Journal of Archaeology, Ethnology, and Anthropology of Eurasia

[mvbeleg]

Today I was browsing some material online, and I discovered the Journal of Archaeology, Ethnology, and Anthropology of Eurasia through Elsevier ScienceDirect. This journal contains articles that may be of interest to those that fancy physical anthropology. It seems as though one may access the full text articles as a mere guest. The link below should work.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15630110

[mvbeleg]

NEW CRANIOMETRIC EVIDENCE ON THE ORIGIN OF THE KARELIANS (the Kylalahti Kalmistomäki Burial Ground)

V.I. Khartanovich and I.G. Shirobokova

Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya Nab. 3, St. Petersburg, 199034, Russia

Available online 9 June 2010.

Abstract

In 2006–2007, the expedition from Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, St. Petersburg excavated 52 inhumation burials at a 13th-14th- century cemetery in Kylalahti Kalmistomäki, Karelia. The burial goods are unusual for Karelia, eastern Finland, or other parts of northwestern Russia. The skeletal remains provide the first chance of assessing the biological affinities of the medieval “Korela.” The group displays a trait combination similar to that observed in modern Karelians and opposing them to other recent Eurasian populations. The same combination is observed in Mesolithic and Neolithic crania from the Eastern Baltic. The Kylalahti Kalmistomäki series supports the hypothesis stating that features of the early inhabitants of Europe have survived in certain populations of northwestern Eurasia up to the present time.

Keywords: Craniology; population history; ethnic history; Middle Ages; Finnic peoples; Karelians


Full Text Article (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B8JJ9-508G0M0-K-1&_cdi=43721&_user=10&_pii=S1563011010000504&_orig=browse&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F2010&_sk=999619998&view=c&wchp=dGLbVzW-zSkWb&md5=f972ab7558af940fcd948790982abf71&ie=/sdarticle.pdf)

[Osweo]

It seems as though one may access the full text articles as a mere guest. The link below should work.

Nice find! :thumbs

It seems you have to pay for the older issues, though. Shame, this one seems interesting;


CRANIOMETRIC EVIDENCE OF THE EARLY CAUCASOID MIGRATIONS TO SIBERIA AND EASTERN CENTRAL ASIA, WITH REFERENCE TO THE INDO-EUROPEAN PROBLEM
Pages 125-136
A.G. Kozintsev
(I'm sure I've seen his name before... :chin:)

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

[mvbeleg]

It seems you have to pay for the older issues, though.

Thanks for pointing this detail out. One might also add that while the journal's birth took place before 2008, this particular collection only consists of issues dating from 2008.




Shame, this one seems interesting;


CRANIOMETRIC EVIDENCE OF THE EARLY CAUCASOID MIGRATIONS TO SIBERIA AND EASTERN CENTRAL ASIA, WITH REFERENCE TO THE INDO-EUROPEAN PROBLEM
Pages 125-136
A.G. Kozintsev


Craniometric Evidence of the Early Caucasoid Migrations to Siberia and Eastern Central Asia, with Reference to the Indo-European Problem
Full Text Article
(http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B694cMtwy4VlMmJiYzA0NWEtZGFhMC00ODE3L ThlNGMtYjdhZDQ4OTdjMzc5&hl=en)

[Hweinlant]

This is very important study and debunks lot of bullshit that has been written about mesolithic "mongoloids" of East Baltic region. I posted this back in Dodona or HBF but study was only available in Russian back then. This is updated and even more specific. Old skool nonsense ala Raisa Denisova are clearly denied first time by Russians (in English language). Good. Markku Niskanen busted that bullshit allready in his "Origin of Baltic Finns" study years ago.

I'm especially glad that they give a word to Alekseyeva:



"Judging by the
concentration of these unusual features in Scandinavia,
the Baltic and the Onega area, people displaying them
had migrated to Eastern Europe from the northwest and
were possibly associated with the Mesolithic cultures of
the circum-Baltic region. Revisiting the long-standing
issue of admixture versus evolutionary conservatism in
the Mesolithic population of Eastern Europe in the light
of new data, we must reject the admixture hypothesis."


And also:



In Alekseyeva’s words, this
unusual trait combination, which was more than once
revealed by multivariate statistics, was widely distributed
and was typical of Mesolithic Caucasoids of the forest
and forest-steppe zones of Eastern Europe as evidenced
by groups such as Zvejnieki, Popovo, Southern Oleniy
(Reindeer) Island, and Vasilievka I and III. In her words,
there is no doubt that robustness and upper facial flatness
were inherited from earlier Caucasoid populations of
Eastern Europe (Ibid.: 26).


Agrippa, that is for you. Repeat 10.000 times, thanks :p

Study attached is someone is interested.

[Agrippa]

The upper horizontal facial pro�� le is �� attened
by European standards, but the midfacial pro�� le is sharp.
The nose is sharply protruding and convex.


The location of this peculiar type and its expansion from
the west to the east suggest that it should be regarded
as an independent ancient type which originated in
northwestern Europe


Importantly, according to Alekseyeva (Ibid.: 255), the
population which in the Mesolithic had been quite
Caucasoid despite the unusual combination of the two facial pro�� les (�� attened in the upper part and sharp in
the middle part; one might add that the face was very
broad and the braincase was very high) began to assume
a somewhat “Mongoloid” appearance.


Due to poor preservation, the nasal
protrusion angle was measured on one cranium only and
turned out to be large.
The distinctive characteristics of the Kylalahti
Kalmistomäki series then are general robustness, a long,
wide, and extremely high vault, slight facial �� attening at
the upper level, combined with sharp midfacial pro�� le and
convex, sharply protruding nasalia.

Generalisation based on one specimen.


Karelians from
Chiksha and Turha who retain the morphological
speci�� city of ancient groups with their robust and
very high braincase, a broad face, which is slightly
�� attened on the upper level and sharply pro�� led at
the middle level, and a sharply protruding nose.

The whole study talks mainly about those Karelians and clearly demonstrates what's among the traits which make them Europid, among this is the nasal shape and angle.

The most Mongoloid influenced variants in the North East don't show such a morphology.

It's a pity that they didn't provide living examples.

If they are like these:
http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/PCU2388.jpghttp://www.worldofstock.com/slides/PCU2388.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/52/157468624_077ce9ab78.jpg?v=0

They are clearly Europid without significant admixture.

[Hweinlant]

Generalisation based on one specimen.


One speciment from medieval period that is. Same character set is seen at the region since mesolithic (since the population was formed). That speciment simply proves continuity for the specified character set from mesolithic, through neolithic until modern day.

They also point out that the character set, with all "mongoloidness" that comes with it, originates at Caucasoid population of Northwest Europe.

It simply means that upper facial flattness is about as classic Europid feature there is.

Non-upper facial flattness is thus less classic Europid, got it ? (I have cheekbones and mandibles of porridge eater, so no glory for me).

Later genetic flows (migrations) from elsewhere, especially middle east, have altered the physical phenotype of Europeans more, at less isolated regions than East Baltic is.



The most Mongoloid influenced variants in the North East don't show such a morphology.


Doh.. There are actually living and breathing Arctic Mongoloids in form of Nenets-samoyed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nenets_people) at Northeast Europe.

See my post here about linguistic dispersal of Uralic languages:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17933

[Agrippa]

Non-upper facial flattness is thus less classic Europid, got it ?

That this trait was present in Europe doesnt mean it is more Europid, because Europids are defined by certain traits and those traits are different from Mongoloids. Those Europids which have traits closer to Mongoloids cannot be more Europid and in fact, all Europids come finally from the South - the question is just from which exact origin at which time and what happened in between.

Obviously variants like Nordid, Dinarid and Iranid are strongly Europid, Eastbaltids and Lappids aren't to put it simple.

Even in Lapps you can distinguish more or less Europid or Mongoloid morphologies.

F.e. compare the position and form of the cheekbones and nose.

Mongoloid inspired, archaic-infantile and Borealised, morphology:

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/6759/fd0873.jpg (http://img213.imageshack.us/i/fd0873.jpg/)

Europid, more differentiated and progressive, morphology:

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/6318/fd0889.jpg (http://img340.imageshack.us/i/fd0889.jpg/)

Note that both have rather strong cheekbones and a larger facial breadth.