Review Article Glob J Arch & Anthropol Volume 3 Issue 1 - March 2018 Copyright © All rights are reserved by Sergey Slepchenko DOI: 10.19080/GJAA.2018.03.555602 Materials for Craniology of the Northern Samodians

AN Bagashev and SM Slepchenko* Institute of the Problems of Northern Development, Tyumen Scientific Center, Submission: November 28, 2017; Published: March 13, 2018 *Corresponding author: Email: Sergey Slepchenko, Institute of the Problems of Northern Development, Tyumen Scientific Center, Russia,

Abstract A small sample of paleoanthropological materials from the cemeteries of Nakhodka 2 and Yumadoto 1 in Yamal (Yamal district of Yamalo-

morphological features of the skulls indicate that they belong to the eastern Mongoloid anthropological formation, but in terms of the structure ofNenets the nasal Autonomous bridge, they Okrug at ofthe Tyumen same time Region) tend wasto belong studied to in the order western to specify Caucasoid the nature population. of intra-group According and to inter-populationthe results of multidimensional variability. The statistics, despite a high individual variability typical to the modern species of Homosapienssapiens, the range of variability observed at the

basis, a more representative sample of this ethnic group was formed, which is taxonomically included in the Yamalo-Yenisei group of populations ofcemeteries the West ofSiberian Bukhta anthropological Nakhodka and Yumadotoformation. is not beyond the scope of the inter-group variability typical to the Northern Samodians. On this

Keywords: Anthropology; Population; Systematic; Taxonomy; Northern eurasia; Yamal peninsula; Northern samodians; Nenets; Kets

Introduction Contemporary aboriginal population of Northern Eurasia belong to various ethno-linguistic groups (Samoyeds, Finno- Ugrians, Turks, Kets, Paleo-Asiatics), whose traditional cultures are represented by various economic and cultural types of appropriating and producing economies. Just as their cultures and natural and climatic habitat conditions are greatly diverse, so are the anthropological differences between them, which generally suggests different ways of their ethnogenesis. history of formation of their physical appearance features, in Anthropology clarifies only one side of the origin of tribes - anthropological communities holds an important place, as it the reconstruction of which the taxonomic classification of Figure 1: Location of the burial grounds of Bukhta Nakhodka historical destinies of populations. and Yumadoto. reflects common and different elements in the genesis and Atribution of some peoples of Northern Eurasia is a matter district of Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug of Tyumen in particular, for the Northern Samoyed peoples (Nenets, Enets The fortified settlement of “Bukhta Nakhodka” (Yamal of debate in the modern taxonomic configuration. This is true, and Nganasan) and the people, which is caused by a lack conducted archeological work at that ancient settlement and of available materials. Introduction of new anthropological Region) was discovered in 1961 by [1]. In 2012, O Kardash data on the physical appearance features of the inhabitants of discovered the burial ground of Bukhta Nakhodka 2 (Figure 1), a West Siberian subarctic regions allows us to clarify the limits of of his preliminary research, paleoanthropological material and new archaeological site on the coast of Nakhodka Bay. As a result individual and inter-group variability typical to them. This article artifacts (fragments of ceramic vessels, articles of non-ferrous metals) were obtained. According to on the archaeological the archaeological sites of Nakhodka 2 and Yumadoto 1 in the considers new craniological findings obtained from a study of data, the burial ground was dated to the Middle Ages within a Yamal Peninsula in order to specify the population structure and wide chronological framework (from the VI-VII centuries to the systematics of the indigenous peoples of the North. XIII-XIV centuries). Anthropological materials from the burial

Glob J Arch & Anthropol 3(1): GJAA.MS.ID.555602 (2018) 006 Global Journal of Archaeology & Anthropology ground of Yumadoto (XVIII-XIX centuries), were gathered by EG group, small width and height in the nasal bridge structure are Filchakov in 1986, during archaeological reconnaissance on the harmoniously combined with a relatively large nasal protrusion Yamal Peninsula (Figure 1). angle. Materials and Methods The male skull from Yumadoto I burial ground is characterized by a small value of longitudinal and transverse diameters (meso- One male and three female skulls from the burials of the brachicrania) while the cerebral cortex is of a very low height, a brachicranic form is typical of the female skull (Table 1). Facial female skull from Yumadoto burial ground, were analyzed cemetery of Bukhta Nakhodka, as well as one male and one skeletons of the male and female skulls are similar in proportions by means of craniology. Gender diagnostics was based on the and have an average width and height with a distinctly pronounced morphology of a skull, lower jaw, pelvis and postcranial skeleton

horizontal flattening. The structure of the orbits and of the nasal patterns [2,3]. The age of the buried was determined by the skulls have a similar structure of the nasal bridge, its small width bridge is characterized by average values and proportions. Both degreeThe of skulls obliteration were measured of the skull using seams a andstandard dental craniometricabrasion [3]. is combined with a small height along with a very small nasal technique supplemented by measuring the height of the protrusion angle.

In general, the morphological features of the studied skulls of the Mongoloid element based on the index of the facial forehead transverse flexion and calculating a conditional share that they belong to an intermediate variant between the western Inter-group similarity and differences were analyzed calculating from the cemeteries of Bukhta Nakhodka and Yumadoto indicate skeleton profile and the preauriculfacio-cerebral index [4,5]. and eastern anthropological formations. However, generalized the Mahalanobis-Rao D2 distance according to a program by Yu. show a predominance of elements in their craniological indices of face flatness and proportions of the cerebral cortex MorphologicalK. Chistov (1994). Features of the Paleoanthropological structure which bring the analyzed skulls closer to the Mongoloid Findings populations (Table 1). A distinctive morphological feature of this The man’s face is of medium width and height, it is group of skulls is a synthesis of the Mongoloid structure of the

nose angle in combination with a relatively Europeoid structure moderately profiled in the horizontal plane at the middle level, cerebral cortex with a horizontally flattened face and a small the nasal part of the skull is average, the orbits are wide enough, of the nasal bridge, which is clearly expressed by the male skull but it is relatively more flattened at the orbital level. The size of with a low height. The facial skeletons of the female skulls are combination in terms of biological correlation is also observed from the burial site of Bukhta Nakhodka. This disharmonic in other West Siberian groups and, in general, there are reasons narrowerDisharmony and lower, can flattenedbe observed in the in horizontal the structure plane. of the male to support that according to the morphological characteristics skull’s nasal bridge. Its relatively large height is combined with a small width, while a very weak nasal bones protrusion over the limits of variability of subarctic Siberian populations. the sample from Bukhta Nakhodka and Yumadoto fits into the

Mean values and indices for male and female skulls form the Northern Samodians. lineTable of 1: the vertical profile of the face is observed. In the female Measurement Northern Samodianstotal Yumadoto BuchtaNachodka ♂ ♀ ♂ ♀ ♂ ♀

x x x

1. Cranial length. fromg 178.9 (21) 169 189

8. Maximumcranialbreadth 172.3 (24) 174 167.5128.7 (4)(3)

17. Cranial height (ba-b) 148.1128.8 (21)(20) 141.1122.8 (23) 141123 142128 143125 113.7 (3) 8:1. Cranialindex 82.9 (21) 81.9 (19) 81 76 78.1 (3)

5. Cranial baselength 93.1 (15) 95 8495 101 87.7 (3) 9. Maximal frontal breadth 99.1 (14) 91.3 (23) 96 97 88 88.3 (3) 94.1 (20) 81.2 (9) 76 77 71 77.0 (3) 32. Forehead profile angle. from n 76.0 (4) 95.1 (9) 96 96 40. Basion-prosthionlength 138.3102.3 (13) (4) 130.1 (13) 130 104136 120.394.0 (2) (3) 45. Bizygomaticbreadth 71.9 (9) 68.9 (17) 13470 70 70 62.7 (3) 48.72. Nasion-alveolarheight Generalfacialangle 83.0 (8) 86 80 78 80.0 (2) 83.4 (4)

How to cite this article: AN Bagashev, SM Slepchenko. Materials for Craniology of the Northern Samodians. Glob J Arch & Anthropol. 2018; 3(1): 555599. 007 DOI: 10.19080/GJAA.2018.03.555602 Global Journal of Archaeology & Anthropology

77. Nasomalarangle 150.9 (11)

148.6 (4) 135.6 (8) 145.2132.7 151.4130.5 147131 151.4136.2 (3)(2) 51.˂zm’. Orbitalbreadth. Zygomaxillaryangle frommf. 134.4 (4) 52. Orbitalheight 43.235.5 (18)(19) 42.3 (21) 4737 4135 4735 40.7 (3) 55. Nasalheight 52.8 (19) 34.950.7 (21)(22) 53 34.0 (3) 48 49 45.3 (3) 75(1).54. Nasalprotrusionangle Nasalbreadth 25.4 (18) 24.6 (22) 2469 2466 24.063 24.366.5 (3)(2) SC. Simoticchord 21.3 (4) 19.4 (9) 6.7 8.0 5.6 (3) SS. Simoticsubtense 6.6 (4) 6.42.3 (11) 4.02.1 2.9 3.5 2.2 (3) DC. Dacrialchord 3.0 (4) 18.2 (11) 20.5 19.3 18.0 17.5 (3) DS. Dacrialsubtense 19.7 (4) 7.6 (11) 8.1 7.5 12.0 8.6 (3) Index FSP 10.077.5 (4) 86.0 85.8 73.9 75.3 PFC index 97.0 84.6 95.5 98.7 CSME 108.597.4 100.2 94.292.8 103.1 86.496.8 Results of the Analysis 98.4 combined series from burial grounds at the entry of the Chulym In order to specify general patterns of intergroup variability BederevskiiBor, Lukianovo and Maksimoiarsk, Barklay [10]), a among the peoples of Northern Eurasia, their morphological features were analyzed using multidimensional statistics RiverAs [Dremov, for the groups 1997]. of the Yamalo-Yenisei anthropological type (canonical analysis). In order to stabilize the variability, of the West Siberian formation, the data are grouped as follows: craniological data on a number of ethnolinguistic communities were weighted summed taking into account their geographical proximity. Thus, the male and female groups of the Ural the Tundra Nenets [9], the Taz River Nenets [11] and a combined anthropological type are generalized: the Northern series on the Northern Samodyeds (the Nganasans [12]), the Nadym Nenets [Bagashev, Razhev, 2011], the Nenets of Yar-Sale and the Shchuch’ia River [Dremov, 1984]). The Ket series is used (Khalas-Pogor burial ground [6]), a combined series from the accordingThe canonical to the data analysis of II Gokhman conducted and in theVA Dremovbody of populations[13,14]. Obdorsk vicinities and from the village of Muzhi [7] and the under consideration clearly outlines the general patterns of Eastern Khanty (series from burial grounds of the Salym, Balyk, Vakh, Vasiugan Rivers Basins and from Urievo burial ground 19th century from various burial grounds in the Severnaya Sosva intergroup variability. Loadings on the characteristics of the [8]). A series of skulls of the Northern Mansi collected in the first two vectors cover 57.5% of the total variance of the male factors of variability of the male and female materials for both Ural type. samples, and 59.0% of the female samples, and notably, the River Basin [9] was included among other populations of the vectors almost completely coincide. In both bodies, the greatest Such samples of the Tomsk-Narym variant of the Ob- loadings for the 1st canonical vector is accounted for by the series Irtysh anthropological type of the West Siberian formation where skulls with a high cerebral cortex, but with a low facial skeleton, a weak protrusion of the nasal bones with a relatively higher nasal bridge predominate (Table 2). as the Chulym Turks [8] and the Narym Selkups (series from theTable burial 2: Factor grounds loadings. of the Ob River Basin near Narym: Tiskino,

♂ ♀ Measurement Canonical Canonical Canonical Canonical Vector I Vector II Vector I Vector II 1. Craniallength. fromg

8. Maximumcranialbreadth -0.1647-0.0728 -0.4482 -0.25640.0800 -0.44180.3535 17. Cranialheight (ba-b) 0.7138 0.42650.3077 0.6538 0.0609 -0.0166 0.1491 45. Bizygomaticbreadth 0.34020.2092 -0.3659 0.40360.2613 48. Nasion-alveolarheight -0.3488 -0.0172 0.1997 -0.1887 54.52. NasalOrbital breadth height -0.10180.2094 -0.1761 -0.1997 0.2003 77. Nasomalar angle -0.0983 0.1950 -0.1136 0.5278

How to cite this article: AN Bagashev, SM Slepchenko. Materials for Craniology of the Northern Samodians. Glob J Arch & Anthropol. 2018; 3(1): 555599. 008 DOI: 10.19080/GJAA.2018.03.555602 Global Journal of Archaeology & Anthropology

0.1101 0.0692

˂zm’.DC. Zygomaxillary Dacrialchord angle 0.04040.1581 0.0810 0.2193 -0.14770.0203 DS. Dacrialsubtense 0.2507 -0.1298 -0.1569

SS. Simoticsubtense 0.2011 - 0.0036 0.26060.2047 0.1589 75(1). Angle of protrusion - 0.3727 0.5082 -0.3330 0.0076 of the nose Own value 16.6 17.5 13.3 Percentage described 24.1 33.5 25.5 variability 34.1 23.4 The samples are differentiated according to their geographic (Figure 1). location along the north-south line by this complex of features. The nature of interposition of the male and female groups Inhabitants of the southern regions of Western are moving away from their northern neighbors, the Ob Ugric people indicates that the peculiarity of all West Siberian groups is a in the correlation field of the 1st and 2nd canonical vectors disharmonious combination of the Mongoloid complex (weak noted by many researchers that there are elements of South and the Northern Samoyeds. This observation confirms the fact Siberian genesis in the Narym Selkups and Chulym Turks (Figure bridge) with Europeoid features of the structure of the cerebral 1). protrusion of the nasal bones, horizontally flat face and nasal The complex of features of the 2nd canonical vector combination of features which determines the anthropological cortex (dolichocranic skull with a low face). But it is this differentiates the groups according to the shape of the cerebral cortex and the width of the facial skeleton. The maximum type, which serves as an indicator of their former racial and specificity of West Siberian populations, especially of the Ural loadings fall at the most brachicranic skulls with a wide genetic unity. The same complex is typical of the Northern (eurimorphic) facial skeleton (naturally, regarding the materials Samoyedic groups (but in a weaker form). The craniological under consideration), and the minimal loadings, at dolichocranic type of the Kets is generally characterized by a combination of skulls with a narrow (leptomorphic) face structure. These features typical of West Siberian groups, but having a number features turned out to be taxonomically important, since they of features which bring them closer to the North Samoyedic differentiate the Ural and the Yamalo-Yenisei groups by the samples (Figure 1). degree of manifestation of dolichocrania and leptomorphism

Figure 2a:

How to cite this article: AN Bagashev, SM Slepchenko. Materials for Craniology of the Northern Samodians. Glob J Arch & Anthropol. 2018; 3(1): 555599. 009 DOI: 10.19080/GJAA.2018.03.555602 Global Journal of Archaeology & Anthropology

Figure 2b:

All Northern Samoyedic groups are distanced from a series and inter-population variability of the Northern Samoyeds. of high-headed and low-faced skulls. This morphological feature Given the high individual variability of modern humans, the is most clearly represented in the craniological structure of the morphological features of the skulls from these burials and their Ob-Irtysh populations of the West Siberian formation - in the location regarding other populations, we can certainly conclude Narym Selkups and the Tomsk-Chulym Turks. At the same time, that these skulls belong to the ethnolinguistic community of the the Northern Samoyeds also deviate from more narrow-faced Northern Samoyeds, which forms part of the Yamalo-Yenisei and dolichocranial samples. In our case, this feature is most anthropological type of the West Siberian anthropological clearly observed among the Ob Ugric people. formation. That is why it seems quite reasonable to include the

In general, inter-group variability in an aggregate of and Yumatodo into a selective/combined Northern Samoyedic subarctic samples allows us to speak about the presence of group of skulls from the burial grounds of Bukhta Nakhodka sample, whose average characteristics are presented in Table 2. certain morphological complexes in their composition: skulls with an elongated cerebral cortex and a small height have References 1. the middle part, combined with a small nose angle in relation narrower and lower nasal bridges and faces more profiled in 193.Lashuk LP (1968) “Sirtia’ - drevnieobitateli Subarktiki.” In: Problem yantropologiiiist oricheskoietnografii Azii. Moscow, Nauka, pp. 178- 2. - to the vertical profile. The opposite situation is characteristic at the level of the orbits with a more protruding nose. The of brachycranic skulls, they have a face more or less flattened AmericanLovejoy CO Journal (1985) of “Dental Physical wear Anthropology in the Libben population: its function complexes of signs singled out are observed in a polarized al pattern and role in the determination of adult skeletal age at death.” form among the Ugric (dolichocraniality and related signs) and 3. (68): 47-56. - Nenets (brachicraniality and related characteristics) groups. - search.Buikstra J Ubelaker D (1994) Standards for Data Collection from Hu Gravitation of the Northern Khanty to the Nenets is caused by man Skeletal Remains. Arkansas: Arkansas Archaeological Survey Re the transgression of their areas, so that metisation processes - icheskikhissledovanii. Moscow, Nauka. between them could not but leave a trace in their gene pools 4. Alekseev VP, Debets GF (1964) Kraniometriia: Metodika antropolog (Figure 2a & 2b). 5. - Gokhman II (1961) “Ugolpoperechnogoizgibalbai ego znacheniedliar Conclusion 6. asovoidiagnostiki.”Debets GF (1951) AntropologicVoprosiantropologii heskieissledovaniia 8: 88-98. v Kamchatskoio- blasti. Moscow. The studied anthropological materials from the burial 7. - - Peninsula made it possible to specify the limits of intra-group grounds of Bukhta Nakhodka and Yumatodo on the Yamal Dremov VA (1984) “Rasovaia different siatsiiaugorskikhisamodiiski kh grupp Zapadnoi Sibiripodannymkraniologii.” In: Problem yantro

How to cite this article: AN Bagashev, SM Slepchenko. Materials for Craniology of the Northern Samodians. Glob J Arch & Anthropol. 2018; 3(1): 555599. 0010 DOI: 10.19080/GJAA.2018.03.555602 Global Journal of Archaeology & Anthropology

pologiidrevn egoisovremennogonaselenii as ever a Evrazii. 18. - Nauka, pp. 106-132. - Leningrad, Bagashev AN, “Antropologicheskii tip srednevekovy khtiurkov Nizhne 8. - go Pritom’ia (mogil’nikAstrakhantsevo).” In: Problemyvzaimodeistvii 19. achelovekaiprirodnoisredy 4: 68-73. Dremov VA (1991) “Kraniologiia sredne obskikhkhantov.”In: Obskieu 9. gryDebets Khanty GF (1951)imansi. AntropologicMoscow, IEA RAN,heskieissledovaniia p. 10-28. v Kamchatskoio- Bagashev AN (2003) “Antropologic heskiisostavnaseleniia Priket’ia blasti. Moscowl. (Luk’ianovskiiiMaksimoiarskiimogil’niki).”Problemy vzaimodeistviia 20. chelovekaiprirodnoisredy 3: 40-43. 10. , Novosibirsk, Nau- ka. Bagashev AN, Razhev DI (2009) “Nadymskiigorodok. Paleoantropologi Bagashev AN (2017) Antropologiia ZapadnoiSibiri 11. - cheskoeissledovanie.”Vestnikarkheologii, antropologiiietnografii 11: 21. 111-124. - Cheloveki Sever: Antropologiia, arkheologiia, ekologiia 3: 6-10.Bagashev AN (2015) Slepchenko SM “Materialy pokraniologiita zovski Bunak VV (1956) “Chelovecheskierasyiputiikhobrazovaniia.”Sovets khnentsev.” 22. kaiaetnografiia 1: 86-105. 12. Alekseev VP (1955) - Debets GF (1956) “O printsipakhklassifikatsiichelovecheskikhras.” “K kraniologiinganasanov.”Kratkiesoobshchenie 23. Sovetskaiaetnografiia 4: 129-142. - 13. Institutaetnografii (24): 7-65. Debets GF (1968) “Opytkraniometric heskogoo predeleniiado. Moscow, Nauka,limon Gokhman (1982) I.I. “Antropologi cheskieaspekty ketskoi problemy: pp.goloidnogo 13-22. komponenta v smeshannykhgruppakhnaseleniia SSSR.”In: Rezul’taty antropometri cheskikhikraniologicheskikhissledovanii.” In: Problemy antropologiiiist oricheskoietnografii Azii Ketskiisbornik, Leningrad, p. 9–42. - - - : - 14. Dremo VA (1984) “Rasovaia different siatsii augorskikhisamo diiski 24. Dremov VA (1998) “Tomskieichulymskietiurki.” In: Ocherkikul’turo khgrupp Zapadnoi Sibiripodannymkraniologii.” In: Problemy antro genezakorennogonaseleniiaZapadnoiSibiri (Volume 4) Rasogenezko pologii drevnegoisovremenno gonaseleniiasevera Evrazii. Leningrad, 25. rennogonaseleniia. Tomsk, Izd-vo Tom.un-ta, p. 67-84. - 15. Russia, pp. 106-132. - Gokhman II (1973) “Rol’ andronovskogokomponenta v formirovaniii Alekseev VP (1961) “O smeshanno mproiskhozh deniiural’skoira 26. uzhnosibirskoirasy.”Sovetskaiaetnografiia, 2: 96-106. - 16. sy.”Voprosyarkheologii Urala, 1: 117-120. - - Khartanovich VI (1980) “Novye materialy k kraniologiisaamov Kol’sk Bagashev AN (1998) “Antropologi cheskieobshchnosti ,ikhsistemati- 27. ogopoluostrova”, Sbornik Muzeia antropologiii etnografii, 36: 35-47. nogonaseleniia.kaioso bennostiraso Tomsk, obrazovatel’nykhprotsessov.”In: Izd-vo Tom.un-ta, pp. 303-327. Ocherkiku l’turo method for the determination of skeletal age at death based on the lat- geneza korennogonaseleniia ZapadnoiSibiri (Vol 4): Rasogenez koren Meindl RS Lovejoy CO (1985) “Ectocranial suture closure: A revised 17. - - 28. eral‐anterior sutures.” Am J Physic Anthropol 68(1): 57-66. Bagashev AN (2000) “Khronologic heskaiaizmenchivost’ kranio 111. logic heskogotipanary mskikhsel’kupov.”Vestnikarkheologii, antro Dremov VA (1998) “Naryms kiesel kupy.”In: Tomsk, Russia, pp. 110- pologiiietnografii 3: 159-174. This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License Your next submission with Juniper Publishers DOI: 10.19080/GJAA.2018.03.555602 will reach you the below assets • Quality Editorial service • • Swift Peer Review • E-prints Service Reprints availability • Manuscript Podcast for convenient understanding • Global attainment for your research • Manuscript accessibility in different formats ( Pdf, E-pub, Full Text, Audio) • Unceasing customer service

Track the below URL for one-step submission https://juniperpublishers.com/online-submission.php

How to cite this article: AN Bagashev, SM Slepchenko. Materials for Craniology of the Northern Samodians. Glob J Arch & Anthropol. 2018; 3(1): 555599. 0011 DOI: 10.19080/GJAA.2018.03.555602