ARCHAEOLOGY,

ETHNOLOGY
& ANTHROPOLOGY
OF EURASIA
Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/4 (2009) 125136
E-mail: Eurasia@archaeology.nsc.ru

125

ANTHROPOLOGY
A.G. Kozintsev
Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, Russian Academy of Sciences,
Universitetskaya Nab.3, St. Petersburg, 199034, Russia
E-mail: agkozintsev@gmail.com

CRANIOMETRIC EVIDENCE OF THE EARLY CAUCASOID MIGRATIONS

TO SIBERIA AND EASTERN CENTRAL ASIA, WITH REFERENCE
TO THE INDO-EUROPEAN PROBLEM*

Measurements of 220 male Neolithic and Bronze Age cranial series from Eurasia were subjected to multivariate
statistical analysis. The results support the idea that people associated with the Catacomb culture played a major role
in the origin of the Afanasyev culture. Okunev people of the Minusinsk Basin, those associated with Karakol, UstTartas, and Krotovo cultures, and those buried in the Andronov-type cemeteries at Cherno-ozerye and Yelovka were of
predominantly local Siberian origin. The Samus series resembles that from Poltavka burials. The Okunev people of Tuva
and probably Yelunino people were likely descendants of the Pit Grave (Yamnaya) and early Catacomb populations of
the Ukraine. The same is true of the Alakul people of western Kazakhstan, who in addition, have numerous afnities
amongst Neolithic and Early Bronze Age groups of Central and Western Europe. The probable ancestors of certain
Fedorov populations were the Afanasyev tribes of the Altai, whereas other Fedorov groups apparently descended from
late Pit Grave and Catacomb tribes of the Northern Caucasus and the northwestern Caspian. People of Gumugou are
closest to Fedorov groups of northeastern Kazakhstan and Rudny Altai, suggesting that Caucasoids migrated to Xinjiang
from the north rather than from the west. Describing the gracile Caucasoids of Siberia and Eastern Central Asia as
Mediterraneans is misleading since they display virtually no craniometric ties with the Near Eastern, Southwestern
Central Asian or Transcaucasian groups. The totality of evidence suggests that they were Nordics.
Keywords: Indo-Europeans, Indo-Iranians, Tocharians, Southern Siberia, Western Siberia, Central Asia, Bronze Age,
craniometry.

Introduction
Routes of the early Caucasoid migrations to Siberia and
Eastern Central Asia have become a focus of scholarly
interest in recent years since this issue is closely related
to that of the Indo-European homelands. Certain
archaeologists believe that migrants from the Near East
played a major role in the origin of Southern Siberian
*Supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research
(Project 09-06-00184a).

cultures of the Bronze Age (Grigoryev, 1999; Bobrov,

1994; Kiryushin, 2004), and these theories are supported
by those physical anthropologists who claim that all
gracile Caucasoids are Mediterraneans, i.e. southerners
by origin (see especially (Khudaverdyan, 2009)). Not long
ago I expressed a similar view (Kozintsev, 2000).
Recently, thanks to the work of a number of
craniologists, S.I. Kruts in particular, the craniometric
database related to the Bronze Age steppe populations
of the Ukraine and Southern Russia has grown manifold.
Its statistical analysis has led to the revision of earlier

Copyright 2010, 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.2010.02.014

126

A.G. Kozintsev / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/4 (2009) 125136

views. A more detailed craniometric comparison of each

gracile Southern Siberian group with all others suggests
that there is no reason to speak of migrations to Southern
Siberia from the Near East, Southwestern Central
Asia or the Transcaucasia, where Southern Caucasoids
(Mediterraneans) were distributed (Kozintsev, 2007,
2008).
Recently, an article by a group of French geneticists
was published (Keyser et al., 2009), which reported on
the analysis of DNA extracted from the bone samples
taken from Andronov, Karasuk, Tagar, and Tashtyk human
remains. Six genes controlling eye and hair color were
studied. Most individuals buried in Bronze and Iron Age
mounds in Southern Siberia (15 of 23, or 65 %) had light
or mixed eye color, and 8 out of 12 (67 %) had fair or
chestnut hair. Given that the Bronze Age people of the
Tarim Basin (the likely proto-Tocharians), whose bodies
are excellently preserved thanks to natural mummication
(Mallory, Mair, 2000), had the same hair color, and that a
Russian admixture alone can by no means account for the
depigmentation observed in modern natives of Southern
Siberia and Kazakhstan, the conclusion is obvious. The
principal source of early Caucasoid migrations to Siberia
and Eastern Central Asia was located not in the Near
East, but in Europe, moreover not in its southern part
but in areas affected by the depigmentation process.
Nearly eighty years ago this conclusion was reached by
G.F. Debetz (1931), who compared cranial data on the
Tagar people with the evidence of Chinese written sources.
Apparently, the principal migration route of Caucasoid
pastoralists from Europe to the east passed mainly
along the steppe belt, and judging from archaeological
data, the migration process continued throughout the
3rd millennium BC (Merpert, 1982; Semenov, 1993). But
where was the source located? In the Eastern European
steppes? In Central Europe?
According to a view shared by most specialists,
archaeologists and physical anthropologists alike, the
Afanasyev culture was closely related to the Pit Grave
(Yamnaya) culture, and its appearance in Gorny Altai
and on the Middle Yenisei was caused by a migration
from the Eastern European steppes. The possible role of
Poltavka and Catacomb culture elements, too, has been
discussed (Tsyb, 1981, 1984). The idea is supported
by new radiocarbon dates indicating the coexistence of
Catacomb culture with Pit Grave culture over most of
the 3rd millennium BC (Chernykh, 2008). On the other
hand, very early dates of the earliest Afanasyev sites in
Gorny Altai (mid-4th millennium BC) suggest that the
predecessors of the Pit Grave people, specically those
associated with the Khvalynsk and Sredni Stog cultures,
as well as the proto-Pit Grave (Repino) tribes, might have
taken part in Afanasyev origins. This suggestion was
already made by physical anthropologists (Shevchenko,
1986; Solodovnikov, 2003).

With regard to the post-Afanasyev Bronze Age

cultures, the traditional idea that the Okunev culture is
autochthonous has given place to theories stating that the
Pit Grave and Catacomb traditions (Lazaretov, 1997), or
those of Afanasyev culture, which were also introduced
from Europe, were critical in Okunev origins (Sher, 2006).
In terms of physical anthropology however, the presumed
European ancestry of the Okunev people of the Minusinsk
Basin, according to A.V. Gromov (1997b), pointing to
afnities with the Pit Grave and Catacomb people of
Kalmykia, is rather indistinct and traceable mostly at the
individual level if at all. The analysis of data concerning
two independent trait batteries craniometric and cranial
nonmetric suggests that the afnities of the Okunev people
of the Yenisei are mostly Siberian (Gromov, 1997a, b),
and the integration of these data demonstrates that the
unusual trait combination observed in Okunev crania is
rather archaic (plesiomorphic) and may be more ancient
than both the Caucasoid and Mongoloid trait combinations
(Kozintsev, 2004). According to Gromov (1997b), the
Okunev people resembled the Neolithic population of
the KrasnoyarskKansk region. The Karakol culture of
Gorny Altai is similar to Okunev culture, and craniometric
parallels between people associated with these cultures
were also noted. However, Karakol crania are believed to
exhibit a Mediterranean tendency (Chikisheva, 2000;
Tur, Solodovnikov, 2005).
The Okunev crania from Tuva and the Yelunino crania
from the Upper Ob, especially the former, are much more
Caucasoid (Gokhman, 1980; Solodovnikov, Tur, 2003;
Kozintsev, 2008). This agrees with archaeological facts
indicating the affinities of cultures such as Yelunino
and Okunev of Tuva with Early Bronze Age cultures of
Central and even Western Europe (Kovalev, 2007). The
possible Caucasoid ties of other pre-Andronov tribes of
Southern Siberia such as Krotovo (Dremov, 1997) and
Samus (Solodovnikov, 2005, 2006) have been discussed
by craniologists. K.N. Solodovnikov (Ibid.) believes that
in all the above pre-Andronov groups, except the Okunev
group of the Yenisei, these ties are Southern Caucasoid or
Mediterranean which, in his view, is especially evident in
the male series.
The origin of the Andronov community is one
of the pivotal points in Indo-European history. The
predominantly Indo-Iranian or Iranian attribution of this
community is beyond doubt (Kuzmina, 2007a, b; 2008).
The relationship between its two constituents, specically
the Alakul (western) and Fedorov, which spread in an
eastern direction up to the Yenisei, is less clear. The Alakul
variety apparently originated earlier, in the 3rd millennium
BC (Chernykh, 2008) and the cultures which contributed
to its origin were Poltavka, Catacomb, and Abashevo. The
origin of the Fedorov variety, which originated later and
coexisted with Alakul over most of the 2nd millennium
BC, remains obscure (Tkacheva, Tkachev, 2008).

A.G. Kozintsev / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/4 (2009) 125136

Craniologists have discovered that the Andronov

community was markedly heterogeneous. People
buried in graves with Alakul or mixed Alakul-Fedorov
(Kozhumberdy) ceramics in western Kazakhstan
displayed a trait combination which V.V. Ginzburg (1962)
described as Mediterranean, and V.P. Alekseyev (1964) as
leptomorphic. Ginzburg believed that this combination
evidences the afnities of western Alakul people with both
the Timber Grave (Srubnaya) populations of the Volga
steppes and those of Southwestern Central Asia (the AmuDarya/Syr-Darya interuve). The second idea was refuted
by Alekseyev, who claimed that archaeological data point
solely to western (Timber Grave) afnities. Ginzburg
ignored the critique and repeated his conclusion in the
summarizing monograph (Ginzburg, Tromova, 1972).
In this case, neither he nor Alekseyev used statistical
methods and relied on typological assessments.
As to the Fedorov populations, most of which display
the characteristically Andronov trait combination
believed to have derived from the Cromagnon variety,
G.F. Debetz (1948) claimed that they had originated in
the Kazakhstan steppes from whence they moved to the
Yenisei. However, V.P. Alekseyev (1961) suggested that
the Fedorov people of the Yenisei had descended from
the Afanasyev populations of the Altai. Fedorov groups
of the Upper Ob and the Altai deviate toward a gracile
variety, traditionally described as Mediterranean. The
presence of alleged Mediterraneans in these regions was
explained differently: V.A. Dremov (1997) attributed it to
links with the Alakul people, whereas K.N. Solodovnikov
(2005, 2007) wrote about the pre-Andronov, specically
Yelunino substratum. People buried in Andronovo-type
cemeteries in the Tomsk part of the Ob Basin at Yelovka II
and in the Omsk stretch of the Irtysh basin at Chernoozerye I, according to Dremov (1997), differed from
other Andronov groups and were autochthonous. Finally,
the origin of the early Caucasoid population of Xinjiang,
the members of which were buried at the Bronze Age
cemetery of Gumugou (Mair, 2005), is a complete
mystery (Han Kangxin, 1986; Hemphill, Mallory, 2004;
Kozintsev, 2008).
The objective of the present article is to explore the
issue of early Caucasoid migrations to Siberia and Eastern
Central Asia using a large craniometric database, much of
which is unpublished.
Materials and methods
Only measurements of male crania were used. The
number of the Afanasyev series is nine (six from the
Altai and three from the Minusinsk Basin) (Alekseyev,
1961, 1989; Solodovnikov, 2003). The post-Afanasyev
material consists of four Okunev series from the
Minusinsk Basin (Gromov, 1997b), one Okunev series

from Tuva (Alekseyev, Gokhman, Tumen, 1987), the

Karakol series (Chikisheva, 2000; Tur, Solodovnikov,
2005), the Yelunino series (Solodovnikov, Tur, 2003),
the Ust-Tartas and Krotovo series from Sopka-2
(Dremov, 1997; Chikisheva, unpublished), and the
Samus series (Dremov, 1997; Solodovnikov, 2005).
Seven Andronov samples were used. Two of them,
from western Kazakhstan (Alekseyev, 1967) and from
Yermak IV near Omsk (Dremov, 1997) represent
mostly the Alakul variety. Fedorov samples come from
Firsovo XIV near Barnaul (Solodovnikov, 2005), from
other burial grounds on the Upper Ob (Ibid.) and from
northeastern Kazakhstan (Ibid.)*, from Rudny Altai
(Solodovnikov, 2007), and from the Minusinsk Basin
(Alekseyev, 1961; Dremov, 1997). Also, measurements
of two series from Andronoid burial grounds in
Western Siberia at Yelovka II and Cherno-ozerye I
(Dremov, 1997) were used, and also those of a Bronze
Age series from Gumugou (Qwrighul), Xinjiang (Han
Kangxin, 1986).
Unpublished measurements of Bronze Age crania from
the Ukraine were kindly provided by S.I. Kruts; sources
of data on most groups published by Russian scholars are
cited in my previous publications (Kozintsev, 2000, 2007,
2008). Measurements of series from Central and Western
Europe and the Near East were taken from a summary
compiled by I. Schwidetzky and F. Rsing (1990).
The total number of male cranial series representing
the Neolithic and Bronze Age populations of Eurasia and
used in this analysis is 220. One hundred and twentyeight of them, mostly from the former Soviet Union, were
studied according to the craniometric program employed
by Soviet and modern Russian anthropologists. Fourteen
traits were taken from it: cranial length, breadth, and
height, frontal breadth, bizygomatic breadth, upper facial
height which was measured to the lower prosthion,
or alveolare, nasal and orbital height and breadth, nasomalar and zygo-maxillary angles, simotic index and
nasal protrusion angle. Ninety-two series from Central
and Western Europe and the Near East were studied by
Western anthropologists. They were measured according
to a smaller program from which nine linear dimensions
were taken: cranial length, breadth and height, frontal
breadth, bizygomatic breadth, and nasal and orbital
height and breadth. Upper facial height was not used
in this case to avoid confusion between the anterior
and the inferior prosthion (the difference may be
considerable).
Measurements were subjected to the canonical
variate analysis. Groups were compared pairwise using
*Solodovnikov has reduced the size of this series by
demonstrating on archaeological grounds that some crania
previously believed to be Andronov actually represent other
populations.

127

128

A.G. Kozintsev / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/4 (2009) 125136

the Mahalanobis D2 distance corrected for sample size

(Rightmire, 1969). After correction, many distances
become negative and should be regarded as sample
estimates of zero or of small positive values.
Creating a general classication of all groups was not
among the objectives of the present study. All methods
aimed at such classification result in distortions. In
cluster analysis, the distortions become progressively
larger as the distances increase. By contrast, in twodimensional projections determined by canonical variates
or by nonmetric scaling axes, it is the closest ties that
are distorted most in order to adequately render the
most general pattern of group relationships. The broader
the scope of the study, and accordingly, the wider the
geographical range of the analysis, the more details are
sacriced for the sake of the general classication. These
distortions may have contributed to the idea that all gracile
Caucasoids are close relatives. While this may be true in a
birds-eye view, a disregard for details in such a case may
lead to a serious misinterpretation.
Another advantage of using pairwise distances, rather
than graphic methods of dimensionality reduction, stems
from the fact that the latter are sensitive to the selection
of groups. Thus, the sequence of groups in terms of the
expression of Caucasoid versus Mongoloid traits depends
on the way these extreme combinations are represented.
Distances, by contrast are independent of this factor
provided the standard within-group correlation matrix is
used, as in this study.
Results
Listed below are the smallest corrected D 2 values
(normally below 1.0), based on the fourteen-trait battery
and ranked in an increasing order i.e. in the order of
decreasing similarity. Minimal distances based on the
nine-trait battery (D2 < 0.3) are given only for those groups
which reveal at least one Central or Western European
or Near Eastern parallel; these parallels are numbered as
in the summary (Schwidetzky, Rsing, 1990). The only
exception is the Afanasyev series from Saldyar I. It is
quite small and reveals numerous afnities, including
early Central and Western European ones, which are not
in rst place.
Afanasyev, Ursul, Altai: Afanasyev, Nizhni Tyumechin
(1.12); Catacomb, Don (0.59); Timber Grave, Luzanovka,
Volga (0.66); early Northern Caucasian culture, Kalmykia,
group II according to V.A. Safronov (0.70).
Afanasyev, Saldyar I, Altai: Pit Grave, VolgaUral
area (2.49); Pit Grave, Orenburg region (2.47); Pit
Grave Poltavka group,VolgaUral area (2.42); late
Catacomb, Verkhne-Tarasovka, Lower Dnieper (2.35);
Afanasyev, Afanasyeva Gora (2.35) and Karasuk III
(2.30); early Northern Caucasian culture, Kalmykia,

group II (2.10); Afanasyev, Minusinsk Basin, pooled

(1.87); Andronov, Firsovo XIV, Upper Ob (1.82); Pit
Grave, Yuzhny Bug (1.79); Pit Grave, Ingulets (1.51);
early Catacomb, Molochnaya (1.36); Timber Grave,
Luzanovka, Volga (1.34); Catacomb, Volga and Kalmykia
(1.23 in both cases). Numerous remaining parallels are
mostly with Catacomb and Timber Grave groups.
Afanasyev, Kurota II, Altai: Poltavka (1.38);
Afanasyev, Saldyar I (0.59); Catacomb, Volga (0.96).
Afanasyev, Ust-Kuyum, Altai: late Catacomb,
SamaraOrel watershed (0.42); Pit Grave, Ingulets
(0.20); Pit Grave, Stavropol area (0.07); Andronov,
Minusinsk Basin (0.51); late Catacomb, Zaporozhye
(0.80).
Afanasyev, southeastern Altai: Afanasyev, Nizhni
Tyumechin (0.38); Catacomb, Don (0.18); early
Catacomb, Molochnaya (0.09); Pit Grave, Kakhovka,
Lower Dnieper (0.05); Timber Grave, Yasyrev, Lower
Don (0.16); Afanasyev, Saldyar I (0.22); Pit Grave,
Yuzhny Bug (0.23); Timber Grave, Luzanovka, Volga
(0.24); Pit Grave, Ukraine, pooled (0.47); early Catacomb,
Verkhne-Tarasovka, Lower Dnieper (0.75); Timber Grave,
Krivaya Luka, Lower Volga (0.81); Timber Grave, Volga,
pooled (0.86); Timber Grave, Volgograd and Astrakhan
regions (0.89); Pit Grave Poltavka, VolgaUral area
(0.91); Catacomb, Kalmykia (0.95).
Afanasyev, Nizhni Tyumechin, Altai: Afanasyev,
Ursul (1.12); Catacomb, Don (0.86); early Catacomb,
Verkhne-Tarasovka, Lower Dnieper (0.76); Timber
Grave, Yasyrev, Lower Don (0.52); Afanasyev,
southeastern Altai (0.38); Timber Grave, Krivaya Luka,
Lower Volga (0.25); Timber Grave, Luzanovka, Volga
(0.07); Pit Grave Poltavka, VolgaUral area (0.27);
Afanasyev, Saldyar I (0.56); Pit Grave, Ingulets (0.77);
Pit Grave, Ukraine, pooled (0.83).
Afanasyev, Altai, pooled: Timber Grave, Luzanovka,
Volga (0.23); Catacomb, Don (0.29); Timber Grave,
Bashkiria (0.79); Timber Grave, Krivaya Luka, Lower
Volga (0.96).
Afanasyev, Karasuk III, Minusinsk Basin: Afanasyev,
Saldyar I (2.30); Pit Grave, VolgaUral area (0.96);
Afanasyev, Afanasyeva Gora (0.54); Timber Grave,
VolgaUral area (0.32); late Catacomb, VerkhneTarasovka, Lower Dnieper (0.25); Catacomb, Volga
(0.22); Pit Grave, Orenburg region (0.13); Catacomb,
Crimea (0.01); Pit Grave Poltavka, VolgaUral area
(0.24); Potapovka, Volga (0.73); Timber Grave, Yasyrev,
Lower Don (0.90).
Afanasyev, Afanasyeva Gora, Minusinsk Basin:
Afanasyev, Saldyar I (2.35); late Catacomb, VerkhneTarasovka, Lower Dnieper (1.60); Timber Grave,
Volgograd and Astrakhan regions (0.66); Afanasyev,
Karasuk III (0.54); early Catacomb, Molochnaya
(0.46); Timber Grave, Yasyrev, Lower Don (0.13); Pit
Grave, Southern Bug (0.21); early Catacomb, Kakhovka,

A.G. Kozintsev / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/4 (2009) 125136

Lower Dnieper (0.44); Pit Grave, VolgaUral area (0.85);

Timber Grave, Volga (0.88); Pit Grave, Orenburg region
(0.89); Timber Grave, Krivaya Luka, Lower Volga
(0.96). The analysis based on the nine-trait set revealed
one Western European parallel with the Early Bronze
Age (3rd millennium BC) group from Aveyron, France,
(0.04), but ties with the steppe populations of the Eastern
European Bronze Age are stronger.
Afanasyev, Minusinsk Basin, pooled: Afanasyev,
Saldyar I (1.87); Timber Grave, Yasyrev, Lower Don
(0.71); Timber Grave, Volgograd and Astrakhan regions
(0.12); late Catacomb, Verkhne-Tarasovka, Lower
Dnieper (0.06); Pit Grave, Orenburg region (0.22);
early Catacomb, the Molochnaya (0.24); Timber Grave,
Luzanovka, Volga (0.64); Pit Grave, VolgaUral area
(0.65); Catacomb, Kalmykia (0.81); Pit Grave, Yuzhny
Bug (0.82); Timber Grave, Volga (0.85); Pit Grave
Poltavka, VolgaUral area (0.93); Timber Grave, Krivaya
Luka, Lower Volga (0.95); Abashevo (0.99).
Okunev, Uybat group, Minusinsk Basin: the only
close parallel is with Okunev of the Tas-Khaza group
(0.95). Okunev of Chernovaya (1.44), and Karasuk
(1.90) rank next.
Okunev, Verkhni Askiz, Minusinsk Basin: Neolithic
of KrasnoyarskKansk area (0.07).
Okunev, Chernovaya, Minusinsk Basin: the only
close parallel is with the Neolithic of KrasnoyarskKansk
area (0.36). The least removed among other populations
is Okunev, Uybat group (1.44).
Okunev, Tas-Khaza group, Minusinsk Basin: the
only close parallel is with Okunev of Uybat (0.95). The
least distant among other groups is Karasuk (1.77).
Okunev, Minusinsk Basin, pooled: the only close
parallel is with the Neolithic of KrasnoyarskKansk area
(0.15). The least removed among other groups is Karasuk
(3.37).
Okunev, Aimyrlyg, Tuva: Pit Grave, Ingulets
(0.21); Timber Grave, Saratov region (0.10); early
Catacomb, Molochnaya (0.41); Timber Grave, Ukraine,
pooled (0.45); Sapallitepe, southern Uzbukistan
(0.67). Nine-trait set: early Catacomb, Molochnaya
(1.21); Tiefstichkeramik (related to Funnel Beaker),
Ostorf, Germany, Late Neolithic, late 4th millennium
BC (No.106) (1.15); Afanasyev, Afanasyeva Gora
(0.76); Pit Grave, Ingulets (0.53); late Catacomb,
Verkhne-Tarasovka, Lower Dnieper (0.39); Afanasyev,
Minusinsk Basin (0.37); Timber Grave, Volgograd
and Astrakhan regions (0.26); Abashevo (0.26);
Sapallitepe, Southern Uzbekistan (0.02); Yelunino
(0.01); Afanasyev, Saldyar I (0.24); Timber Grave,
Khryaschevka, Volga (0.29).
Karakol: the only parallel is with the Neolithic and
Chalcolithic of Ust-Isha and Itkul, Upper Ob (0.98). The
least removed among other groups is Yelovka II (3.87),
whereas Okunev is much further (7.26).

Yelunino: not a single close parallel. The least

removed is Okunev of Tuva (1.56), next follow Djarat
and Shengavit, Kura-Araxes culture, Armenia, 4th3rd
millennia BC (2.16); the pooled series of Kura-Araxes
culture from Georgia ranks third (2.65), and Gumugou,
Xinjiang, fourth (3.83). Nine-trait set: Poltavka (0.13);
Okunev of Tuva (0.01); early Catacomb, Molochnaya
(0.01); Timber Grave, forest-steppe Volga area (0.22);
Mierzanowice, Poland, Early Bronze Age, late 3rd early
2nd millennia BC (No.173) (0.28).
Ust-Tartas, Sopka-2: Krotovo, Sopka-2 (0.72).
Krotovo, Sopka-2: Ust-Tartas, Sopka-2 (0.72).
Samus: not a single close parallel. The least removed
is Poltavka (1.18).
Alakul, western Kazakhstan: early Catacomb,
Molochnaya (1.35); Pit Grave, Ingulets (0.36); early
Catacomb, Verkhne-Tarasovka, Lower Dnieper (0.44);
late Timber Grave, VolgaUral area (0.54); Kemi-Oba,
Crimea (0.88). Nine-trait set: early Catacomb, Molochnaya
(1.39); Pit Grave, Ingulets (0.88); Timber Grave, ground
burials, Ukraine (0.79), Pit Grave, Kakhovka, Lower
Dnieper (0.67); Parkhay II, Turkmenia, Middle and Late
Bronze Age (0.61); Tiszapolgar, Hungary, Chalcolithic,
5th4th millennia BC (No.197) (0.38); late Timber
Grave, VolgaUral area (0.16); Rssen, eastern France,
Neolithic, 5th millennium BC (No.43) (0.09); Globular
Amphorae, Germany and Poland, Early Bronze Age (early
3rd millennium BC) (No.192)(0.07); Timber Grave,
Ukraine, pooled (0.03); Lengyel, Hungary, Neolithic,
5th millennium BC (No.40) (0.07); Meklenburg, Germany,
Early Bronze Age, 4th3rd millennia BC (No.107) (0.07);
Aveyron, France, Early Bronze Age, 3rd century BC
(No.99) (0.09); Unetice, Germany and Czechia, Bronze
Age, 3rd2nd millennia BC (No.208) (0.09); Linear Band
Pottery, Neolithic, 6th millennium BC (No.14) (0.11); Pit
Grave, Yuzhny Bug (0.20); Veterov, Austria, Bronze Age,
IIIII millennia BC (No.205) (0.21).
Alakul, Yermak IV, the Irtysh: not a single close
parallel. The least removed is the late Pit Grave group of
Kalmykia* (1.32).
Fedorov, Firsovo XIV, the Upper Ob: Afanasyev,
Saldyar I (1.82); Fedorov, Rudny Altai (0.04);
Catacomb, Kalmykia (0.06); Pit Grave Poltavka, Volga
Ural area (0.43); Timber Grave, Luzanovka, Volga (0.87);
Pit Grave, Orenburg region (0.90); early Catacomb,
Molochnaya (0.94).
Fedorov, the Upper Ob, pooled: Catacomb, Stavropol
area (0.50); late Pit Grave, Kalmykia (0.80); Pit Grave,
Stavropol area (0.90).
Fedorov, Rudny Altai: Samus (0.82); Afanasyev,
Saldyar I (0.71); Timber Grave, Luzanovka, Volga
(0.12); Fedorov, Firsovo XIV (0.04); Pit Grave
*Group III according to V.A. Safronov (Shevchenko,
1986).

129

130

A.G. Kozintsev / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/4 (2009) 125136

Poltavka, VolgaUral area (0.02); early Northern

Caucasian culture, Kalmykia, group II (0.61); Potapovka,
Volga (0.63); Fedorov, northeastern Kazakhstan (0.79);
late Catacomb, Kakhovka, Lower Dnieper (0.82),
Catacomb, Don (0.83); Pit Grave, Orenburg region (0.88);
Poltavka (0.99).
Fedorov, northeastern Kazakhstan: late Pit Grave,
Kalmykia (1.50); late Catacomb, Yuzhny Bug (1.44);
Fedorov, Minusinsk Basin (0.67); early Northern
Caucasian culture, Kalmykia, group II (0.59); late
Catacomb, Kakhovka, Lower Dnieper (0.47); Potapovka,
Volga (0.13); Catacomb, Volga (0.08); late Catacomb,
Krivoy Rog, Upper Ingulets (0.16); late Catacomb,
Ukraine, pooled (0.17); Pit Grave, Kalmykia (0.47); Pit
Grave, Stavropol area (0.51); late Catacomb, Samara
Orel watershed (0.54); Timber Grave, Luzanovka, Volga
(0.57); late Northern Caucasian culture, Kalmykia, group
IV (0.72); late Catacomb, Zaporozhye, Lower Dnieper
(0.74); Fedorov, Rudny Altai (0.79); Khvalynsk, Volga
Ural area (0.88).
Fedorov, Minusinsk Basin: Fedorov, northeastern
Kazakhstan (0.67); late Northern Caucasian culture,
Kalmykia, group IV (0.09); Pit Grave, Stavropol area
(0.04); late Pit Grave, Kalmykia (0.03); late Catacomb,
Krivoy Rog, Upper Ingulets (0.31); late Catacomb,
Samara/Orel interuve (0.39); Afanasyev, Ust-Kuyum
(0.51); late Catacomb, Kakhovka, Lower Dnieper (0.57);
early Northern Caucasian culture, Kalmykia, group II
(0.69); Timber Grave, Luzanovka, Volga (0.72); late
Catacomb, Crimea (0.83); late Catacomb, Ukraine, pooled
(0.84).
Andronoid, Cherno-ozerye I, Omsk area: late
Krotovo, Sopka-2 (0.91).
Andronoid, Yelovka II, Tomsk area: not a single
close parallel. The least distant is Irmen (1.01); those
ranking next are late Krotovo, Sopka-2 (1.49), Chernoozerye I (3.42), and Karakol (3.87).
Gumugou, Xinjiang: not a single close parallel. The
least distant are two Fedorov series from Rudny Altai
(1.26) and from northeastern Kazakhstan (1.28).
Discussion
Afanasyev
The results challenge the traditional idea that the sole
and direct ancestors of the Afanasyev people were those
of Pit Grave culture. Pit Grave afnities rank rst only
in the cases of Saldyar I and Karasuk III. Catacomb
parallels are no fewer than those with Pit Grave, and
in most instances they are the most pronounced. Every
Afanasyev group has close ties with Catacomb groups.
By contrast, not all Afanasyev series show close Pit Grave
connections: these are absent in two groups of the Altai

(Ursul and Kurota II) and in the pooled Altai sample. In

half of the Altai series, ties with the Catacomb people
of the Don are the most distinct, and the same is true of
the pooled Altai group. Afanasyeva Gora and the pooled
Minusinsk series are closest to the late Catacomb of the
Lower Dnieper, whereas the series from Kurota II in the
Altai, is closest to Poltavka. These results are matched by
archaeological facts which, according to S.V. Tsyb (1981,
1984), evidence the importance of Poltavka and Catacomb
cultures in Afanasyev origins.
Strangely, similarities with Timber Grave people
are no less numerous. In fact, for the pooled Minusinsk
group they are more distinct than those with Catacomb
and Pit Grave. The Timber Grave tribes could not have
played any role in Afanasyev origins because they lived
later; nor do any facts point to a reverse migration of
the Afanasyev people or their descendants to Europe.
The results can hardly be attributed to a slightly uneven
representation of the three Eastern European cultures in
the database, where the Pit Grave is represented by 15
series, the Catacomb by 18, and the Timber Grave by
16. More likely, these results testify to the considerable
stability and relative homogeneity of the physical type of
the Eastern European steppe populations over the Bronze
Age despite the succession of cultures and apparently
despite microevolutionary trends such as gracilization.
Attempts at tracing the origins of this type have so far
been unsuccessful. On the one hand, the Pit Grave people
of the Lower Dnieper (Kakhovka and Kherson areas), the
Catacomb people of the same region (Verkhne-Tarasovka,
early group) and those of Kalmykia are similar to the
Chalcolithic Khvalynsk population (5th4th millennia
BC). Accordingly, Khvalynsk might have been ancestral
for some Eurasian steppe populations of the Bronze Age.
Another Chalcolithic series which represents the Sredni
Stog culture is more isolated, the least removed from
it being various Afanasyev groups of the Altai and the
Catacomb people of the Don. All these facts may point
to the deep Eastern European roots of the Pit Grave,
Catacomb, and partly Afanasyev communities.
On the other hand, not all the Eastern European
steppe populations of the Bronze Age appear to have been
autochthonous. The analysis of a larger number of groups
using the reduced trait battery reveals numerous early
(4th millennium BC and earlier) Central and Western
European parallels for groups such as the Pit Grave from
the Ingulets and early Catacomb from the Molochnaya.
These ties are especially evident in four gracile early
Catacomb groups of the Ukraine, which show 14 close ties
with Central and Western European populations and eight
with those of Transcaucasia and Southwestern Central
Asia. This apparently attests to migration, since the late
Catacomb people are more robust, contrary to the normal
diachronic trend (Kruts, 1990) and show no such ties.
Nor are these afnities shown by the Afanasyev people,

A.G. Kozintsev / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/4 (2009) 125136

disregarding isolated Central and Western European ties

of Saldyar and Afanasyeva Gora. Despite this, the ties of
the Afanasyev groups with the early and late Catacomb are
distributed approximately evenly. The general conclusion
is rather modest: Afanasyev roots apparently lie in Eastern
European steppes and forest-steppes, but relating them to
a specic culture is impossible.
Okunev and other presumably autochthonous
groups of Southern and Western Siberia
Like the pooled Okunev group from the Minusinsk
Basin, two of the four Okunev series from this region
(Verkhni Askiz and Chernovaya) are closest to the
Neolithic people of the KrasnoyarskKansk area, which
was already demonstrated by A.V. Gromov (1997b). Two
others (Uybat and Tas-Khaza) resemble only one another,
Karasuk people ranking next in similarity.
Gromov (Ibid.) suggests that the Okunev community
resulted from an admixture of Eastern and Western
populations, and that this admixture is evident at both
the within-group and between-group level. Leaving the
former aside because of a lesser reliability of individual
diagnostics, it can be noted that at the between-group
level, the Okunev physical type is quite peculiar, and this
peculiarity is not seen in either of the supposed ancestral
groups (Caucasoid or Mongoloid). Therefore the observed
pattern could hardly have resulted from admixture. This
is evidenced by both craniometrics (Ibid.) and cranial
nonmetrics (Gromov, Moiseyev, 2004), and by the results
of their integration (Kozintsev, Gromov, Moiseyev, 1999,
2003; Kozintsev, 2004). In addition, if the Catacomb
people actually participated in Okunev origins, we
would have to admit that they were ancestral also to the
Neolithic population of KrasnoyarskKansk area, which
is craniometrically quite close to the Okunev group. As
nothing indicates this, it is more reasonable to assume
that the Okunev people were autochthonous, and that
European elements of their culture are borrowings.
An indirect evidence of European admixture in the
Okunev population may be the fact that certain Okunev
groups display rather indistinct affinities with the
Karasuk. The presence of European genes in the latter is
beyond doubt, both for craniological reasons and because
of their light pigmentation (Keyser et al., 2009). Genetic
continuity between the Okunev and Karasuk cannot be
excluded because the latter display no afnities other than
those with the Okunev, apart from ties with the MongunTaiga people of Tuva who were the contemporaries of
the Karasuk. The European group least distant from the
Karasuk is the Catacomb of Stavropol. In terms of cranial
nonmetrics however, the Karasuk and Okunev are quite
dissimilar (Gromov, 1997a).
Craniometric similarities between the Karakol and
Neolithic and Chalcolithic groups of the Upper Ob

(Ust-Isha, Itkul, Solontsy-5) have already been noted

(Chikisheva, 2000; Tur, Solodovnikov, 2005). In this case
too, both the geographic proximity and the morphological
resemblance attest to genetic continuity. Caucasoid
admixture can be neither excluded nor demonstrated.
The same applies to other presumably autochthonous
groups such as those represented by Ust-Tartas and
Krotovo burials at Sopka-2 and Andronoid ones at
Yelovka II and Cherno-ozerye I. Results of craniometric
analysis point to their relationship which appears
probable despite their morphological isolation (only
groups from Sopka resemble one another) and to their
local roots (see also: Dremov, 1997; Gromov, 1997b;
Tur, Solodovnikov, 2005). The integration of metric and
nonmetric data on Sopka and Yelovka demonstrates their
archaism (Kozintsev, Gromov, Moiseyev, 2003; Gromov,
Moiseyev, 2004; Kozintsev, 2004). The role of Caucasoid
admixture is obscure since none of these groups reveals
any European tendencies regardless of the methods of
analysis.
Pre-Andronov groups with western afnities
The characteristics of the Okunev people of Tuva, and
those of theYelunino and Samus people were discussed in
my previous publication (Kozintsev, 2008). In the case of
the Okunev of Tuva, the most prominent are the Eastern
European steppe parallels (Pit Grave, early Catacomb,
Timber Grave), and the analysis based on a reduced trait
set additionally reveals an early Central European parallel
with a group related to the Funnel Beaker culture of the
late 4th millennium BC. The migration therefore was from
Europe rather than from Southwestern Central Asia or the
Near East as formerly believed. This was hardly the same
migration that had brought Afanasyev ancestors to the
Altai and to the Yenisei, since the Okunev people of Tuva
were less similar to Afanasyev people than to the Eastern
and Central European populations.
The situation with Yelunino is less clear. This group
is craniometrically isolated, being the least distant
from the Okunev people of Tuva (Solodovnikov, Tur,
2003). However, in the light of the hypotheses of
Mediterranean migrations to Southern Siberia, two
rather remote Transcaucasian (Kura-Araxes) parallels
deserve attention. On the other hand, the analysis based
on the reduced trait set reveals only western parallels,
including one in Poland. The source of migration therefore
cannot be ascertained.
In the case of the Samus, the most distinct afnity is
with the Poltavka. The same parallel ranks rst in the case
of an Afanasyev group from the Altai (Kurota II). The
role of the Poltavka as a major source of Indo-European
dispersals is beyond doubt (see, e.g. (Kuzmina, 2007a));
the question is, with what branch of the Eastern IndoEuropeans was this culture associated?

131

132

A.G. Kozintsev / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/4 (2009) 125136

Andronov
The results suggest that representatives of both the
Andronov varieties, the Alakul and the Fedorov, were
descendants of the Bronze Age people of the Southern
Russian steppes. However, their roots were different. I
will begin with the Fedorov groups because it is with the
Fedorov subculture that the classical Andronov trait
combination is associated.
The group from Firsovo XIV on the Upper Ob
provides a perfect support for the hypothesis advanced by
V.P. Alekseyev (1961) in regard to the Yenisei Fedorov,
because the Firsovo series is extremely similar to the
Afanasyev group from Saldyar in the Altai. The male
Saldyar series admittedly consists of only four crania, but
given the territorial proximity of the Upper Ob to Gorny
Altai, the relationship is worth considering. Parallels
with the Catacomb people of Kalmykia and with the
Pit Grave Poltavka group of the VolgaUral area too
should be taken into account. Neither the Alakul nor
Yelunino ties can be revealed by craniometric analysis.
The Fedorov people of Rudny Altai are also very close to
the Saldyar. While the Samus parallel ranks rst in this
case, the male Samus series numbers only three crania, so
any conclusions would be premature. As in the case with
Firsovo XIV, the parallel with the Pit Grave Poltavka
group appears noteworthy, but this afnity may be indirect
via the Afanasyev people of the Altai.
The situation with the remaining three Fedorov
groups is different. All closest ties of the pooled group
from the Upper Ob lead directly to southeastern Europe,
in fact to a single region and a single period the
late Pit Grave and Catacomb epoch of the Northern
Caucasus and northwestern Caspian (Kalmykia). Sixty
years ago, G.F. Debetz (1948) argued with S.V. Kiselev
who countered the idea of Andronov migration from
Kazakhstan to the Yenisei on the basis of the allegedly
sedentary lifestyle of Bronze Age tribes. The route
from Southeastern Europe to Southern Siberia was
even longer and moreover was hardly straight. The key
events in proto-Andronov population history apparently
took place in the intermediate territory of the southern
Urals the supposed source area of Aryan dispersals
(Kuzmina, 2007a, 2008), but physical anthropology is
of little help in elucidating events that occurred at this
stage since human remains representing the Sintashta
culture are quite scarce.
The same can be said of the Fedorov groups of
northeastern Kazakhstan. Here as well, ties with the
late Pit Grave of Kalmykia rank rst; other afnities are
mostly with late Catacomb groups and one parallel is with
Potapovka. The Fedorov people of the Yenisei are closest
to their tribesmen in northeastern Kazakhstan, which
supports Debetzs theory. However, on the Yenisei too the
biological legacy of late Pit Grave and Catacomb ancestors

is quite traceable. A similarity with the Afanasyev people

of the Altai is less distinct in this case.
Turning to Alakul, its eastern group, that from
Yermak IV on the Irtysh, like the Fedorov groups, is closest
to the late Pit Grave series of Kalmykia. By contrast, the
western Alakul group from western Kazakhstan which
was traditionally described as Mediterranean, reveals
a very different pattern of relationships. While here too,
Pit Grave and Catacomb parallels rank rst, it is the early
and not the late Catacomb ties that are the most prominent.
Also, most of them lead not to Kalmykia but to a more
remote region, the Ukraine. Ties with Timber Grave
people, who were contemporaneous with the Alakul, may
evidence both common origin and admixture. In terms
of origin, connections between the western Alakul and
the earlier Neolithic and Early Bronze Age populations
of Central and Western Europe are far more informative.
None of the remaining six Andronov groups display these
ties. One should not forget of course that the reduced
trait set used for comparisons with Central and Western
European groups does not include important measures of
facial and nasal prole. And yet some conclusions can be
made with certainty.
First, calling the western Alakul people
Mediterraneans is unwarranted as they show virtually
no connections with the Near East, Transcaucasia or
Southwestern Central Asia. The parallel with a Middle
and Late Bronze Age group from Turkmenia is singular
and may attest to a southward migration of proto-Iranians
from the steppes toward Iran. Therefore, in the argument
between V.P Alekseyev and V.V. Ginzburg, the former was
right but his conclusion that the afnities of Kazakhstanian
Alakul are entirely western rather than southern turns out
to have a much broader meaning.
The chronology and geography of these affinities
help reconstruct the principal stages of migrations
which eventually brought Alakul ancestors to western
Kazakhstan. These stages are as follows: Western and
Central Europe (4th millennium BC and earlier); the
Ukraine (3rd millennium); Northern Caucasus and
northwestern Caspian*; western Kazakhstan (2nd
millennium and possibly the late 3rd millennium BC).
The special role of two groups from the Ukraine Pit
Grave from the Ingulets and early Catacomb from
the Molochnaya as possible milestones marking the
advance of Indo-Europeans, specically proto-Aryans
from Central Europe to the east has already been noted in
my previous publications (Kozintsev, 2007, 2008).
The migration of gracile Caucasoids who were
ancestors of certain Pit Grave, early Catacomb, and
*The Chalcolithic and Bronze Age group from the Northern
Caucasus published by V.P. Alekseyev is very close to the Alakul
(1.02), but it is apparently very heterogeneous in terms of
cultural afliation.

A.G. Kozintsev / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/4 (2009) 125136

western Alakul people from Central Europe to the

Ukraine and further east, apparently preceded the
migrations of more robust ancestors of late the Catacomb
and most Fedorov populations from the Northern
Caucasus and the northwestern Caspian to the east
and west (see (Kruts, 1990) for a discussion of their
migration to the Ukraine). This is supported by the
earlier emergence of the Alakul variety of Andronov,
compared to the Fedorov variety (Chernykh, 2008).
Features of certain Afanasyev groups of the Altai such as
the Saldyar and the Okunev people of Tuva, the Yelunino
and possibly Samus people, demonstrate that gracile
Caucasoids began to migrate to Eastern Central Asia
before the Andronov era. The western Alakul population
attests to a later phase of the eastward advance of various
Indo-European groups which may have continued over
many centuries of the Bronze Age.
The reconstruction of this historical process is impeded
by another process, which is biological by nature and is
known as gracilization. In some instances, similarity can
be erroneously taken for proof of a genetic relationship
while actually it only means that the groups are at the same
stage of the gracilization process. Theoretically, however
it is unlikely that gracilization can result in a convergence
of unrelated groups over the entire set of traits. The effect
of this factor can probably be reduced if only the closest
similarities are considered, as in this study.
Robust Cromagnon-like Caucasoids too, apparently
migrated to Eastern Central Asia from the west, and there
may have been several such migrations. Thus, while the
Afanasyev people are craniometrically closest to the
Catacomb people of the Don and Ukraine, Fedorov people
who were representatives of a later Cromagnon migration
wave were apparently descended from the late Pit Grave
and Catacomb people of more eastern regions such as the
Northern Caucasus and the northwestern Caspian.
None of the Andronov groups displays distinct
similarities with the Abashevo people, archaeological
evidence notwithstanding. Poltavka afnities are observed
only in those Fedorov groups which are closest to the
Afanasyev people of the Altai.
The Bronze Age population of Xinjiang
(Gumugou)
In my previous article (Kozintsev, 2008) I stated that this
group, which probably spoke a proto-Tocharian language
(Mallory, 1998; Renfrew, 1998; Mair, 2005; Kuzmina,
2007b), was craniometrically similar only to the Fedorov
group of northeastern Kazakhstan. Recently, another
parallel has appeared, also associated with the Fedorov
variety of Andronov culture and with an adjacent region
the Rudny Altai (Solodovnikov, 2007). While both
parallels are not especially close, they are nevertheless
noteworthy because of their cultural and geographical

coincidence and the fact that both concern regions that are
not far from Xinjiang. No closer ties have been discovered
so far; all Afanasyev populations are much further from
Gumugou than are the two Fedorov groups (D2 values
equal 5.9611.53 versus 1.261.28, respectively).
The results match those of Chinese researchers (Han
Kangxin, 1986; He Huiqin, Xu Yongqing, 2002), attesting
to the northern steppe afnities of Gumugou. Because
this group displays neither Southwestern Central Asian
nor Near Eastern connections*, it can be suggested that
the rst Caucasoids entered Xinjiang not from the west
by the route coinciding with the latter Silk Road, but from
the north from Dzhetysu via the Dzungarian Gate or up
the Irtysh valley. This hypothesis is supported by the light
hair of the inhabitants of the Tarim Valley as evidenced
by their mummies, and by their unambiguously European
culture (Mallory, Mair, 2000). While the latter differs
from both Afanasyev and Andronov (Molodin, Alkin,
1997), it does show certain parallels with these cultures
as well as with European ones, specically with the Pit
Grave culture (Kuzmina, 2007b).
According to C. Renfrew (1998), proto-Tocharian,
proto-Indo-Iranian, and proto-Scythian languages
branched off from the same language which he calls Old
Steppe Indo-European and which in turn branched off
from the proto-Indo-European language spoken in the
Balkans. This hypothesis shows a much better agreement
with biological evidence than does the theory stating that
the ancestors of Indo-Iranians and Tocharians migrated
eastward directly from their presumed primary Anatolian
homeland, rather than from their secondary homeland in
Europe (Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1995).
Conclusions
(1) The statistical analysis of craniometric data disagrees
with the idea that Pit Grave populations played an
exceptional role in Afanasyev origins. The Afanasyev
people of the Altai are closest to the Catacomb people
of the Don and Afanasyev people of the Yenisei display
afnities with late Catacomb populations of the Lower
Dnieper. The Afanasyev group from Kurota II in the Altai
is closest to the Poltavka population.
(2) The Okunev tribes of the Minusinsk Basin,
those associated with Karakol, Ust-Tartas, and Krotovo
cultures as well those buried in Andronoid cemeteries
of Western Siberia at Yelovka II and Cherno-ozerye,
*B. Hemphills results concerning the allegedly Harappan
afnities of Gumugou/Qwrighul (Hemphill, Mallory, 2004) are
likely due to the fact that both his database and his trait battery
are very small. Also, the measurements of this group used in
his article disagree with those in the original publication (Han
Kangxin, 1986).

133

134

A.G. Kozintsev / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/4 (2009) 125136

were apparently descendants of the local Neolithic tribes.

All these groups display highly peculiar and apparently
very ancient trait combinations which could hardly have
resulted from an admixture between Mongoloids and
Caucasoids. The role of the European component in their
origins remains unclear.
(3) The Okunev people of Tuva resemble the Pit Grave
and early Catacomb people of the Ukraine as well as the
earlier Funnel Beaker people of Central and Northern
Europe. Yelunino people, while resembling the Okunev
people of Tuva, show no distinct afnities with anyone
else although there are two indistinct ties with people
of the Kura-Araxes culture of the Transcaucasia. The
Samus people are craniometrically the least distant from
the Poltavka group.
(4) The Alakul people of western Kazakhstan are
apparently descended from the Pit Grave and early
Catacomb people of the Southern Russian steppes. The
source of this comparatively gracile physical type must be
sought amongst the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age
populations of Central and Western Europe.
(5) The probable ancestors of the Fedorov people
from Firsovo XIV on the Upper Ob, and from Rudny
Altai were gracile Afanasyev groups such as Saldyar I.
Other Fedorov populations of the Upper Ob, as well as
those of northeastern Kazakhstan and of the Minusinsk
Basin and the eastern Alakul population from the Irtysh,
are apparently descended from other, more robust, Pit
Grave and Catacomb groups. Their most distinct afnities
are with the late Pit Grave and Catacomb people of the
Northern Caucasus and the northwestern Caspian.
(6) The Bronze Age population of Xinjiang at
Gumugou/Qwrighul is closest to the Fedorov groups
of northeastern Kazakhstan and of Rudny Altai which
supports the theory that the rst Caucasoids migrated to
Xinjiang from the steppes rather than from Southwestern
Central Asia.
(7) None of the gracile Caucasoid groups of Siberia
or Eastern Central Asia can be regarded as Mediterranean
since none of them have distinct ties with populations of
the Near East, Southwestern Central Asia or Transcaucasia.
The Kura-Araxes parallels to Yelunino are vague and
incomparable with numerous striking afnities between
the gracile Caucasoids of Southern Siberia, Kazakhstan,
and Eastern Central Asia on the one hand, and the Bronze
Age people of the Eastern European steppes on the other.
The totality of data suggests that these people were lightly
pigmented Northern Caucasoids.

Acknowledgments
My cordial thanks are due to S.I. Kruts and T.A. Chikisheva who
allowed me to use their unpublished data. I thank L.S. Klein,
S.S. Tur, and K.N. Solodovnikov for valuable comments.

References
Alekseyev V.P. 1961
Paleoantropologiya Altae-Sayanskogo nagorya epokhi
neolita i bronzy. In Antropologicheskiy sbornik, iss. 3. Moscow,
Leningrad: Izd. AN SSSR, pp. 107206. (TIE, Nov. ser.;
vol. 71).
Alekseyev V.P. 1964
Antropologichesky tip naseleniya zapadnykh raionov
rasprostraneniya andronovskoi kultury. In Problemy etnicheskoi
antropologii Srednei Azii. Tashkent: Izd. Tashkent. Gos. Univ.,
pp. 2028. (Nauchnye trudy Tashkent. Gos. Univ.; iss. 235).
Alekseyev V.P. 1967
Antropologiya andronovskoy kultury. Sovetskaya
antropologiya, No. 1: 2226.
Alekseyev V.P. 1989
Istoricheskaya antropologiya i etnogenez. Moscow:
Nauka.
Alekseyev V.P., Gokhman I.I., Tumen D. 1987
Kratkiy ocherk paleoantropologii Tsentralnoy Azii
(kamennyi vek epokha rannego zheleza). In Arkheologiya,
etnografiya i antropologiya Mongolii. Novosibirsk: Nauka,
pp. 208241.
Bobrov V.V. 1994
K probleme migratsii evropeoidnogo naseleniya na territorii
Yuzhnoi Sibiri v seiminskuyu epokhu. In Paleodemograya
i migratsionnye protsessy v Zapadnoy Sibiri v drevnosti i
srednevekovye. Barnaul: Izd. Altai. Gos. Univ., pp. 5358.
Chernykh E.N. 2008
Formation of the Eurasian Steppe Belt of stockbreeding
cultures: Viewed through the prism of archaeometallurgy and
radiocarbon dating. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology
of Eurasia, No. 3 (35): 3653.
Chikisheva T.A. 2000
New Anthropological Data on the Neolithic and Bronze
Age Populations of the Altai. Archaeology, Ethnology and
Anthropology of Eurasia, No. 1 (1): 139148.
Debetz G.F. 1931
Esche raz o belokuroy rase v Tsentralnoy Azii. Sov. Aziya,
No. 5/6: 195209.
Debetz G.F. 1948
Paleoantropologiya SSSR. Moscow, Leningrad: Izd. AN
SSSR. (TIE, Nov. ser.; vol. 4).
Dremov V.A. 1997
N a s e l e n i e Ve r k h n e g o P r i o b y a v e p o k h u b r o n z y
(antropologicheskiy ocherk). Tomsk: Izd. Tomsk. Gos. Univ.
Gamkrelidze T.V., Ivanov V.V. 1995
Indo-European and Indo-Europeans. In 2 vols. Berlin, New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ginzburg V.V. 1962
Materialy k antropologii naseleniya Zapadnogo Kazakhstana
v epokhu bronzy. In V.S. Sorokin. Mogilnik bronzovoy epokhi
Tasty-Butak-1 v Zapadnom Kazakhstane. Moscow, Leningrad:
Izd. AN SSSR, pp. 188198. (MIA; No. 120).
Ginzburg V.V., Tromova T.A. 1972
Paleoantropologiya Srednei Azii. Moscow: Nauka.
Gokhman I.I. 1980
Proiskhozhdenie tsentralnoaziatskoy rasy v svete novykh
paleoantropologicheskikh materialov. In Issledovaniya po
paleoantropologii i kraniologii SSSR. Moscow, Leningrad: Izd.
AN SSSR, pp. 534. (Sbornik MAE; No. 36).

A.G. Kozintsev / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/4 (2009) 125136

Grigoryev S.A. 1999

Drevnie indoevropeitsy: Opyt istoricheskoy rekonstruktsii.
Chelyabinsk: Rifei.
Gromov A.V. 1997a
Kranioskopicheskie osobennosti naseleniya okunevskoi
kultury. In Okunevsky sbornik. St. Petersburg: Petro-RIF,
pp. 294300.
Gromov A.V. 1997b
Proiskhozhdenie i svyazi okunevskogo naseleniya
Minusinskoi kotloviny. In Okunevskiy sbornik. St. Petersburg:
Petro-RIF, pp. 301345.
Gromov A.V., Moiseyev V.G. 2004
Kranioskopiya naseleniya Zapadnoi i Yuzhnoi Sibiri:
Geograya i khronologiya. Rasy i narody, No. 30: 216248.
Han Kangxin. 1986
Anthropological characteristics of the human skulls from
the ancient cemetery at Gumu Gou, Xinjiang. Kaogu Xuebao,
No. 3: 361384, (in Chinese with English summary).
He Huiqin, Xu Yongqing. 2002
Anthropological study of ancient human skulls from Wubao
site, Hami, Xinjiang. Renleixue Xuebao, vol. 21, No. 2: 102
110, (in Chinese with English summary).
Hemphill B.E., Mallory J.P. 2004
Horse-mounted invaders from the Russo-Kazakh steppe or
agricultural colonists from Western Central Asia? A craniometric
investigation of the Bronze Age settlement of Xinjiang.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology, vol. 124, No. 3:
199222.
Keyser C., Bouakaze C., Crubzy E.,
Nikolaev V.G., Montagnon D., Reis T.,
Ludes B. 2009
Ancient DNA provides new insights into the history of
South Siberian kurgan people. Human Genetics. URL: 10.1007/
s00439-009-0683-0 (15.07.2009).
Khudaverdyan A.Y. 2009
Naselenie Armyanskogo nagorya v epokhu bronzy:
Etnogenez i etnicheskaya istoriya. Erevan: Van Aryan.
Kiryushin Y.F. 2004
Eneolit i bronzovyi vek yuzhno-taezhnoi zony Zapadnoy
Sibiri. Barnaul: Izd. Altai. Gos. Univ.
Kovalev A.A. 2007
Chemurchekskiy kulturny fenomen. In A.V.: Sbornik
nauch. trudov v chest 60-letiya A.V. Vinogradova. St. Petersburg:
Kult-Inform-Press, pp. 2576.
Kozintsev A.G. 2000
On the biological affinities and origin of the Northern
Pontic Scythians. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of
Eurasia, No. 3 (3): 145152.
Kozintsev A.G. 2004
Kety, uraltsy, amerikanoidy: Integratsiya kraniologicheskikh
dannykh. In Paleoantropologiya, etnicheskaya antropologiya,
etnogenez. St. Petersburg: MAE RAN, pp. 172185.
Kozintsev A.G. 2007
Scythians of the North Pontic Region: Between-group
cranial variation, afnities, and origins. Archaeology, Ethnology
and Anthropology of Eurasia, No. 4 (32): 143157.
Kozintsev A.G. 2008
The Mediterraneans of Southern Siberia and Kazakhstan,
Indo-European migrations, and the origin of the Scythians:
A multivariate craniometric analysis. Archaeology, Ethnology
and Anthropology of Eurasia, No. 4 (36): 140144.

Kozintsev A.G., Gromov A.V., Moiseyev V.G. 1999

Collateral relatives of American Indians among the Bronze
Age populations of Siberia? American Journal of Physical
Anthropology, vol. 108, No. 2: 193204.
Kozintsev A.G., Gromov A.V., Moiseyev V.G. 2003
New evidence on the possible collateral relatives of
American Indians in Bronze Age Siberia. Archaeology,
Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, No. 3 (15): 149154.
Kruts S.I. 1990
K voprosu ob antropologicheskom sostave naseleniya
katakombnoy kultury v Severnom Prichernomorye. In Problemy
izucheniya katakombnoi kulturno-istoricheskoi oblasti.
Zaporozhye: n.p., pp. 4143.
Kuzmina E.E. 2007a
The Origin of the Indo-Iranians, J.P. Mallory (ed.). Leiden:
Brill.
Kuzmina E.E. 2007b
The Prehistory of the Silk Road, V.H. Mair (ed.). Philadelphia:
Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.
Kuzmina E.E. 2008
Arii put na yug. Moscow, St. Petersburg: Letny sad.
Lazaretov I.I. 1997
Okunevskie mogilniki v doline reki Uybat. In Okunevsky
sbornik. St. Petersburg: Petro-RIF, pp. 1964.
Mair V.H. 2005
Genes, geography, and glottochronology: The Tarim
Basin during late prehistory and history. In Proceedings of
the Sixteenth Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, Los
Angeles, November 56, 2004. Washington, DC: Inst. for the
Study of Man, pp. 146. (Journal of Indo-European Studies
Monograph; No. 50).
Mallory J.P. 1998
A European perspective on the Indo-Europeans in Asia.
In The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern
Central Asia, vol. 1, V.H. Mair (ed.). Washington, DC: Inst.
for the Study of Man, pp. 175201. (Journal of Indo-European
Studies Monograph; No. 26).
Mallory J.P., Mair V.H. 2000
The Tarim Mummies: Ancient China and the Mystery of the
Earliest Peoples from the West. London: Thames and Hudson.
Merpert N.Y. 1982
Eneolit yuga SSSR i evraziyskie stepi. In Eneolit SSSR.
Moscow: Nauka, pp. 321331.
Molodin V.I., Alkin S.V. 1997
Mogilnik Gumugou (Sintszyan) v kontekste afanasevskoi
problemy. In Gumanitarnye issledovaniya: Itogi poslednikh let.
Novosibirsk: Izd. NII mat.-inform. osnov obucheniya Novosib.
Gos. Univ., pp. 3538.
Renfrew C. 1998
The Tarim Basin, Tocharian, and Indo-European origins.
In The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern
Central Asia, vol. 1, V.H. Mair (ed.). Washington, DC: Inst.
for the Study of Man, pp. 202212. (Journal of Indo-European
Studies Monograph; No. 26).
Rightmire G.P. 1969
On the computation of Mahalanobis generalized distance
(D2). American Journal of Physical Anthropology, vol. 30,
No. 1: 157160.
Schwidetzky I., Rsing F. 1990
Vergleichend-statistische Untersuchungen zur Anthropologie
von Neolithikum und Bronzezeit. Homo, Bd. 40, H. 1/2: 445.

135

136

A.G. Kozintsev / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/4 (2009) 125136

Semenov Vl.A. 1993

Drevneyshaya migratsiya indoevropeytsev na vostok.
Peterburg. arkheol. vestnik, No. 4: 2530.
Sher J.A. 2006
Byla li okunevskaya kultura? In Okunevsky sbornik 2.
St. Petersburg: Izd. SPb. Gos. Univ., pp. 248250.
Shevchenko A.V. 1986
Antropologiya naseleniya yuzhnorusskikh stepei v epokhu
bronzy. In Antropologiya sovremennogo i drevnego naseleniya
Evropeiskoi chasti SSSR. Leningrad: Nauka, pp. 121215.
Solodovnikov K.N. 2003
Materialy k antropologii afanasevskoy kultury. Drevnosti
Altaya, No. 10: 327.
Solodovnikov K.N. 2005
Kraniologicheskie materialy iz mogilnika andronovskoi
kultury Firsovo XIV v svete problem formirovaniya naseleniya
Verkhnego Priobya v epokhu bronzy. In Izuchenie istorikokulturnogo naslediya narodov Yuzhnoy Sibiri, iss. 1. GornoAltaysk: Agentstvo po kult.-ist. naslediyu Resp. Altai,
pp. 4775.
Solodovnikov K.N. 2006
Naselenie gornogo i lesostepnogo Altaya epokhi ranney
i razvitoy bronzy po dannym paleoantropologii. Cand. Sc.
(History) Dissertation. Barnaul.
Solodovnikov K.N. 2007
Paleoantropologicheskie materialy epokhi sredney bronzy
verkhoviy r. Aley. In Demin M.A., Sitnikov S.M. Materialy
Gilyovskoi arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii, pt. 1. Barnaul: Izd.
Barnaul. Gos. Ped. Univ., pp. 129149.

Solodovnikov K.N., Tur S.S. 2003

Kraniologicheskie materialy eluninskoy kultury epokhi
ranney bronzy Verkhnego Priobya. In Kiryushin Y.F.,
Grushin S.P., Tishkin A.A. Pogrebalny obryad naseleniya epokhi
ranney bronzy Verkhnego Priobya (po materialam gruntovogo
mogilnika Teleutskiy Vzvoz-1). Barnaul: Izd. Altai. Gos. Univ.,
pp. 142176.
Tkacheva N.A., Tkachev A.A. 2008
The role of migrations in the evolution of the Andronov
community. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of
Eurasia, No. 3 (35): 8896.
Tsyb S.V. 1981
Kamennye boevye topory Zapadnoy Sibiri. In Voennoe
delo drevnikh plemen Sibiri i Tsentralnoy Azii. Novosibirsk:
Nauka, pp. 613.
Tsyb S.V. 1984
Afanasevskaya kultura. Cand. Sc. (History) Dissertation.
Kemerovo.
Tur S.S., Solodovnikov K.N. 2005
Novye kraniologicheskie materialy iz pogrebeniy karakolskoy kultury epokhi bronzy Gornogo Altaya. In Izuchenie
istoriko-kulturnogo naslediya narodov Yuzhnoi Sibiri, iss. 1.
Gorno-Altaysk: Agentstvo po kult.-ist. naslediyu Resp. Altai,
pp. 3547.

Received August 3, 2009.