern and ancient population of the European part of the USSR, Nauka Publ., 1986, pp. 121-215.

Morgunova N. L., Kravtsov A. Yu. Pamyatniki drevneiamnoy kul'tury na Ileke [Monuments of ancient Yamnaya culture on the Ileka River]. Yekaterinburg: Ural Publishing House. firm "Nauka", 1994. - p. 116-152.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 21.02.13.

Abstract

The cranial series from the Pit-Grave (Yamnaya) burials of the northwestern Caspian is very different from other series associated with this culture. Based on the multivariate analysis of Mesolithic, Chalcolithic, and Bronze Age groups, the population history of Eastern Europe in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age is reconstructed. Most local Pit-Grave populations and those of the Khvalynsk and Sredni Stog cultures are shown to have descended from the Mesolithic groups of Eastern Europe. The Pit-Grave people of the northwestern Caspian clearly descended from a different population that appeared in Eastern Europe in the Neolithic.

Keywords: physical anthropology, craniology, craniometry, Pit-Grave culture, Bronze Age, Chalcolithic, Neolithic, Mesolithic, Eastern Europe.

page 150

© elibrary.com.ua

Permanent link to this publication:

https://elibrary.com.ua/m/articles/view/ON-THE-CRANIOLOGICAL-FEATURES-OF-THE-CARRIERS-OF-THE-YAMNAYA-ARCHAEOLOGICAL-CULTURE-OF-THE-NORTH-WESTERN-CASPIAN-REGION

Similar publications: LUkraine LWorld Y G


Publisher:

Olesja SavikContacts and other materials (articles, photo, files etc)

Author's official page at Libmonster: https://elibrary.com.ua/Savik

Find other author's materials at: Libmonster (all the World)GoogleYandex

Permanent link for scientific papers (for citations):

A. A. Kazarnitsky, ON THE CRANIOLOGICAL FEATURES OF THE CARRIERS OF THE YAMNAYA ARCHAEOLOGICAL CULTURE OF THE NORTH-WESTERN CASPIAN REGION // Kiev: Library of Ukraine (ELIBRARY.COM.UA). Updated: 25.12.2024. URL: https://elibrary.com.ua/m/articles/view/ON-THE-CRANIOLOGICAL-FEATURES-OF-THE-CARRIERS-OF-THE-YAMNAYA-ARCHAEOLOGICAL-CULTURE-OF-THE-NORTH-WESTERN-CASPIAN-REGION (date of access: 10.02.2025).

Found source (search robot):


Publication author(s) - A. A. Kazarnitsky:

A. A. Kazarnitsky → other publications, search: Libmonster UkraineLibmonster WorldGoogleYandex

Comments:



Reviews of professional authors
Order by: 
Per page: 
 
  • There are no comments yet
Related topics
Publisher
Olesja Savik
Киев, Ukraine
95 views rating
25.12.2024 (47 days ago)
0 subscribers
Rating
0 votes
Related Articles
ТРУДНЫЕ ВОПРОСЫ. СВЕТЛАНА АЛЕКСИЕВИЧ: "МЫ - ЛЮДИ ЛАГЕРНОГО СОЗНАНИЯ"
5 days ago · From Україна Онлайн
FORMS OF CLASS STRUGGLE OF THE PEASANT-COSSACK MASSES OF UKRAINE IN THE XVIII CENTURY
Catalog: История 
9 days ago · From Denys Reznikov
G. I. MARAKHOV. SOCIO-POLITICAL STRUGGLE IN UKRAINE IN THE 50S-60S OF THE XIX CENTURY
12 days ago · From Denys Reznikov
ESSAYS ON THE HISTORY OF TRADE UNIONS OF THE UKRAINIAN SSR
12 days ago · From Denys Reznikov
K. A. KHMELEVSKY, S. K. KHMELEVSKY. STORM OVER THE QUIET DON. HISTORICAL ESSAY ON THE CIVIL WAR ON THE DON
12 days ago · From Denys Reznikov
"УКРАЇНСЬКИЙ ІСТОРИЧНИЙ ЖУРНАЛ" - ДЕСЯТЬ РОКІВ У МЕРЕЖІ
Catalog: История 
12 days ago · From Україна Онлайн
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE HISTORY OF THE OCTOBER REVOLUTION
Catalog: История 
16 days ago · From Denys Reznikov
UKRAINIAN CHRONICLES
17 days ago · From Denys Reznikov
RABOCHY VOPROS ' ON THE PAGES OF THE REVOLUTIONARY PRESS OF 1905-1907
17 days ago · From Denys Reznikov
BUDGET STUDIES OF WORKERS IN PRE-REVOLUTIONARY RUSSIA
19 days ago · From Denys Reznikov

New publications:

Popular with readers:

News from other countries:

ELIBRARY.COM.UA - Digital Library of Ukraine

Create your author's collection of articles, books, author's works, biographies, photographic documents, files. Save forever your author's legacy in digital form. Click here to register as an author.
Library Partners

ON THE CRANIOLOGICAL FEATURES OF THE CARRIERS OF THE YAMNAYA ARCHAEOLOGICAL CULTURE OF THE NORTH-WESTERN CASPIAN REGION
 

Editorial Contacts
Chat for Authors: UA LIVE: We are in social networks:

About · News · For Advertisers

Digital Library of Ukraine ® All rights reserved.
2009-2025, ELIBRARY.COM.UA is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map)
Keeping the heritage of Ukraine


LIBMONSTER NETWORK ONE WORLD - ONE LIBRARY

US-Great Britain Sweden Serbia
Russia Belarus Ukraine Kazakhstan Moldova Tajikistan Estonia Russia-2 Belarus-2

Create and store your author's collection at Libmonster: articles, books, studies. Libmonster will spread your heritage all over the world (through a network of affiliates, partner libraries, search engines, social networks). You will be able to share a link to your profile with colleagues, students, readers and other interested parties, in order to acquaint them with your copyright heritage. Once you register, you have more than 100 tools at your disposal to build your own author collection. It's free: it was, it is, and it always will be.

Download app for Android