A multivariate analysis of 220 male craniological series from the Neolithic and Bronze Ages from the territory of Eurasia was carried out. The results confirm the great role of catacomb tribes in the formation of the Afanasiev community. Minusinsk okunevtsy, Karakoltsy, krotovtsy and groups of the Andronovo era from Chernoozero I and Yelovka II were mainly of local origin. For Samus residents, the Poltavka parallel is marked. The Okunevites of Tuva and, probably, the Yeluninites were descendants of the Yamniks and early Catacombs of Ukraine. The same applies to the Alakul people of Western Kazakhstan, who also have many early connections in foreign Europe. The ancestors of some Fyodorov groups were probably the Afanasyevites of Altai, while the ancestors of others were the Late Yamnaya and Catacomb tribes of the North Caucasus and Kalmykia. Gumugou residents are closest to the Fedorovites of Kazakhstan and Rudny Altai, which indicates the northern path of settlement of Xinjiang. The gracile Caucasians of Siberia and Central Asia cannot be called Mediterranean because they have almost no anthropological connections with the Middle East, Central Asia, and Transcaucasia. Apparently, we are talking about northern Caucasians.

Keywords: Indo-Europeans, Southern Siberia, Central Asia, Bronze Age.

Introduction

The question of the ways of penetration of ancient Caucasians into Siberia and Central Asia has recently attracted close interest in connection with the problem of the Indo-European ancestral homeland. The opinion expressed by some archaeologists about the significant role of migrations from Near Asia in the composition of the South Siberian cultures of the Bronze Age (Grigoriev, 1999; Bobrov. 1994; Kiryushin, 2004] received support from those anthropologists who tend to consider any gracile Caucasians to be representatives of the Mediterranean race, i.e., Southerners by origin (see especially [Khudaverdyan, 2009]). Until recently, I was also inclined to this interpretation [Kozintsev, 2000].

In recent years, as a result of the work of a number of anthropologists, primarily S. I. Kruz, a huge new paleoanthropological material from the steppes of Ukraine and Southern Russia has emerged. His statistical analysis led to a revision of previous views. A more detailed comparison, taking into account the relationships of each gracile South Siberian group separately, showed that craniometry does not give any reason to talk about migrations to South Siberia from the Middle East, Central Asia, or Transcaucasia - areas of distribution of the Southern European (Mediterranean) race [Kozintsev, 2007, 2008].

Then there was an article by a group of French geneticists [Keyser et al., 2009], who used DNA extracted from the bone remains of Andronov, Karasuk, Tagar, and Tashtyk residents to study six genes responsible for eye and hair pigmentation. It turned out that the majority of the ancient inhabitants of Southern Siberia studied (15 out of 23, i.e. 65 %) had light or mixed eye shades, and 8 out of 12 (67%) had light or brown hair. If you add,

This work was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, project N09-06-00184a.

page 125
The conclusion is unambiguous that the same hair was found in the Bronze Age inhabitants of the Tarim River Valley - the probable ancestors of the Tochars (their bodies were perfectly preserved due to natural mummification [Mallory and Mair, 2000]), and depigmentation in the modern population of Southern Siberia and Kazakhstan is clearly of pre-Russian origin. The main focus of Europoid migrations to the interior of Asia was not in the Middle East, but in areas lying to the north and affected by the depigmentation process. Almost 80 years ago, this conclusion was made by G. F. Debets [1931] on the basis of a comparison of craniological data on Tagars with information from Chinese sources. Undoubtedly, the eastward movement of Indo-European pastoralists took place mainly along the steppe strip, and this process continued, according to archaeological data, throughout the entire third millennium BC (Merpert, 1982, pp. 322-330; Semenov, 1993). But where was the starting point? In the Pontic steppes? On the territory of foreign Europe?

The Afanasyev culture, according to the opinion shared by most experts, both archaeologists and anthropologists, is closely related to the Yamnaya culture and its appearance in the Altai Mountains and on the Middle Yenisei was the result of migration from the Eastern European steppes. The possible role of the Poltavka and catacomb elements is also pointed out (Tsyb, 1981, 1984). The latter corresponds to new radiocarbon dates, which indicate that the catacomb culture co-existed with the Yamna culture for most of the third millennium BC (Chernykh, 2008). At the same time, the earliest dates of the oldest Afanasyev monuments in Gorny Altai (mid-IV th millennium) are very early. BCE) indicate the possibility of the participation of pre-yamal tribes, in particular the Khvalynsk and Srednestogovsk, as well as Proto-Yamal (Repin) tribes in the formation of the Afanasyev community, as anthropologists have already written about [Shevchenko, 1986, p. 157; Solodovnikov, 2003].

As for the post-Afanasiev cultures of the Bronze Age, the traditional opinion about the local origin of Okunevskaya is replaced by the idea of the significant role of pit-catacomb (Lazaretov, 1997) and Afanasiev, i.e. again brought from the West, features (Sher, 2006). Anthropologically, the western component (as suggested by A. V. Gromov [1997b], which is similar to that found in the Yamnik and catacomb areas of Kalmykia) is rather indistinct among the Okunevites of the Minusinsk Basin and is mainly observed at the individual level. Analysis of data on two independent systems of traits - cranioscopy and craniometry-indicates that the Yenisei Okunevites belong to the Siberian population circle [Gromov, 1997a, b], and the integration of these data indicates the archaism of the Okunev anthropological type [Kozintsev, 2004]. According to A.V. Gromov (1997b), the Okunevites are closest to the Neolithic population of the Krasnoyarsk-Kansk region. The Karakol culture of Gorny Altai is close to the Okunev culture, and the anthropological similarity of their carriers was also noted, but the second one is supposed to contain a "Mediterranean" admixture (Chikisheva, 2000; Tur and Solodovnikov, 2005).

The presence of a Europoid anthropological component in the Okunevs of Tuva and Elunins of the Upper Ob region is beyond doubt, and it is probably the only one among the former (Gokhman, 1980; Solodovnikov and Tur, 2003; Kozintsev, 2008). This corresponds to archaeological evidence that these groups are related to the population of Western Europe in the Early Bronze Age (Kovalev, 2007). A Caucasoid component is also assumed in carriers of other pre-Andronovian cultures of Southern Siberia - Krotovskaya (Dremov, 1997) and Samus ' (Solodovnikov, 2005, 2006). K. N. Solodovnikov [Ibid.] believes that in all the mentioned pre-Andronovian groups, with the possible exception of the Yenisei Okunevskaya group, this component had a southern Europoid origin which is especially evident in the men's series.

The origin of the Andronovo community is one of the central problems in the history of Indo - European peoples. The Indo-Iranian or Iranian identity of this community can be considered proven (Kuzmina, 2008). The relationship between its two constituent parts - Alakul (western) and Fedorovskaya, spread east to the Yenisei-is unclear. As for the genesis of the first one, which apparently appeared in the third millennium BC (Chernykh, 2008), the essential role of the Poltavka, catacomb, and Abashev cultures in this process is proved. The origin of the Fedorov group, which was formed later and co-existed with the Alakul group for most of the second millennium BC, remains unclear (Tkacheva and Tkachev, 2008).

Anthropologists have found a distinct heterogeneity of the Andronovo population. People buried in graves with Alakul or mixed Alakul-Fedorov (Kozhumberdyn) ceramics on the territory of Western Kazakhstan were characterized by a type that V. V. Ginzburg [1962] called Mediterranean, and V. P. Alekseev [1964] called hypomorphic narrow-faced. The first researcher believed that this indicates that the Alakul people are related both to the log population of the Volga steppes and to the inhabitants of the Central Asian interfluve. The second idea was challenged by V. P. Alekseev, who believes that archaeological data only allow us to consider connections with log cabins as real. V. V. Ginzburg ignored this criticism and repeated his previous conclusion in a generalizing monograph [Ginzburg, Trophy-

page 126
mova, 1972, p. 94]. However, neither he nor V. P. Alekseev used statistics in this case and were based on typological definitions.

As for the Fedorovites, who are mostly representatives of the" classical " Andronov type, one of the variants of the proto - European race, G. F. Debets [1948, p.70] considered the Kazakh steppes to be the source of their origin, and from there, in his opinion, these people moved to the Yenisei. Meanwhile, V. P. Alekseev (1961) believed that the Yenisei Andronovites were descended from the Afanasyevites of Altai. In addition, the Upper Ob and Altai Fedorovites have a gracile Europoid component, which researchers call the Mediterranean component. Its presence here was explained in various ways: V. A. Dremov [1997, p. 95-96] - by connections with Alakultsy, K. N. Solodovnikov [2005, 2007] - by the Preandronovsky, in particular Eluninsky, substrate. People buried in the "andronoid" burial grounds of the Tomsk Ob region (Yelovka II) According to V. A. Dremov (1997, p.121), they were different from the Andronovites and were descended from the local population of the pre-Andronov period. Finally, the origin of the Caucasian population of Xinjiang, which left the Gumugou Bronze Age burial ground, remains a complete mystery (Han Kangxin, 1986; Mair, 2005).

The purpose of this work is to study the question of early migrations of Caucasians to Siberia using modern statistical methods on the basis of extensive craniological material, a significant part of which has not yet been widely used in our country.

Material and methodology

Only data on men's groups were used. Among them are nine Afanasievskys, including six Altayskys and three Minusskys [Alekseev, 1961, 1989, p. 352; Solodovnikov, 2003]. Material from other cultures includes four Okunev series from the Minusinsk basin (Gromov, 1997b), one from Tuva (Alekseev, Gokhman, Tumen, 1987), Karakol series (Chikisheva, 2000; Tur and Solodovnikov, 2005), Elunin series (Solodovnikov and Tur, 2003), Ust-Tartass series, and Krotovek series from Sopka-2 (unpublished data by T. A. Chikisheva) and Samusskaya (Dremov, 1997; Solodovnikov, 2005). Andronovsky series used seven. Two of them - from Western Kazakhstan [Alekseev, 1967] and from the Ermak IV burial ground in the Omsk Irtysh region [Dremov, 1997, pp. 81-85, 96] - represent mainly the Alakul community. The Fedorovian series originates from the Firsovo XIV burial ground in the Barnaul Ob region (Solodovnikov, 2005), other burial grounds in the Upper Ob region (Ibid.), Northern, Central, and Eastern Kazakhstan (Ibid.)*, Rudny Altai (Solodovnikov, 2007), and the Minusinsk Basin (Alekseev, 1961; Dremov, 1997). In addition, data on two series from the "andronoid" burial grounds of Western Siberia - Elovka II and Chernoozerye I (Dremov, 1997, pp. 83, 85, 105-106), as well as on the Bronze Age series from Xinjiang (Gumugou) (Han Kangxin, 1986).

Unpublished data on Bronze Age materials from Ukraine were kindly provided to me by S. I. Kruz; for sources of information on most groups published by domestic researchers, see my works (Kozintsev, 2000, 2007, 2008). Data on the series from the territory of foreign Europe and the Middle East are taken from the report of I. Schwidetzky and F. Resing (1990).

A total of 220 male craniological series from Eurasia dating back to the Neolithic and Bronze Ages were included in the analysis. Of these, 128, mainly from the CIS, were studied in full, from which 14 signs were taken (three diameters of the skull, forehead width, width and height of the face, nose and orbit, nasomalar and zygomaxillary angles, simotic index and nose protrusion angle), and 92 series from the territory of foreign Europe and the United States. Middle East-according to an incomplete one, from which 9 linear dimensions are taken (the main diameters of the skull, the smallest width of the forehead, the zygomatic diameter, the width and height of the orbit and nose). The height of the face in the latter case was not taken into account in order to avoid errors caused by methodological discrepancies.

The data was subjected to canonical analysis. The groups were compared in pairs using the generalized Mahalanobis distance () adjusted for abundance (Rightmire, 1969). As a result of the correction, some values of are negative; they should be considered as sample estimates of zero or a very small positive value.

I didn't try to create a general classification of groups. As you know, all methods aimed at this, lead to distortions. In cluster analysis, the distortions increase as the similarity decreases. In two-dimensional projections defined by canonical axes or non-metric scaling vectors, on the contrary, close relationships are most strongly distorted for the sake of more adequate transmission of general relations. The larger the problem solved by the researcher, and, accordingly, the wider the territory covered by the analysis, the more details are sacrificed when trying to create a generalized classification. Such distortions may have played a role in the theory that all gracile Caucasians are closely related.

* K. N. Solodovnikov excluded skulls from other cultural burials from the series that previously appeared in the literature.

page 127
"From a bird's eye view" this is true, but in this situation, insufficient attention to details can lead to serious errors.

I will point out another advantage of the analysis of initial distances in comparison with the methods of dimension reduction. The latter are sensitive to the selection of groups; for example, the order of series on the Europoid-Mongoloid scale depends on the representation of different morphotypes. Distances do not depend on this factor if a standard intra-group correlation matrix is used, as in this paper.

Results

Here are the minimum values of D2 (usually up to 1.0) obtained when analyzing groups in the full program and ranked in each case in ascending order (i.e., in descending similarity). The results of the analysis for an incomplete set of features (distances up to 0.3) are given for those groups with at least one foreign parallel found in comparison with this set; the numbers of the corresponding series in the summary are indicated in square brackets [Schwidetzky and Rosing, 1990]. For the Afanasiev group from Saldyar, these results are not given, because it is very small and shows a huge number of parallels, including among the European groups of the Neolithic and Bronze Ages (these parallels are not in the first place).

Afanasyevites of the Ursul River: Afanasyevites of the Lower Tyumechin (-1.12), catacombs of the Don region (0.59), log cabins of the Volga region from Luzanovka (0.66), representatives of the early "North Caucasian culture" of Kalmykia, group II (0.70).

Afanasyevites of Saldyar I: yamniki of the Volga-Ural region (-2.49), yamniki of Orenburg region (-2.47), Yamno-Poltavka group of the Volga-Ural region (-2.42), late catacombs of the Lower Dnieper region from Verkhne-Tarasovka (-2.35), Afanasyevites from Afanasyeva Gora (-2.35) and Karasuk III (-2.30), representatives of the early " North Caucasian culture"Kalmykia, group II (-2.10), Afanasievites of the Minusinsk basin, total series (-1.87), andronovtsy of the Upper Ob region from Firsov XIV (-1.82), yamniki of the Southern Bug River (-1.79), yamniki of the Southern Bug River (-1.79). Ingulets (-1.51), early catacombs of the Molochnaya River (-1.36), log cabins of the Volga Region from Luzanovka (-1.34), catacombs of the Volga region (-1.23) and Kalmykia (-1.23). Other numerous close parallels are represented mainly by catacomb and log cabin groups.

Afanasyevtsy Kuroty II: poltavkintsy (-1.38), afanasyevtsy Saldyara (0.59), catacombs of the Volga region (0.96).

Afanasyevites of Ust-Kuyum: late catacombs of the Samara-Orel interfluve (-0.42), Yamniki river. Ingulets (-0.20), yamniki of Stavropol (-0.07), andronovtsy of the Minusinsk basin (0.51), late catacombs of Zaporozhye (0.80).

Afanasyevites of the Southeastern Altai: Afanasyevites of the Lower Tyumechin (-0.38), catacombs of the Don region (-0.18), early catacombs of the Lower Tyumechin River. Molochnaya (-0.09), Lower Dnieper pitmen from Kakhovka (-0.05), Lower Don Region log houses from Yasyrev (0.16), Saldyar Afanasyevites (0.22), Southern Bug River pitmen (0.23), Volga River log houses from Luzanovka (0.24), Ukrainian pitmen, total series (0.47), early Lower Dnieper catacombs from Verkhne- Tarasovka (0.75), log cabins of the Lower Volga region from Krivoy Luka (0.81), log cabins of the Volga region, total series (0.86), log cabins of the Volgograd and Astrakhan regions (0.89), Yamno-Poltavka group of the Volga-Urals (0.91), catacombs of Kalmykia (0.95).

Afanasyevites of the Lower Tyumechin I: Afanasyevites of the Ursul River (-1.12), catacombs of the Don Region (-0.86), early catacombs of the Lower Dnieper Region from Verkhne-Tarasovka (-0.76), log cabins of the Lower Don Region from Yasyrev (-0.52), Afanasyevites of the South-Eastern Altai (-0.38), log cabins of the Lower Volga Region from Krivoy Luka (-0.25), log cabins of the Volga region from Luzanovka (-0.07), Yamno-Poltavka group of the Volga-Ural region (0.27), afanasyevtsy of Saldyar (0.56), Yamniki river. Ingulets (0.77), Yamniki of Ukraine, total series (0.83).

Afanasyevites of Altai (total group): log cabins of the Volga region from Luzanovka (0.23), catacombs of the Don region (0.29), log cabins of Bashkiria (0.79), log cabins of the Lower Volga region from Krivoy Luka (0.96).

Afanasyevites of Karasuk III: Afanasyevites of Saldyar (-2.30), pitmen of the Volga-Ural Region (-0.96), Afanasyevites of Afanasieva Gora (-0.54), log houses of the Volga-Ural Region (-0.32), late catacombs of the Lower Dnieper region from Verkhne-Tarasovka (-0.25), catacombs of the Volga region (-0.22), late catacombs of the Crimea (0.01), pitmen Orenburg Region (-0.13), Yamno-Poltavka group of the Volga-Urals (0.24), Potapovtsy (0.73), log cabins of the Lower Don region from Yasyrev (0.90).

Afanasievites of Afanasieva Gora: Afanasievites of Saldyar (-2.35), late catacombs of the Lower Dnieper region from Verkhne-Tarasovka (-1.60), log cabins of the Volgograd and Astrakhan regions (-0.66), Afanasievites of Karasuk III (-0.54), early catacombs of the Molochnaya River (-0.46), log cabins of the Lower Don Region from Yasyrev (-0.13), yamniki of the Yuzhny River Bug (0.21), early catacombs of the Lower Dnieper region from Kakhovka (0.44), pits of the Volga-Ural Region (0.85), log cabins of the Volga region (0.88), pits of the Orenburg region (0.89), log cabins of the Lower Volga region from Krivoy Luka (0.96). An incomplete set of features reveals one parallel in Europe - with the Eneolithic group from Aveyron, France, III millennium BC (0.04), but the links with the steppe Eastern European population of the Bronze Age are more distinct.

page 128
Afanasyevites of the Minusinsk basin (total group): Afanasyevites of Saldyar (-1.87), log cabins of the Lower Don Region from Yasyrev (-0.71), log cabins of the Volgograd and Astrakhan regions (-0.12), late catacombs of the Lower Dnieper Region from Verkhne-Tarasovka (-0.06), yamniki of Orenburg region (0.22), early catacombs of the Molochnaya River (0.24), log cabins of the Volga Region from Luzanovka (0.64), pits of the Volga-Ural Region (0.65), catacombs of Kalmykia (0.81), pits of the Southern Bug River (0.82), log cabins of the Volga region (0.85), Yamno-Poltavka group of the Volga-Ural Region (0.93), log cabins of the Lower Volga region from Krivoy Luka (0.95), Abashevtsy (0.99).

Okunevtsy of Uibat: close only to okunevtsy of the Taskhaza group (-0.95). The following places are occupied by Okunevtsy Chernovoi (1.44) and Karasuktsy (1.90).

Okunevtsy of the Upper Askiz: Neolithic population of the Krasnoyarsk-Kansky district (-0.07).

Okunevtsy Chernovoy: Neolithic population of the Krasnoyarsk-Kansky district (0.36), okunevtsy Uibat (1.44).

Okunevtsy of the Tas-Khaza group: close only to okunevtsy of Uibat (-0.95). Karasuk residents are in second place (1.77).

Okunevtsy of the Minusinsk basin (total group): close only to the Neolithic group of the Krasnoyarsk-Kansk region (0.15). Karasuk residents are in second place (3,37).

Okunevtsy of Tuva: Yamniki river. Ingulets (-0.21), log cabins of the Saratov region (-0.10), early catacombs of the Molochnaya River (0.41), log cabins from ground graves of Ukraine (0.45), a group of Southern Uzbekistan from Sapallitepe (0.67). Based on an incomplete set of features: early catacombs of the Molochnaya River (-1.21); Late Neolithic group of the end of the fourth millennium BC from Ostorf (northern Germany), belonging to the Tiefstichkeramik culture - a variant of the funnel-shaped goblet culture [N 106] (-1.15); Afanasyevites of Afanasieva Gora (-0.76), Yamniki of the Molochnaya River. Ingulets (-0.53), late catacombs of the Lower Dnieper region from Verkhne-Tarasovka (-0.39), Afanasyevites of the Minusinsk basin (-0.37), log cabins of the Volgograd and Astrakhan regions (-0.26), Abashevites (-0.26), a group of Southern Uzbekistan from Sapallitepe (-0.02), Yeluninites (0.01), Afanasyevites of Saldyar (0.24), log cabins of Volga Region from Cartilage (0.29).

Karakol: close only to the Neolithic group of the Upper Ob region - Ust-Isha and Itkul (0.98). In second place is the group from Yelovka II (3.87), okunevtsy is much further away (7.26).

Yelunin residents: not a single close parallel. The least removed are the Okunevs of Tuva (1.56), the second place is occupied by the group from Dzharat and Shengavit, representing the Kuro-Arak culture of Armenia of the IV-III millennium BC (2.16), the third place is occupied by the national team of the Kuro - Arak culture from Georgia (2.65), and the fourth place is occupied by the Xinjiang group from Gumugou (3.83). Based on an incomplete set of features: Poltavka (-0.13), Okunevtsy of Tuva (0.01), early catacombs of the Molochnaya River (0.01), log cabins of the forest - steppe Volga region (0.22), Mezhanovice culture group, Early Bronze Age of Poland, late III-first half of II millennium BC [N 173] (0.28).

Ust-tartassets of Sopka-2: close only to krotovtsy of Sopka-2 (0.72). The second place is taken by the Neolithic group from Ust-Isha and Itkul (4.95).

Krotovtsy Sopki-2: close only to kusti-tartassets Sopki-2 (0.72). In second place is the group from Chernoozerye (3,36).

Samus: not a single close parallel. The least removed residents of Poltavka (1,18).

Alakultsy of Western Kazakhstan: early catacombs of the Molochnaya River (-1.35), Yamniki of the Molochnaya River. Ingulets (-0.36), early catacombs of the Lower Dnieper region from Verkhne-Tarasovka (0.44), late log cabins of the Volga-Ural Region (0.54), Kemi-obintsy (0.88). Based on an incomplete set of features: early catacombs of the Russian Empire. Molochnaya (-1.39), Ingulets River pits (-0.88), log cabins from ground graves in Ukraine (-0.79), Lower Dnieper pits from Kakhovka (-0.67), representatives of the advanced and Late Bronze Age of Turkmenistan - Parkhai II (-0.61), carriers of the Tisapolgar culture, Hungary, Early Bronze Age (V-IV millennium BC).N 197] (-0.38), late log cabins of the Volga-Ural region (-0.16), carriers of the Ressin culture, Eastern France, Neolithic (V millennium BC) [N 43] (-0.09), representatives of the spherical amphora culture, Germany, Poland, Early Bronze Age (early III millennium BC).N 192] (-0.07), log cabins of Ukraine, total series (-0.03), carriers of the Lendjel culture, Hungary, Neolithic (V millennium BC) [N 40] (0.07), population of the Mecklenburg region, Germany, Early Bronze Age (IV-III millennium BC) [N 107] (0.07), population of the Aveyron region, France, Early Bronze Age (III millennium BC) [N 99] (0.09), carriers of the Unetician culture, Germany, Bronze Age (III-II millennium BC) [N 208] (0.09), representatives of the linear-band ceramics, Neolithic (VI millennium BC) [N 14] (0.11), yamniki of the Southern Pobuzhye (0.20), carriers of the Veter culture, Austria, Bronze Age (III-II millennium BC) [N 205] (0.21).

Alakultsy of the Omsk Irtysh region (Ermak IV): not a single close parallel. The least removed are the late yamniks of Kalmykia* (1,32).

Fyodorovites of Firsov XIV Afanasievites of Saldyar (-1.82), Fyodorovites of Rudny Altai (-0.04), catacombs of Kalmykia (0.06), Yamno-Poltavka group of the Volga-Urals (0.43), log cabins of the Volga region from Luzanovka (0.87), yamniki of the Orenburg region (0.90), early catacombs of the Molochnaya River (0.94).

* Group III according to V. A. Safronov (see: [Shevchenko, 1986]).

page 129
Fyodorovtsy of the Upper Ob region (combined group): catacombs of Stavropol (0.50), late pitmen of Kalmykia (0.80), pitmen of Stavropol (0.90).

Fyodorovtsy of Rudny Altai: Samusps (-0.82), Afanasyevites of Saldyar (-0.71), log cabins of the Volga region from Luzanovka (-0.12), Fedorovites of Firsov XIV (-0.04), Yamno-Poltavka group of the Volga-Urals (-0.02), representatives of the early "North Caucasian culture" of Kalmykia, Group II (0.61), Potapovites (0.63), Fedorovites of the Northern and Central regions and Eastern Kazakhstan (0.79), late catacombs of the Lower Dnieper region from Kakhovka (0.82), catacombs of the Don region (0.83), yamniki of the Orenburg region (0.88), and Poltavkintsy (0.99).

Fedorovtsy of Northern, Central and Eastern Kazakhstan: late Yamnik Kalmykia (-1.50), late catacombniki of the Southern Pobuzhye (-1.44), fedorovtsy of the Minusinsk Basin (-0.67), representatives of the early "North Caucasian culture" of Kalmykia, group II (-0.59), late catacombniki of the Lower Dnieper from Kakhovka (-0.47), Potapovtsy (-0.13), catacombniki Volga Region (0.08), late Kryvyi Rih catacombs (0.16), late Ukrainian catacombs, total series (0.17), Kalmykia pitmen (0.47), Stavropol pitmen (0.51) , late Samara-Orel interfluve catacombs (0.54), Volga log cabins from Luzanovka (0.57), representatives of the late" North Caucasian culture " of Kalmykia, Group IV (0.72), late catacombs of Zaporozhye (0.74), Fedorovites of Rudny Altai (0.79), Khvalyn group of the Volga-Urals (0.88).

Fyodorovites of the Minusinsk basin: Fyodorovites of Northern, Central and Eastern Kazakhstan (-0.67), representatives of the late "North Caucasian culture" of Kalmykia, Group IV (-0.09), pitmen of Stavropol (-0.04), late pitmen of Kalmykia (-0.03), late catacombs of Kryvyi Rih (0.31), late catacombs of the Samara-Orel interfluve (0.39), Afanasyevites Gorny Altai from Ust-Kuyum (0.51), late catacombs of the Lower Dnieper region from Kakhovka (0.57), representatives of the early "North Caucasian culture" of Kalmykia, group II (0.69), log cabins of the Volga region from Luzanovka (0.72), late catacombs of the Crimea (0.83), late catacombs of Ukraine, total series (0.84).

Representatives of the Andronovo epoch of the Omsk Irtysh region (Chernoozerye I): late krotovtsy Sopka-2 (0.91).

Representatives of the Andronovo era of the Tomsk Ob region (Yelovka II): not a single close parallel. The least removed carriers of the Irmen culture (1.01), the following places are occupied by the late krotovtsy Sopki-2 (1.49), the group from Chernoozero (3.42) and Karakoltsy (3.87).

Bronze Age Group from Xinjiang (Gumugou): not a single close parallel. Two Andronovo (Fyodorov) groups are least remote - from Rudny Altai (1.26) and from Northern, Central, and Eastern Kazakhstan (1.28).

Discussion

Afanasyevtsy. The results cast doubt on the traditional idea that the only and immediate ancestors of the Afanasyevites were the carriers of the Yamnaya culture. At least, the anthropological material does not confirm this. The parallels with the pitmen occupy the first place only in the groups from Saldyar and Karasuk III. The Afanasievites have no less analogies with catacombs than with the carriers of the yamnaya culture, and in most cases they are in the first places. There is not a single Afanasiev series that does not have close links with catacomb groups. Meanwhile, the absence of such fossils was noted for two groups of Altai (from the Ursul River, from Kuroty II) and for the total Altai series. For the latter and half of the Altai groups, the craniological analogies with the catacombs of the Don region are most pronounced. The group from Afanasieva Gora and the total Minusinskaya group are closest to the late catacombs of the Lower Dnieper region, and the Altai group from Kurota II is closest to the Poltavka group. These results can be compared with archaeological data, which, according to S. V. Tsybu, indicate a significant role of the Poltavka and Catacomb tribes in the ethnogenesis of the Afanasyevites (1981, 1984).

Surprisingly, no less analogies were found with the carriers of the log culture. For the total group of the Minusinsk basin, they are even more distinct than with catacombs and pits. Srubniki, of course, could not have had anything to do with the origin of the Afanasyevites, since they lived later; there is no indication of the return migration of the Afanasyevites to the west. It is unlikely that the results obtained can be attributed to the not quite uniform representation of the three Eastern European cultures in the database (pit series used 15, catacomb series - 18, log house series-16). Most likely, we see a manifestation of significant stability and uniformity of the anthropological type in the steppes of Eastern Europe during the Bronze Age, despite the change of cultures and, apparently, despite gracilization. Attempts to find the origins of this anthropological type have not yet yielded an unambiguous result.

On the one hand, the yamniks of the Lower Dnieper region (groups from Kakhovka and the Kherson region) and catacombs of the same region (Verkhne-Tarasovka, early group), as well as Kalmykia, show close similarity with the Khvalyn Eneolithic group

page 130
V-IV millennium BC, which, accordingly, could be considered ancestral for a part of the population of the Eurasian steppes of the Bronze Age. The other Eneolithic series, Srednestogovskaya, is much more isolated, and different groups of Afanasyevites of the Altai and catacombs of the Don region are the least remote from it. These facts may indicate the deep Eastern European roots of the carriers of the Yamnaya, catacomb (partially) and Afanasyev cultures.

On the other hand, it seems that not all the roots of the Eastern European steppe population were local. An incomplete program analysis, taking into account a larger number of groups, reveals for such series as Yamnaya with the Ingulets River, early catacomb with the Molochnaya River, from Kakhovka, etc., a number of early (up to the third millennium BC) parallels on the territory of Central and Western Europe. They are especially clearly manifested in the gracile early catacombs of Ukraine: for four groups of this time, 14 close parallels were noted in foreign Europe and 8 in Transcaucasia and southern Central Asia. This seems to be a question of migration, since the late catacombs are more massive than the early ones (Kruz, 1990)and there are no such connections. Nor do the Afanasyevites have them, except for the Saldyar and Afanasieva Gora series 'gravitation to the groups of foreign Europe; however, the Afanasyevites' connections with the early and late Catacombs are approximately evenly distributed. Thus, the roots of the Afanasyev population are most likely located in the steppe and forest-steppe regions of Eastern Europe, but it is not yet possible to connect them with any particular culture.

Okuneets and other groups of the Siberian circle. Two of the four Okunev groups in the Minusinsk basin (Upper Askiz and Chernovaya), as well as the total group, are closest to the Neolithic population of the Krasnoyarsk-Kansk region, as already noted by A.V. Gromov (1997b). The other two (Uibat and Taskhaza) show a distinct proximity only to each other, while in the second place they have a parallel with the Karasuk people.

According to A.V. Gromov [Ibid.], Okunevtsy are the result of mestizoization of eastern and Western populations, and this mixing is manifested both at the intra - group and inter-group levels. Leaving aside the first one, where the reliability of estimates is inevitably lower, I note that at the intergroup level, Okunevs are characterized by a significant peculiarity that is not inherent in any of the supposed parent groups (Caucasian and Mongoloid) and could hardly be a consequence of their mixing. This is also evidenced by craniometric data [Ibid., Fig. 3, 4], and cranioscopic [Gromov and Moiseev, 2004, p. 244-245] data, as well as the results of their integration [Kozintsev, Gromov, Moiseyev, 1999; Kozintsev, Gromov, Moiseev, 2003; Kozintsev, 2004]. In addition, if the catacomb component really did participate in the composition of the Okunev population, then its participation would also have to be allowed in relation to the Neolithic population of the Krasnoyarsk-Kansky district, to which the Okunevites are very close. Since there is no evidence for this, it is more reasonable to assume that the Okunevites are of local origin, and the European elements recorded by archaeologists in their culture could be the result of borrowing.

An indirect indication of the presence of a Western element in the Okunev population could be considered the morphological attraction of some of its groups to the Karasuk people, whose Europeoid nature is not doubted for craniometric reasons, and because of light pigmentation [Keyser et al., 2009]. The genetic continuity between the Okunev and Karasuk people is all the more likely because the latter have no other connections than the Okunev ones, except for a close resemblance to their contemporaries, the Mongun - Taiga people of Tuva. On the territory of Europe, the catacombs of Stavropol Territory are the least morphologically removed from the Karasuk population. However, cranioscopically, the Karasuk people are very far from the Okunev people (Gromov, 1997a).

The similarity of the Karakol culture carriers with the Neolithic and Eneolithic populations of the Upper Ob region (Ust-Isha, Itkul, Solontsy-5) has already been noted (Chikisheva, 2000; Tur and Solodovnikov, 2005). In this case, both territorial proximity and morphological similarity indicate genetic continuity, while mestizoism, although quite possible, has not yet been proven.

The same should be said about other groups of the Siberian circle - Ust-Tartass and Krotovsky from Sopka-2, "andronoid" from Elovka II and Chernoozerye I. The results of statistical analysis indicate their kinship, which is manifested despite the morphological isolation of each of them (only groups from Sopka are similar to each other), as well as their local roots (see also: [Dremov, 1997; Gromov, 1997b; Tur and Solodovnikov, 2005]). Integration of craniometric and cranioscopic data for the Sopka and Elovka series indicates archaism [Kozintsev, Gromov, Moiseev, 2003; Gromov, Moiseev, 2004; Kozintsev, 2004], while the role of the Western component remains completely unclear, since none of these groups reveals any European parallels, regardless of the method of analysis.

Preandronoi groups of western gravitation. I have already discussed the anthropological features of the Okunev people of Tuva, Yelunin people, and Samus people (Kozintsev, 2008). For the Tuvan Okunevites, the European parallels (Yamnaya, Ranneka-takombnaya, Srubnye) are the most distinct, and the analysis of an incomplete set of features additionally reveals a close one, with

page 131
an early parallel in Europe-a group representing the Neolithic culture of the funnel-shaped cups of Central and Northern Europe (late IV millennium BC). Migration, therefore, clearly occurred from the west. Apparently, this was not the migration that brought the ancestors of the Afanasyevites to the Altai and Yenisei, since the Afanasyevian parallels among the Okunevites of Tuva are not as clear as the European ones.

The situation with Yelunin residents is less clear. This group is morphologically isolated, being the least remote from the Tuvan Okunevites (Solodovnikov and Tur, 2003). In the light of the hypothesis about the role of "Merraneans" in the ethnogenesis of the South Siberian population, two early Transcaucasian - Kuro-Arak parallels (not very close, however) deserve attention. At the same time, the analysis of an incomplete set of features reveals a later parallel in Poland. The source of migration, therefore, cannot be identified.

In the case of Samustsy, the Poltavka parallel is most pronounced. Let me remind you that it is also in the first place among the Altai Afanasyevites from Kurota II. The role of the Poltavka culture as a major focus of Indo-European migrations to the east is beyond doubt (see, for example, [Kuzmina, 2008, p. 4). 128, 176, 189 - 192]), disputes are only about which branch of Indo-Europeans should be identified with the carriers of this culture.

Andronoets. According to the results of the analysis, the carriers of both Andronovo traditions - Alakul and Fedorovskaya-were genetically related to the population of the southern Russian steppes, but their roots are different. I will start with the Fedorovites, since it is precisely with the Fedorov tradition that the "classical" Andronovo anthropological type is associated.

The Verkhneobskaya group from Firsov XIV perfectly confirms the hypothesis of V. P. Alekseev [1961] concerning the Yenisei Andronovites. In the first place there is an exceptional proximity to the Altai Afanasyevites from Saldyar. True, the Saldyar series is very small. But if we also take into account the territorial proximity of the Barnaul Ob region to the Altai Mountains, then this direction of relations acquires a certain probability. It is also necessary to take into account the parallels with the catacombs of Kalmykia and the Yamno-Poltavka group of the Volga-Urals. Neither Alakul nor Elunin connections are found. Very close to the Saldyar afanasyevites and fedorovtsy Rudny Altai. True, in the first place they have a parallel with the Samus skulls, but there are only three male Samus skulls, so it's too early to draw any conclusions on this basis. As in the case of the group from Firsov XIV, the proximity to the Kamno-Poltavka people of the Volga-Ural region is important, but this connection may not be direct, but indirect (through the Afanasyevites of the Altai).

The situation is different with the other three Fedorov groups. All the closest connections of the Verkhneobskaya group lead directly to South-Eastern Europe, moreover, to one of its regions and one epoch: the Late Yamnaya and Catacomb times of the North Caucasus and the North-Western Caspian region. G. F. Debets (1948, pp. 73-76) argued with S. V. Kiselev, who denied the migration of Andronovites from Kazakhstan to the West. Yenisei on the basis of" sedentary behavior", allegedly characteristic of ancient tribes. The route from South-Eastern Europe to Southern Siberia is even more distant, and it was hardly straight. The main events of the ethnogenetic history apparently took place in the intermediate territory of the Southern Urals - in the supposed focus of Indo-Iranian ethnogenesis [Kuzmina, 2008], but the anthropological materials related to Sintashta are extremely scarce. The situation is the same with the Fyodorovites of Northern, Central, and Eastern Kazakhstan: here, too, the similarity with the late Yamniks of Kalmykia is in the first place; other connections are mostly late catacomb, and there is also a Potapov parallel. Yenisei Fyodorovtsy are closest to the Fyodorov population of Northern, Central, and Eastern Kazakhstan, which confirms the idea of g. F. Debetz. But even on the Yenisei, the anthropological heritage of late pit and Late catacomb ancestors can be clearly traced. In this case, the similarity with the Altai Afanasyevites is also noted, but it is less pronounced than with the Yamnik and catacomb people.

As for the Alakuls, the series from the Ermak IV burial ground, like the Fedorovs, was closest to the late Yamnikas of Kalmykia. The situation with the Alakul people of Western Kazakhstan, who are usually referred to as Mediterranean in the literature, is very unusual. True, in the first places there are also similarities with yamniki and catacombs, but not late, but early, and not in Kalmykia, but in a more remote region - Ukraine. Parallels with the srubniki-contemporaries of the Alakul people-apparently indicate both common roots and mixing. In terms of the origin of the Alakul people, it is much more interesting to have numerous connections with the more ancient population of foreign Europe of the Neolithic and Early Bronze Ages. These connections are completely absent in the other six Andronovo groups. We must not forget, of course, that the incomplete program used to study foreign groups does not include important indicators for profiling the face and nose. Nevertheless, several conclusions can be drawn with confidence.

First of all, it is impossible to call the West Kazakhstan Alakuls Mediterranean, since they have practically no Middle Eastern, Transcaucasian, or Central Asian parallels (the only one is with the group of the Advanced and Late Bronze Age from Turkmenistan). Thus, in the dispute between V. P. Alekseev and V. V. Ginzburg, the former was right, but his conclusion about the exclusively western direction of relations between the Alakuls has, as it turns out, a much broader significance.

page 132
The chronology and geography of parallels allow us to reconstruct the main stages of migration, one of which brought the ancestors of the Alakul people to Western Kazakhstan. These stages are as follows: foreign Europe (before the third millennium BC) - Ukraine (third millennium BC) - North Caucasus and Ciscaucasia* - Western Kazakhstan (second millennium BC).. The special role of two groups from the territory of Ukraine - the Yamnaya group from the Ingulets River and the Early catacomb group from the Molochnaya River - as possible evidence of the migration path of Indo-Europeans (probably Aryans) from Central Europe to the east has already been noted by me [Kozintsev, 2007, 2008].

The movement of gracile Caucasians (the ancestors of the Yamnik, early Catacomb and Alakul people) from the territory of foreign Europe to Ukraine and further east probably preceded the migration of proto-European ancestors of the late Catacomb and most of the Fedorovites from the North Caucasus and Eastern Ciscaucasia to the east and west (for their migration to Ukraine, see [Kruz, 1990]).. This is confirmed by the earlier appearance of the Alakul tradition in comparison with the Fedorov tradition (Chernykh, 2008). The oldest (pre-Andronovian) evidence for the penetration of gracile Caucasians into Central Asia is found in some Afanasiev groups of the Altai (Saldyar, etc.), Okunevs of Tuva, Elunins, and possibly Samus. We are therefore talking about several migrations that began in the pre-Iron Age, and perhaps also about the constant movement of people along the Eurasian steppes from west to east, which lasted for many centuries of the Bronze Age. Reconstruction of the details of this historical process is complicated by another biological process - gracilization. It cannot be ruled out that in some cases we mistake similarity for evidence of kinship, whereas in reality it indicates only stadium proximity, in particular, that the groups are at the same stage of the gracilization process. Theoretically, however, it is unlikely that gracilization can lead to convergent similarity of unrelated groups across the entire set of features. Only the closest relationships can be considered to reduce the impact of this factor. This is the path chosen in this paper.

Proto-Europeans apparently also migrated to Central Asia from the west, and these migrations also probably occurred several times. Thus, if the Afanasyevites are craniologically closest to the catacombs of the Don region and Ukraine, then the ancestors of the Fyodorov Andronovites of the "classical" type-representatives of the later wave of proto-European migration-judging by the results of statistical analysis, were late Yamniks and catacombs of the more eastern regions -the North Caucasus and the North-Western Caspian region.

It should be noted that there is no similarity between any Andronovo populations and the Abashev culture carriers. The Poltavka connections are found only in those Fyodorov groups for which the Afanasiev (Altaian) parallels are most obvious.

The Bronze Age population of Xinjiang (Gumugou). In the previous work (Kozintsev, 2008), only one parallel was noted for the Xinjiang from the Gumugou group, which is probably Proto - Tocharian in terms of language affiliation (Mallory, 1998; Renfrew, 1998; Mair, 2005; Kuzmina, 2007, p. 96): the combined Andronovo group from Northern, Eastern, and Central Kazakhstan. Now there are two of them, and the second one also belongs to the Andronovo population and to the region adjacent to East Kazakhstan - Rudny Altai (Solodovnikov, 2007). Although the two parallels are not particularly close, such a coincidence is hardly accidental.

The results obtained confirm the data of Chinese researchers (Han Kangxin, 1986; He Huiqin and Xu Yongqing, 2002), which indicate the northern (steppe) gravity of the Gumugou group. Since it does not show any Central Asian or Near-Asian connections, * * it can be assumed that the ancient Caucasians penetrated Xinjiang not from the west, along the route coinciding with the later Great Silk Road, but from the north, along the Black Irtysh Valley or through the Dzungarian Gate. This assumption is supported by the fair hair of these people and the distinctly European appearance of their culture (Mallory and Mair, 2000). The latter, however, differs significantly from both the Afanasiev and Andronovo cultures (Molodin and Alkin, 1997), but it also has similarities with them and with European cultures, in particular the Yamnaya culture (Kuzmina, 2007, p.94).

According to Renfrew, Proto-Tocharian and Proto-Indo-Iranian, along with Proto-Scythian, were descendants of the same language, which the author called "ancient Indo-European", and this, in turn, branched off from Proto-Indo-European, localized in the Balkans (Renfrew, 1998; Renfrew, 2002). This hypothesis is much more consistent with anthropological data.

* The series of Eneolithic and Bronze Age epochs published by V. P. Alekseev from the North Caucasus is extremely similar to the Alakul one (-1.02), but it seems to be very diverse in terms of cultural affiliation.

** B. Hemphill's data on the similarity of people from Gumugou with groups from Harappa (Hemphill and Mallory, 2004) seem to be explained by an extremely limited set of series and traits in his sample. In addition, in his joint publication with J. Mallory, where this monument is called Chawrigul, the original measurements published by Han Kangxin are given with distortions.

page 133
the theory that the ancestors of the Indo-Iranians and Tochars migrated to the east directly from their ancient Anatolian ancestral homeland, without entering Europe (Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, 1984).

Conclusions

1. The results obtained do not confirm the opinion about the exclusive role of the Yamnaya population in the formation of the Afanasyev community. The Altai Afanasyevites are closest to the catacombs of the Don Region, while the Yenisei ones are closest to the late catacombs of the Lower Dnieper region. The Altai group from Kurota II is most similar to the Poltavka people.

2. The Okunevites of the Minusinsk basin, the carriers of the Karakol, Ust-Tartass and Krotovo cultures, as well as the people buried in the" andronoid " burial grounds of Yelovka II and Chernoozerye, apparently were descendants of the local Neolithic population, which was distinguished by significant originality against the background of first-order races. The role of the Western component in the formation of these groups remains unclear.

3. The Okunevites of Tuva have particularly strong connections with the Yamnik and early catacomb sites of Ukraine, and there is an early Central European parallel related to the culture of funnel cups in the territory of Germany. The Yelunin people, who are attracted to the Okunev people of Tuva, do not show a pronounced affinity with anyone else (there are two indistinct parallels with the carriers of the Kuro-Arak culture of Transcaucasia and one with the population of Poland of the Bronze Age). The Samus people are the least remote from the Poltavka people.

4. The Alakul people of Western Kazakhstan, apparently, were descendants of the Yamniks and early catacombs of the southern Russian steppes. The origins of this relatively gracile population date back to the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age of foreign Europe.

5. The probable ancestors of the Fyodorovites of Firsov XIV and Rudny Altai are gracile Altai Afanasyevites of the Saldyar type. The Fedorovites of the Upper Ob region (a combined group), Northern, Central, and Eastern Kazakhstan, and the Minusinsk Basin, and possibly the Alakulites of the Omsk Irtysh region, were descended from proto-European pit and catacomb groups. Their parallels with the late Yamnik and catacomb sites of the North Caucasus and Kalmykia are most pronounced.

6. The population of Bronze Age Xinjiang (Gumugou) shows connections with the Andronovites of Northern, Central, Eastern Kazakhstan and Rudny Altai, which supports the hypothesis of their steppe, rather than Middle Eastern origin.

7. It is impossible to call any gracile Europoid groups of the considered regions Mediterranean because they do not have any clearly defined anthropological connections with the Middle East, Central Asia, and Transcaucasia. The Kuroarak parallels of the Yelunin people are very indistinct and do not compare with the huge number of closest analogies between the graceful Caucasians of Southern Siberia, Kazakhstan and Central Asia and the population of the steppes of Southern Russia and Ukraine of the Bronze Age. We are talking, apparently, about representatives of the northern branch of the Caucasian race.

Acknowledgements

I express my heartfelt gratitude to S. I. Kruz (Institute of Archaeology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine) for providing unpublished data on craniological series from the territory of Ukraine and to T. A. Chikisheva for providing me with unpublished data on groups from Sopka-2. I thank L. S. Klein, S. S. Tur, and K. N. Solodovnikov for their valuable comments.

List of literature

Paleoanthropology of the Neolithic and Bronze age Altai-Sayan highlands // Antropologicheskii sbornik [An anthropological collection], Moscow; L.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1961, Issue 3, pp. 107-206.

Alekseev V. P. Antropologicheskiy tip naseleniya zapadnykh rayonov rasprostraneniya andronovskaya kul'tury [The anthropological type of the population of the western regions of the Andronovo culture distribution]. Tashkent: Tashkent Publishing House. State University, 1964. - p. 20-28. - (Scientific works of Tashkent State University; issue 235).

Alekseev V. P. Antropologiya andronovskaya kul'tury [Anthropology of the Andronovo culture].

Alekseev V. P. Istoricheskaya antropologiya i etnogenez [Historical anthropology and ethnogenesis]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1989, 446 p.

Alekseev V. P., Gokhman I. I., Tumen D. Kratkiy ocherk paleoanthropologii Tsentral'noi Azii (kamennyi vek - epokha rannego zheleza) [A brief sketch of the Paleoanthropology of Central Asia (the Stone Age-the Epoch of Early Iron)]. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1987, pp. 208-241.

Bobrov V. V. K probleme migratsiy evropeoidnogo naseleniya na territorii Yuzhnoi Sibiri v seiminskuyu epokhu [On the problem of migrations of the Caucasian population on the territory of Southern Siberia in the Seimin era]. Barnaul: Alt. State University Publ., 1994, pp. 53-58.

Gamkrelidze T. V., Ivanov Vyach. Vs. Indo-European language and Indo-Europeans. - Tbilisi: Publishing House of the Tbilisi State University, 1984. - Vol. 1. - 435 p.; Vol. 2. - pp. 436-1328.

Ginzburg V. V. Materialy k antropologii naseleniya Zapadnogo Kazakhstana v epokhu bronzy [Materials on the anthropology of the population of Western Kazakhstan in the Bronze Age]. Sorokin V. S. Mogilnik bronzovoy epokhi Tasty-Butak-1 v Zapadnom Kazahstan. - Moscow; L.: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1962. - pp. 188-198 - (MIA; N 120).

Ginzburg V. V., Trofimova T. A. Paleoanthropology of Central Asia, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1972, 371 p.

Gokhman I. I. Origin of the Central Asian race in the light of new paleoanthropological materials.-

page 134
Publications on Paleoanthropology and Craniology of the USSR, Moscow; Leningrad: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1980, pp. 5-34 (Collection of MAE; N 36).

Grigoriev S. A. Ancient Indo-Europeans: Experience of historical reconstruction. Chelyabinsk: Rifey Publ., 1999, 444 p. (in Russian)

Gromov A.V. Kranioskopicheskie osobennosti naseleniya okunevskoy kul'tury [Cranioscopic features of the population of Okunevskaya culture]. - St. Petersburg: [B. I.], 1997a. - P. 294-300.

Gromov A.V. Proiskhozhdenie i svyazi okunevskogo naseleniya Minusinskaya kotloviny [Origin and relations of the Okunevsky population of the Minusinsk depression]. - St. Petersburg: [B. I.], 1997b. - P. 301-345.

Gromov A.V., Moiseev V. G. Cranioscopy of the population of Western and Southern Siberia: geography and chronology // Races and peoples. - 2004. - N 30. - p. 216-248.

Debets G. F. Once again about the blond race in Central Asia. Asia, 1931, No. 5/6, pp. 195-209.

Debets G. F. Paleoanthropologiya SSSR [Paleoanthropology of the USSR], Moscow; L., Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1948, 391 p. (TIEP. Nov. ser.; vol. 4).

Dremov V. A. Population of the Upper Ob region in the Bronze Age (anthropological essay). - Tomsk: Publishing House of the Tomsk State University, 1997. - 261 p.

Kiryushin Yu. F. Eneolithic and Bronze Age of the Southern Taiga zone of Western Siberia. Barnaul: Alt. State University Publ., 2004, 294 p. (in Russian)

Kovalev A. A. Chemurchek cultural phenomenon / / "A.V.": Collection of scientific works in honor of the 60th anniversary of A.V. Vinogradov. Saint Petersburg: Kult-Inform-Press, 2007, pp. 25-76.

Kozintsev A. G. Ob antropologicheskikh svyazyakh i proiskhozhdenii prichernomorskikh skifov [On anthropological relations and the origin of the Black Sea Scythians]. - 2000. - N 3 (3). - p. 145-152.

Kozintsev A. G. Chum salmon, Uralians, Americanoids: integration of craniological data / / Paleoanthropology, ethnic anthropology, ethnogenesis. St. Petersburg: MAE RAS, 2004, pp. 172-185.

Kozintsev A. G. Scythians of the Northern Black Sea Region: mezhgruppovye razlichii, vneshniye svyazi, proiskhozhdenie [Intergroup differences, external relations, origin]. - 2007. - N4(32). - p. 143-157.

Kozintsev A. G. So-called Mediterranean peoples of Southern Siberia and Kazakhstan, Indo-European migrations and the origin of the Scythians / / Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2008. - N 4 (36). - P. 140-144.

Kozintsev A. G., Gromov A.V., Moiseev V. G. Novye dannye o sibirskikh "amerikanoidakh" [New data on Siberian "Americanoids"]. - 2003. - N 3 (15). - p. 149-154.

Kruts S. I. K voprosu ob antropologicheskom sostav naseleniya katakombnoy kul'tury v Severnom Prichernomorye [On the question of the anthropological composition of the population of the catacomb culture in the Northern Black Sea region]. Zaporozhye: [B. I.], 1990, pp. 41-43.

Kuzmina E. E. Arias - the way to the south. - M.; St. Petersburg: Summer Garden, 2008. - 558 p.

Lazaretov I. I. Okunevskie mogilniki v doline reki Uybat [Okunev burial grounds in the Uibat River Valley]. St. Petersburg: [B. I.], 1997, pp. 19-64.

Eneolit yuga SSSR i evraziyskie steppi [Eneolite of the South of the USSR and Eurasian steppes]. Eneolit SSSR, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1982, pp. 321-331.

Molodin V. I., Alkin S. V. Gumugou Burial Ground (Xin-jiang) v kontekste afanas'evskoy problemy [In the context of the Afanasiev problem]. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of the Mat-inform Research Institute. Osnov obucheniya Novosibirsk State University, 1997, pp. 35-38.

Renfrew K. Indo-European problem and development of the Eurasian steppes // Vestn. ancient history. - 2002. - N 2. - p. 20-32.

Semenov V. A. The oldest migration of Indo-Europeans to the East // St. Petersburg. archeol. vestn. - 1993. - N 4. - p. 25-30.

Solodovnikov K. N. Materialy k antropologii afanas'evskoy kul'tury [Materials on the anthropology of the Afanasiev culture]. - 2003. - N 10. - p. 3-27.

Solodovnikov K. N. Craniological materials from the burial ground of the Andronovo culture Firsovo XIV in light of the problems of the formation of the population of the Upper Ob region in the bronze age // the Study of the historical and cultural heritage of the peoples of southern Siberia. - Gorno-Altaisk: Agency for cult. -East. heritage of the Republic of Belarus Altai, 2005, issue 1, pp. 47-75.

Solodovnikov K. N. Population of the mountain and forest-steppe Altai of the early and advanced Bronze Age according to paleoanthropology: Abstract of the dissertation of the Candidate of Historical Sciences. Barnaul, 2006, 25 p. (in Russian)

Solodovnikov K. N. Paleoanthropological materials of the Middle Bronze Age of the upper reaches of the Aley River // Demin M. A., Sitnikov S. M. Materials of the Gilevskaya archaeological expedition. Barnaul: Publishing House of Barnaul State Pedagogical University. un-ta, 2007, part 1, pp. 129-149.

Solodovnikov K. N., Tur S. S. Kraniologicheskie materialy eluninskoy kul'tury epokhi ranney bronzy Verkhnyego Ob'ya [Craniological materials of the Elunin culture of the Early Bronze Age of the Upper Ob region]. Kiryushin Yu. F., Grushin S. P., Tishkin A. A. Pogrebal'nyj obryad naseleniya epokhi ranney bronzy Verkhnyego Ob'ya (po materialam gruntovogo mogilnika Teleutskiy Vzvoz-1). Barnaul: Alt. State University Publ., 2003, pp. 142-176.

Tkacheva N. A., Tkachev A. A. Rol ' migratsiy v razvitii andronovskoi obshchnosti [The role of migrations in the development of the Andronovo community]. - 2008. - N 3 (35). - p. 88-96.

Tur S. S., Solodovnikov K. N. New craniological materials from the burials of the Karakol culture of the Bronze Age of Gorny Altai // Study of the historical and cultural heritage of the peoples of Southern Siberia. - Gorno-Altaisk: Agency for Cultural and Historical Heritage of the Republic of Tatarstan. Altai, 2005, issue 1, pp. 35-47.

Khudaverdyan A. Y. Population of the Armenian Highlands in the Bronze Age: Ethnogenesis and ethnic history. Yerevan: Van Aryan Publ., 2009, 437 p.

Tsyb S. V. Kamennye "boevye" topory Zapadnoy Sibiri [Stone "battle" axes of Western Siberia]. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1981, pp. 6-13.

Tsyb S. V. Afanasyevskaya kul'tura: Avtoref. dis. ... kand. historical sciences. Kemerovo, 1984, 19 p. (in Russian)

Chernykh, E. N., Formation of the Eurasian "Steppe belt" of cattle-breeding cultures: a View through the Prism of archeometallurgy and Radiocarbon Chronology, in Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2008. - N3(35). - p. 36-53.

Chikisheva T. A. Novye dannye ob antropologicheskom sostav naseleniya Altay v epokhi neolita - bronzy [New data on the anthropological composition of the Altai population in the Neolithic-Bronze Age]. - 2000. - N1(1). - pp. 139-148.

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.

page 135
Sher Ya. A. Was there any Okunevskaya culture? / Okunevsky sbornik 2, St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg State University, 2006, pp. 248-250.

Han Kangxin. Anthropological characteristics of the human skulls from the ancient cemetery at Gumu Gou, Xinjiang // Каогу сюэбао (Acta Archaeologica Sinica). - 1986. - N 3. - P. 361-384 (in Chinese, with English summary).

He Huiqin, Xu Yongqing. Anthropological study of ancient human skulls from Wubao site, Hami, Xinjiang // Жэньлейсюэ сюэбао (Acta Anthropologica Sinica). - 2002. - Vol. 21, N 2. - P. 102-110 (in Chinese, with English summary).

Hemphill B.E., Mallory J.P. 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. - 2004. - Vol. 124, N 3. - P. 199 - 222.

Keyser C., Bouakaze C., Crubezy E., Nikolaev V.G., Montagnon D., Reis Т., Ludes B. Ancient DNA provides new insights into the history of South Siberian kurgan people // Human Genetics. - 2009. - URL: 10.1007/s00439 - 009 - 0683 - 0 (дата обращения: 15.07.2009).

Kozintsev A.G., Gromov A.V., Moiseyev V.G. Collateral relatives of American Indians among the Bronze Age populations of Siberia? // American Journal of Physical Anthropology. -1999. - Vol. 108, N2. - P. 193 - 204.

Kuzmina E.E. The Prehistory of the Silk Road / Ed. by. V.H. Mair. - Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007. - 248 p.

Mair V.H. Genes, geography, and glottochronology: The Tarim Basin during late prehistory and history // Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, Los Angeles, November 5 - 6, 2004. - Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man, 2005. - P. 1 - 46. (Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph; N 50).

Mallory J.P. A European perspective on the Indo-Europeans in Asia // The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern Central Asia / Ed. by. V.H. Mair. - Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man, 1998. - Vol. 1. - P. 175 - 201. - (Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph; N 26).

Mallory J.P., Mair V.H. The Tarim Mummies: Ancient China and the Mystery of the Earliest Peoples from the West. - L.: Thames and Hudson, 2000. - 352 p.

Renfrew C. The Tarim Basin, Tocharian, and Indo-European origins // The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern Central Asia / Ed. by. V.H. Mair. - Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man, 1998. - Vol. 1. - P. 202 - 212. - (Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph; N 26).

Rightmire G.P. On the computation of Mahalanobis' generalized distance (D2) // American Journal of Physical Anthropology. - 1969. -Vol. 30, N 1. - P. 157 - 160.

Schwidetzky I., Rosing F. Vergleichend-statistische Untersuchungen zur Anthropologie von Neolithikum und Bronzezeit // Homo. - 1990. - Bd. 40, H. 1/2. - S. 4 - 45.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 03.08.09.

page 136

Permanent link to this publication: