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 Elvier B.V . All rights rerved.doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2010.02.014
Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/4 (2009) 125–136
E-mail: Eurasia@archaeology.nsc.ru
ARCHAEOLOGY,ETHNOLOGY
混淆英语& ANTHROPOLOGY OF EURASIA
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 cloly 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
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 ries 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, tho associated with Karakol, Ust-Tartas, and Krotovo cultures, and tho buried in the Andronov-type cemeteries at Cherno-ozerye and Yelovka were of predominantly local Siberian origin. The Samus ries rembles 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 af ¿ nities 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 clost 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.
cultures of the Bronze Age (Grigoryev, 1999; Bobrov, 1994; Kiryushin, 2004), and the theories are supported by tho physical anthropologists who claim that all gracile Caucasoids are Mediterraneans, i.e. southerners by origin (e especially (Khudaverdyan, 2009)). Not long ago I expresd a similar view (Kozintv, 2000).
it教育
Recently, thanks to the work of a number of craniologists, S.I. Kruts in particular, the craniometric databa 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
*Supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Rearch (Project 09-06-00184a). A.G. Kozintv
Muum of Anthropology and Ethnography, Russian Academy of Sciences,
Universitetskaya Nab.3, St. Petersburg, 199034, Russiais
E-mail:
125
ANTHROPOLOGY
126 A.G. Kozintv / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/4 (2009) 125–136
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 (Kozintv, 2007, 2008).
花都英语培训Recently, an article by a group of French geneticists was published (Keyr 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), who bodies are excellently prerved thanks to natural mummi¿ cation (Mallory, Mair, 2000), had the same hair color, and that a Russian admixture alone can by no means account for the depigmentation obrved in modern natives of Southern Siberia and Kazakhstan, the conclusion is obvious. The principal source of early Caucasoi
d 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 Chine written sources. Apparently, the principal migration route of Caucasoid pastoralists from Europe to the east pasd 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 cloly related to the Pit Grave (Yamnaya) culture, and its appearance in Gorny Altai and on the Middle Yenii was caud by a migration from the Eastern European steppes. The possible role of Poltavka and Catacomb culture elements, too, has been discusd (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, speci¿ cally tho associated with the K
hvalynsk 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 tho 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 af¿ nities 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 af¿ nities of the Okunev people of the Yenii are mostly Siberian (Gromov, 1997a, b), and the integration of the data demonstrates that the unusual trait combination obrved in Okunev crania is rather archaic (plesiomorphic) and may be more ancient than both the Caucasoid and Mongoloid trait combinations (Kozintv, 2004). According to Gromov (1997b), the Okunev people rembled the Neolithic population of the Krasnoyarsk–Kansk region. The Karakol culture of Gorny Altai is similar to Okunev culture, and crani
ometric parallels between people associated with the 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; Kozintv, 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 discusd by craniologists. K.N. Solodovnikov (Ibid.) believes that in all the above pre-Andronov groups, except the Okunev group of the Yenii, the ties are Southern Caucasoid or Mediterranean which, in his view, is especially evident in the male ries.
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, speci¿ cally the Alakul (western) and Fedorov, which spread in an eastern direction up to the Yenii, is less clear. The Alakul variety appa
rently 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. Kozintv / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/4 (2009) 125–136 127
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. Alekyev (1964) as leptomorphic. Ginzburg believed that this combination evidences the af¿ nities of western Alakul people with both the Timber Grave (Srubnaya) populations of the V olga steppes and tho of Southwestern Central Asia (the Amu-Darya/Syr-Darya interÀ uve). The cond idea was refuted by Alekyev, who claimed that archaeological data point solely to western (Timber Grave) af¿ nities. Ginzburg ignored the critique and repeated his conclusion in the summarizing monograph (Ginzburg, Tro¿ mova, 1972). In this ca, neither he nor Alekyev ud statistical methods and relied on typological asssments.
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 Yenii. However, V.P. Alekyev (1961) suggested that the Fedorov people of the Yenii 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 prence of alleged “Mediterraneans” in the 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, speci¿ cally 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 Cherno-ozerye 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; Kozintv, 2008).
The objective of the prent article is to explore the issue of early Caucasoid migrations to Siberia and Eastern Central Asia using a large craniometric databa, much of which is unpublished.
built
Materials and methods
Only measurements of male crania were ud. The number of the Afanasyev ries is nine (six from the Altai and three from the Minusinsk Basin) (Alekyev, 1961, 1989; Solodovnikov, 2003). The post-Afanasyev material consists of four Okunev ries from the Minusinsk Basin (Gromov, 1997b), one Okunev ries from Tuva (Alekyev, Gokhman, Tumen, 1987), the Karakol ries (Chikisheva, 2000; Tur, Solodovnikov, 2005), the Yelunino ries (Solodovnikov, Tur, 2003), the Ust-Tartas and Krotovo ries from Sopka-2 (Dremov, 1997; Chikisheva, unpublished), and the Samus ries (Dremov, 1997; Solodovnikov, 2005). Seven Andronov samples were ud. Two of them, from western Kazakhstan (Alekyev, 1967) and from Yermak IV near Omsk (Dremov, 1997) reprent 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 (Alekyev, 1961; Dremov, 1997). Also, measurements of two ries from “Andronoid” burial grounds in Western Siberia at Yelovka II and Cherno-ozerye I (Dremov, 1997) were ud, and also tho of a Bronze Age ries from Gumugou (Qäwrighul), Xinjiang (Han Kangxin, 1986).
Unpublished measurements of Bronze Age crania from the Ukraine were kindly provided by S.I. Krut
s; sources of data on most groups published by Russian scholars are cited in my previous publications (Kozintv, 2000, 2007, 2008). Measurements of ries from Central and Western Europe and the Near East were taken from a summary compiled by I. Schwidetzky and F. Rösing (1990).
The total number of male cranial ries reprenting the Neolithic and Bronze Age populations of Eurasia and ud in this analysis is 220. One hundred and twenty-eight 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, naso-malar and zygo-maxillary angles, simotic index and nasal protrusion angle. Ninety-two ries 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 ud in this ca to avoid confusion between the “anterior” and the “inferior” prosthion (the difference may be considerable).股份支付
Measurements were subjected to the canonical variate analysis. Groups were compared pairwi using *Solodovnikov has reduced the size of this ries by demonstrating on archaeological grounds that some crania previously believed to be Andronov actually reprent other populations.
128 A.G. Kozintv / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/4 (2009) 125–136
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 classi¿ cation of all groups was not among the objectives of the prent study. All methods aimed at such classification result in distortions. In cluster analysis, the distortions become progressively larger as the distances increa. By contrast, in two-dimensional projections determined by canonical variates or by nonmetric scaling axes, it is the clost 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 sacri¿ ced for the sake of the general classi¿ cation. The distortions may have contributed to the idea that all gracile Caucasoids are clo relatives. While this may be true in a bird’s-eye view, a disregard for details in such a ca may lead to a rious misinterpretation.
take up什么意思
Another advantage of using pairwi distances, rather than graphic methods of dimensionality reduction, stems from the fact that the latter are nsitive to the lection of groups. Thus, the quence of groups in terms of the expression of Caucasoid versus Mongoloid traits depends on the way the extreme combinations are reprented. Distances, by contrast are independent of this factor provided the standard within-group correlation matrix is ud, as in this study.
Results
Listed below are the smallest corrected D2 values (normally below 1.0), bad on the fourteen-trait battery and ranked in an increasing in the order of decreasing similarity. Minimal distances bad on the nine-trait battery (D2 < 0.3) are given only for tho groups which reveal at least one Central or Western European or Near Eastern parallel; the parallels are numbered as in the summary (Schwidetzky, Rösing, 1990). The only exception is the Afanasyev ries from Saldyar I. It is quite small and reveals numerous af¿ nities, 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, V olga (0.66); early Northern Caucasian culture, Kalmykia, group II according to V.A. Safronov (0.70).
Afanasyev, Saldyar I, Altai: Pit Grave, V olga–Ural area (–2.49); Pit Grave, Orenburg region (–2.47); Pit Grave – Poltavka group,Volga–Ural 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, V olga (–1.34); Catacomb, V olga and Kalmykia (–1.23 in both cas). Numerous remaining parallels are mostly with Catacomb and Timber Grave groups.
Afanasyev, Kurota II, Altai: Poltavka (–1.38); Afanasyev, Saldyar I (0.59); Catacomb, V olga (0.96).
Afanasyev, Ust-Kuyum, Altai: late Catacomb, Samara–Orel 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 V olga (0.81); Timber Grave, V olga, pooled (0.86); Timber Grave, V olgograd and Astrakhan regions (0.89); Pit Grave – Poltavka, Volga–Ural 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 V olga (–0.25); Timber Grave, Luzanovka, V olga (–0.07); Pit Grave – Poltavka, V olga–Ural 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 V olga (0.96).
Afanasyev, Karasuk III, Minusinsk Basin: Afanasyev, Saldyar I (–2.30); Pit Grave, Volga–Ural area (–0.96); Afanasyev, Afanasyeva Gora (–0.54); Timber Grave, Volga–Ural area (–0.32); late Catacomb, Verkhne-Tarasovka, Lower Dnieper (–0.25); Catacomb, Volga (–0.22); Pit Grave, Orenburg region (–0.13); Catacomb, Crimea (0.01); Pit Grave – Poltavka, Volga–Ural area (0.24); Potapovka, V olga (0.73); Timber Grave, Yasyrev, Lower Don (0.90).
Afanasyev, Afanasyeva Gora, Minusinsk Basin: Afanasyev, Saldyar I (–2.35); late Catacomb, Verkhne-Tarasovka, 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. Kozintv / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37/4 (2009) 125–136 129
Lower Dnieper (0.44); Pit Grave, V olga–Ural area (0.85); Timber Grave, V olga (0.88); Pit Grave, Orenburg region (0.89); Timber Grave, Krivaya Luka, Lower Volga (0.96). The analysis bad on the nine-trait t 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, V olgograd 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, Volga–Ural area (0.65); Catacomb, Kalmykia (0.81); Pit Grave, Yuzhny Bug (0.82); Timber Grave, Volga (0.85); Pit Grave –
bccaudio是什么意思Poltavka, V olga–Ural area (0.93); Timber Grave, Krivaya Luka, Lower V olga (0.95); Abashevo (0.99).
Okunev, Uybat group, Minusinsk Basin: the only clo 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 Krasnoyarsk–Kansk area (–0.07).
Okunev, Chernovaya, Minusinsk Basin: the only clo parallel is with the Neolithic of Krasnoyarsk–Kansk area (0.36). The least removed among other populations is Okunev, Uybat group (1.44).
Okunev, Tas-Khaza group, Minusinsk Basin: the only clo parallel is with Okunev of Uybat (–0.95). The least distant among other groups is Karasuk (1.77).
Okunev, Minusinsk Basin, pooled:the only clo parallel is with the Neolithic of Krasnoyarsk–Kansk 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 t: early Catacomb, Molochnaya (–1.21); Tiefstichkeramik (related to F
unnel 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 clo parallel. The least removed is Okunev of Tuva (1.56), next follow Djarat and Shengavit, Kura-Araxes culture, Armenia, 4th–3rd millennia BC (2.16); the pooled ries of Kura-Araxes culture from Georgia ranks third (2.65), and Gumugou, Xinjiang, fourth (3.83). Nine-trait t: 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 clo 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, V olga–Ural area (0.54); Kemi-Oba, Crimea (0.88). Nine-trait t: 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, 5th–4th millennia BC (No.197) (–0.38); late Timber Grave, V olga–Ural area (–0.16); Rösn, 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, 4th–3rd millennia BC (No.107) (0.07); Aveyron, France, Early Bronze Age, 3rd century BC (No.99) (0.09); Unetice, Germany and Czechia, Bronze Age, 3rd–2nd 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, III–II millennia BC (No.205) (0.21).
Alakul, Yermak IV, the Irtysh: not a single clo 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, V olga–Ural area (0.43); Timber Grave, Luzanovka, V olga (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).
naughty是什么意思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).
