Introduction

Discussions about the origin of the Black Sea Scythians, which have intensified in recent years among craniologists (Yablonsky, 2000; Kozintsev, 2000; Kruz, 2004), are connected with the question of the anthropological homogeneity of this group. S. G. Efimova [2000], who, like L. T. Yablonsky [2000], defends the theory of autochthonous and anthropological consolidation of the Scythians, Nevertheless, it convincingly demonstrated that the steppe Scythians differ markedly from the forest-steppe ones. In her opinion, these differences do not contradict the local origin of the Scythians and are explained by the anthropological heterogeneity of the carriers of the log culture, which S. G. Efimova and L. T. Yablonsky consider the ancestors of all Scythians, as well as microevolutionary processes that took place mainly in the steppe. According to another point of view, the differences are mainly due to the kinship relations of the steppe Scythians with the populations of the more eastern regions of Eurasia - Saks, Sauromats, early Sarmatians (Kruz, 2004) and Central Asians (Kozintsev, 2000). Heterogeneity is also found within the two main Scythian settlement zones - steppe and forest-steppe.

Obviously, today it is no longer acceptable to limit ourselves to using the total Scythian craniological series. Even the attraction of two combined series - from the steppe and forest-steppe-is not enough. On the agenda is the establishment of internal and external relations of each local Scythian group separately. Work in this direction has already begun [Efimova, 2000; Kruz, 2004]. This publication was made possible due to the fact that in recent years there has been a huge new anthropological material from the Northern Black Sea region, relating to both the Scythian era and the Bronze Age. It was studied mainly by S. I. Kruz, who made an invaluable contribution to the paleoanthropology of Eastern Europe through her many years of work and kindly provided me with her unpublished data.

There is reason to hope that the use of data on local Scythian groups will bring us closer to understanding the origin of the Scythians, as well as the factors that caused the anthropological differentiation within the Scythian population. If the main factor of this differentiation was microevolutionary, then we can hardly expect that certain Scythian populations are particularly close to non-Scythian groups, since microevolution (including brachycephalization, gracilization, and random processes)is the main factor of this differentiation. Theoretically, it cannot lead to convergent similarity of unrelated groups across the entire set of features. If such a similarity is still observed, then it, as a rule, indicates a relationship.

An additional reason for writing this article was the appearance in recent years of important archaeological and anthropological facts that relate to the ancient Indo-Europeans

page 143

Central Asia and encourage the revision of a number of existing scientific stereotypes.

Material and methodology

We used measurement data for 120 male craniological series from Northern Eurasia - 22 Scythian (including 17 steppe and 5 forest-steppe) and 98 non-Scythian. The following Scythian groups are involved:

A. Steppe

Eastern Crimea

1. Frontline I (unpublished data by S. I. Kruz).

2. Aktash [Pokas, Nazarova, Dyachenko, 1988].

3. Kerch (Zhilyaeva-Kruts, 1970).

Left Bank Ukraine

4. Prisivashye (unpublished data by S. I. Kruz).

5. Gaiman Field (same).

6. Nosaki (the same).

7. Zlatopol (the same).

8. Mamai Mountain (Litvinova, 1999, 2001).

9. Kakhovka (Kruz, 1997) (and unpublished data).

10. Wide (same).

Right Bank Ukraine

11. Mikhaylovka, Kut, and Kalinovka (Konduktorova, 1972; Konduktorova, 1974; Efimova, 2000).

12. Alexandropol (Lugovaya Grave) [Firshtein, 1966; Konduktorova, 1972; Konduktorova, 1974; Efimova, 2000].

13. Nikopol (Debets, 1948; Zinevich, 1967).

14. Verkhne-Tarasovka (unpublished data by S. I. Kruts).

15. Ingulets group (the same).

16. North-Western Black Sea region (materials by L. V. Litvinova).

17. Nikolaevka on the Dniester River (Velikanova, 1975).

B. Forest-steppe

18. The Seimin Group (Efimova, 2000).

19. Posul Group [Ibid.].

20. Vorskla and Borispol groups (Konduktorova, 1972; Konduktorova, 1974; Kruz, 1997; Efimova, 2000).

21. Медвин [Зіневич, 1985; Круц, 1997].

22. Team series from the right-bank forest-steppe Ukraine. The Trypillia (national team) and Dniester-Pobuzha groups are summarized (Debets, 1948; Konduktorova, 1972; Konduktorova, 1974; Efimova, 2000).

The vast majority of the series dates from the fifth to the beginning of the third century BC, i.e. it belongs to the period of classical Scythia, whose monuments are concentrated in the steppe. Unfortunately, the population of Archaic Scythia, which is known mainly from materials from the forest-steppe, is almost non-represented; archaic materials from the North Caucasus are also absent. This led to geographical unevenness in the distribution of samples: 17 steppe Scythian series account for only 5 forest-steppe ones. The earliest, apparently, is the forest-steppe group from Medvin (VI-V centuries). BC). Some prefab series (N 11, 20, 22) are rather artificial, which is caused by the small number and territorial fragmentation of the material. They were completed on the basis of broad geographical criteria (steppe - forest-steppe; left-bank - right-bank) and the lowest threshold of permissible group size - four skulls.

In addition to the 46 series used in [Kozintsev, 2000], 51 Eneolithic and Bronze Age groups from Eastern Europe and one from Central Asia were used for comparison with the Scythian ones. These groups are identified by the archaeological cultures they represent:

1. Kemi-Obin culture of the Crimea (Zhilyaeva-Kruts, 1972).

2. Khvalynskaya kul'tura Povolzhya [Khokhlov, 1998].

3. Yamnaya kul'tura Volgo-Ural'ya [Yamnaya kul'tura Volgo-Ural'ya].

4. Yamno-Poltavka culture of the Volga-Ural region [Ibid.].

5. Poltavka culture of the Volga region (data by N. M. Glazkova, V. P. Chtetsov and A.V. Shevchenko, summarized in the work of A.V. Shevchenko [1986]).

6. Potapovo-type culture of the Volga region (Khokhlov, 1998).

7. Yamnaya kul'tura Ukrainy, a summary series [Konduktorova, 1973; Kruts, 1984] (and unpublished data by S. I. Kruts).

8.Yamnaya kul'tura Cherkasskoi obll. - Bashtechki (unpublished data by S. I. Kruts).

9. Yamnaya culture of the interfluve of the Southern Bug and Ingulets (the same).

10. Pit culture of the upper Ingulets - Kryvyi Rih region (the same).

11. Yamnaya culture of the right bank of the lower Dnieper-Verkhne-Tarasovka (the same).

12. Yamnaya culture of the left bank of the lower Dnieper - Kakhovka (the same).

13. Pit culture of the Kherson region (the same).

14. Yamnaya kul'tura astrakhanskogo pravoberezhya Volga - Krivaya Luka (Yamnaya culture of the Astrakhan right bank of the Volga River) [Shevchenko, 1986].

15. Yamnaya kul'tura Kalmykii [Yamnaya culture of Kalmykia].

16. Yamno-catacomb culture of Kalmykia [Ibid.].

17. Catacomb culture of Kalmykia [Ibid.].

18. Catacomb culture of the Volga region (data from G. F. Debets, V. V. Ginzburg, B. V. Firshtein and others).

page 144

A.V. Shevchenko, summarized in the work of A.V. Shevchenko [1986]).

19. Catacomb culture of the Don region [Ibid.].

20. Catacomb culture of Ukraine, total series [Kruz, 1984].

21. Catacomb culture of the right bank of the lower Dnieper, early period-Verkhne-Tarasovka (unpublished data by S. I. Kruts).

22. Catacomb culture of the left bank of the lower Dnieper, early period-Kakhovka (same).

23. Catacomb culture of the Molochnaya River valley, early period (same).

24. Catacomb culture of Ukraine, early period, total series (same).

25. Catacomb culture of the interfluve of the Southern Bug and Ingulets, late period (same).

26. Catacomb culture of the upper Ingulets, late period-Kryvyi Rih (same).

27. Catacomb culture of the right bank of the lower Dnieper, late period-Verkhne-Tarasovka (the same).

28. Catacomb culture of the left bank of the lower Dnieper, late period-Kakhovka (the same).

29. Catacomb culture, Zaporozhye group, late period (same).

30. Catacomb culture of the south of the Kherson region, late period (same).

31. Catacomb culture of the Samara-Orel interfluve, late period (Melnik, 1982).

32. Catacomb culture of the steppe Crimea, late period (Dyachenko and Pokas, 1986).

33. Catacomb culture of Ukraine, late period, summary series (unpublished data by S. I. Krutz).

34. Kul'tura mnogovalikovoy keramiki Ukrainy [Culture of multi-leaf ceramics in Ukraine].

35. Kalfa, the culture of multicolored ceramics in Moldavia (Velikanova, 1975).

36. Log culture of Ukraine (mainly left-bank), total series (Kruz, 1984).

37. Log culture of the left-bank Ukraine (data of G. F. Debets, G. P. Zinevich, T. S. Konduktorova and S. I. Krutz, summarized in the work of A.V. Shevchenko [1986]).

38. Log cabin culture of right-bank Ukraine [Ibid.].

39. Log culture of Ukraine-ground burial grounds (Konduktorova, 1969).

40. Log cabin culture of the Rostov region-hut. Yasyrev [Shevchenko, 1986].

41. Log culture of the Volga region-Luzanovka [Ibid.].

42. Log culture of the Volga region-Khryashchevka (data of G. F. Debets and M. M. Gerasimova, summarized in the work of A.V. Shevchenko [1986]).

43. Log culture of the forest-steppe Volga region (data of G. F. Debets, M. S. Akimova, B. V. Firshtein, M. M. Gerasimova and A.V. Shevchenko, summarized in the work of A.V. Shevchenko [Ibid.]).

44. Log culture of the Saratov region (data by B. V. Firshtein and A.V. Shevchenko, summarized in the work of A.V. Shevchenko [Ibid.]).

45. Log culture of the Volgograd and Astrakhan regions (data of G. F. Debets, V. V. Ginzburg, N. M. Glazkova, V. P. Chtetsov, B. V. Firshtein and A.V. Shevchenko, summarized in the work of A.V. Shevchenko [Ibid.]).

46. Log cabin culture of the Astrakhan region-Krivaya Luka [Ibid.].

47. Log cabin culture of the Volga-Ural region, early period [Khokhlov, 1998].

48. Log culture of the Volga-Ural region, late period [Ibid.].

49. Belozersk culture of Ukraine - Shirokoe [Zinevich and Kruts, 1968; Kruts, 1984].

50. Belozersk culture of Ukraine-a total series [Kruz, 1984].

51. Chernorovskaya kul'tura Ukrainy [Chernorovskaya culture of Ukraine].

52. Bactrian-Margian archaeological complex of Southern Turkmenistan - Gonur-Depe (Babakov et al., 2001).

Data on 14 measurement features - the three main diameters of the skull, the width of the forehead, the width and height of the face, nose and eye sockets, two angles of the horizontal profile of the face, the simotic index and the angle of protrusion of the nose - were subjected to canonical analysis. All 120 groups were compared pairwise using the Mahalanobis distance () adjusted for abundance (Rightmire, 1969) (k (1/n11/), where k is the number of features, and and are the numbers of observations averaged over all features in groups 1 and 2, subtracted from the value of ). Strictly speaking, the distance is the square root of . However, according to tradition, we will use the term "distance" in relation to , especially since the correction for the number is made precisely in this value, as a result of which some of its values are negative. The latter, contrary to the opinion of some anthropologists, is not only possible, but also necessary, since we are not talking about general populations, but about samples, and very small ones at that. Only if negative values are taken into account, the average value of can be zero if there are no real differences between the two groups.

Since an attempt to map the mutual position of 120 groups in a multidimensional space on a plane, just as it was done with respect to 48 groups [Kozintsev, 2000], would lead to over-dimensionality-

page 145

To further complicate the picture, we will focus on the analysis of pairwise generalized distances, resorting in some cases to their averaging.

Results and discussion

Scythians in general

First of all, we should evaluate the scale of intra-Scythian differentiation in order to correlate it with the" external " scale. The average distance between all 22 Scythian groups is 6.30, between 17 steppe groups - 5.25, between 5 forest - steppe groups - 5.88, and between steppe and forest-steppe groups-8.04. As will be seen below, these values are by no means small on a general scale. There are many non-Scythian groups that are on average much closer to the Scythians as a whole, and even more so to individual Scythian populations, than they are to each other (see below). Thus, the first conclusion is that the carriers of the Scythian culture of the Northern Black Sea region were quite diverse in anthropological terms. There is no need to talk about any consolidation here. What caused this heterogeneity?

Let us turn to the external relations of the Scythians, identifying them first for the Scythians as a whole, then for their large territorial divisions, and finally for local populations. The maximum anthropological similarity with all Scythians as a whole is found in the representatives of the following archaeological groups, (the values of D2 in each case are averaged over 22 Scythian series; the groups are arranged in descending order of similarity with the Scythians):

1. Okunevskaya culture of Tuva (Aimyrlyg XIII and Aimyrlyg quarry) - 3.07.

2. Log culture of Ukraine (ground burial grounds) - 3.20.

3. Yamnaya kultura Ukrainy (upper Ingulets river) - 3,22.

4. Catacomb culture of Ukraine (Molochnaya River valley, early period) - 3.50.

5. Log culture of the Saratov region - 3.73.

6. Catacomb culture of the steppe Crimea, late period-3.76.

7. Tatar culture - 4,27.

8. Catacomb culture of Ukraine (Kakhovka, late period) - 4.52.

9. Log culture of the Volga region (Luzanovka) - 4.63.

10. Scythian epoch of Western Tuva - 4.67. So, the closest to the Scythians are three groups of log culture, three - catacomb, one - pit and three groups from Central Asia and Southern Siberia. To evaluate the significance of these results, we need to take into account the uneven representation of different territories in our data set. The Bronze Age of Eastern Europe is represented by 53 series, while the Bronze and Early Iron Ages of Tuva - only six. Despite this, two of the Tuvan series were included in the top ten groups closest to the Scythians, and one of them (related to the Okunev culture of Tuva) ranked first among all 98 non-Scythian series included in the comparative analysis. Thus, based on the data obtained, it can be argued that the Central Asian origin of the Scythians (in any case, the average craniological complex, in which, due to the uneven distribution of samples from different regions, rather late steppe variants predominate) is no less likely than the local one. We will discuss this issue in more detail after we review the data on steppe Scythians.

Steppe and forest-steppe

Let us now pass from a generalized consideration of the Scythian massif to the analysis of two large territorial groupings of Scythians - steppe and forest-steppe. First, let's turn to the steppe Scythians. The following groups show the greatest similarity to them (the values of , given in ascending order, i.e. in descending order of similarity, are averaged over 17 steppe Scythian series):

1. Okunevskaya culture of Tuva - 2.29.

2. Yamnaya kultura Ukrainy (upper Ingulets river) - 2.77.

3. Log culture of the Saratov region - 2.99.

4. Catacomb culture of the steppe Crimea, late period-3.25.

5. Catacomb culture of Ukraine (Molochnaya River valley, early period) - 3.51.

6. Log culture of Ukraine (ground burial grounds) - 3.54.

7. Tatar culture - 3.60.

8. Scythian epoch of Western Tuva-3.76.

9. Catacomb culture of Ukraine (Kakhovka, late period) - 3.79.

10. Log culture of the Volga region (Luzanovka) - 4.34. The groups remained the same, only their order changed. However, Okunev residents of Tuva are still at the top of the list. In addition, in all but two cases, the values of became smaller, which is easily explained, because "Scythians in general" is a rather vague concept, as it turns out. It is to the steppe Scythians that what was said above about all the Scythians as a whole applies in the first place.

The similarity of the steppe Scythians with the Tuvan Okunevites has already been noted in the work, where they appeared

page 146

There are only two generalized Scythian groups - from the steppe and forest-steppe (Kozintsev, 2000). As we can see, the use of extensive and well-dated new material on the Scythians, as well as many Bronze Age series from Eastern Europe, did not change anything in this respect: in terms of proximity to the Scythians, the Tuvan Okunevites still oppose all non-Scythian groups. How can this closeness be explained? One cannot, of course, exclude the randomness factor, especially since the Tuvan Okunev series is very small (only five skulls). However, this alone doesn't explain anything: there are quite a lot of series of this size in our array. Is there any archaeological evidence to support this discovery?

Today, we can say that such data is available. Quite recently, after the publication of the article [Ibid.], archaeological materials from the Okunev complexes of Aymyrlyg were published (Stambulnik and Chugunov, 2006). It turned out that the unusual stone vessels found there find direct analogies in the materials of monuments of the Chemurchek culture identified by A. A. Kovalev at the end of the III - beginning of the II millennium BC, common in the Kazakh and Mongolian foothills of the Altai and in the steppes of Northern Dzungaria*. The Chemurchek stone statues are similar in many ways to the Scythian ones. According to the hypothesis of A. A. Kovalev, based on a number of archaeological facts, it was the Chemurchek people who were direct, although distant, ancestors of the Scythians [1996, 1998, 2005, 2007]. D. A. Machinsky (1998), whose conclusions are based on the analysis of written sources and the semantics of ancient images, also believes that the ancestral homeland of the Scythians was on the territory of the Caucasus. upper Irtysh, near the lake. Zaisan.

At first glance, the "Chemurchek" hypothesis is contradicted by a chronological gap of 1000 years separating the Scythians from their hypothetical ancestors. V. P. Alekseev (1963) pointed out the regions (Egypt, Armenia, Northern China) where the continuity was preserved, apparently, for at least 4 thousand years.

There is archaeological evidence that Okunevs or their descendants lived on the territory of Tuva for a very long time-apparently, during the entire II millennium BC. e. Judging by the materials from Aymyrlyg, at least some groups of this population were completely different from Okunevs of the Minusinsk basin in anthropological terms, but they were close to the Black Sea Scythians. St. Petersburg archaeologists have repeatedly written about the possible Okunev roots of the Early Scythian culture of Tuva (Mandelstam and Stambulnik, 1980; Savinov, 1994, 1997; Chugunov, Nagler, and Parzinger, 2006; and others). They also pointed out the Okunev origins of the Scythian-Siberian animal style (Pyatkin, 1987; Sher, 1998). After M. P. Gryaznov's excavations in Arzhan, the earlier dates of a fully developed Scythian-type culture in Tuva compared to the Northern Black Sea region became very probable; however, this topic is highly controversial (for a summary of the literature, see [Chlenova, 1997]). In the light of all this, the anthropological parallel between the Okunev Tuvan people and the steppe Scythians seems to deserve close attention.

And now let's turn to the forest-steppe. The first 10 places among the groups that show the least difference from the forest-steppe Scythians are occupied by the following (distances are averaged over five forest-steppe series)::

1. Log culture of Ukraine (ground burial grounds) - 2.05.

2. Catacomb culture of Ukraine (Molochnaya River valley, early period) - 3.47.

3. Catacomb culture of Ukraine, early period, total series-3.64.

4. Yamnaya culture of the left bank of the lower Dnieper-Kakhovka - 4.34.

5. Log cabin culture of the Rostov region-hut. Yasyrev - 4.47.

6. Bactrian-Margian complex of Southern Uzbekistan-Jarkutan - 4.51.

7. Pit culture of the Kherson region - 4.60.

8. Pit culture of the upper Ingulets - 4.72.

9. Log culture of Ukraine, total series (according to A.V. Shevchenko [1986]) - 4.84.

10. Catacomb culture of the right bank of the lower Dnieper, early period-4.85.

The picture has changed significantly. There are no Tuvan groups in the list, and Tagars are also absent. Okunev residents of Tuva are only on the 21st place (D2 = 5.75). In the top ten, nine groups represent the Bronze Age cultures of Ukraine and Southern Russia. Especially close to leso-

* According to V. A. Kisel [2007], the story of Herodotus about the alleged Scythian funeral ritual of purification with cannabis smoke, which led them to a state of ecstasy, is not confirmed by archaeological materials from the Black Sea region, where incense burners of this era have not been found (in the Bronze Age they were used by the carriers of the catacomb culture). But there is plenty of archaeological evidence that this rite was practiced by the early nomads of Central Asia and Southern Siberia. V. A. Kisel believes that Herodotus borrowed information from Aristaeus, who visited the Asian nomads. But we can also assume something else: the Scythian informant of Herodotus told a legend about a ritual once performed by his ancestors in their "historical homeland". Are the Aymyrlyg and Chemurchek stone vessels (some of them broken and repaired with lead patches) incense burners?

page 147

steppe Scythians are one of the groups of carriers of the log culture of Ukraine (people buried in ground graves), which should be expected in accordance with the hypothesis of autochthonous forest-steppe Scythian population. However, it is still difficult to prove this hypothesis, since the log culture was widespread in the steppe regions, while the paleoanthropological material of the Bronze Age from the forest-steppe is extremely fragmentary (Konduktorova, 1978, 1979).

The results obtained correspond to the conclusions of A. Y. Alekseev, according to whom there was not one Scythian culture, but two-archaic, widespread in the forest-steppe (as well as in the North Caucasus), and classical, concentrated in the steppe, and there was a rather sharp gap between them [1993]. It is reasonable to assume that the carriers of these cultures were different groups of the population, and it is possible to call the inhabitants of the forest-steppe Scythians only conditionally, in a broad sense. This view has been expressed by many people for a very long time [Rostovtsev, 1918, p. 76; Artamonov, 1949; Grakov and Melyukova, 1953; Smirnov, 1966, p. 108-109; Shramko, 1971; et al.].

It seems certain that the migration impulses from the east primarily affected steppe regions. It would be natural to assume that the forest-steppe population, sedentary and autochthonous, borrowed the Scythian culture from steppe nomads. However, the observed territorial and chronological distribution of the material does not agree with this idea. It will be possible to eliminate this contradiction only when (and if) we have at our disposal the material of the archaic Scythian culture from the steppe. If this does not happen and the forest-steppe localization of the Scythian archaics turns out to be not an artifact of knowledge, but a real fact, then we will have to consider the second possibility. It consists in the fact that the archaic Scythian culture spread not by migration, but by diffusion; migration from the depths of Asia to the Black Sea steppes occurred later, in the fifth century BC, and it marked the beginning of "classical Scythia".

As for the parallel between the forest-steppe Scythians and the inhabitants of Dzharkutan, being a single one and being only in the sixth place, it cannot be considered indicative, especially since neither the Scythians as a whole nor the steppe Scythians can trace this parallel according to new materials. This is at odds with previous results (Kozintsev, 2000), which indicated that the Scythians were close to the Bronze Age population of Bactria-Margiana (Sapalli-tepe, Jarkutan). The reason for this discrepancy is unclear. It may be due to some kind of averaging artifact (in the previous work, the total Scythian samples were used, but now the analysis units are distances for local series), or it may be due to the fact that the composition of the material has changed (see below).

Local Scythian groups

Now we will consider the directions of communication of each Scythian group separately. We will only take into account the closest parallels (< 1.00). In each case, we will arrange them in descending order of similarity.

Steppe Scythians

1. Frontline I: late catacomb groups from the left bank of the lower Dnieper (0.13) and upper Ingulets (0.21); Scythians of Nikopol (0.49); late catacomb group from the steppe Crimea (0.59); Chernorovskaya group (0.67).

2. Aktash: Mamai Mountain Scythians (-0.05); early catacomb group from the Molochnaya River (0.58) and late from the steppe Crimea (0.75); Okunevskaya group from Tuva (0.87).

3. Kerch: Scythians of the Gaimanov Field (-2.44); carriers of the pit culture from the upper reaches of the Ingulets (-1.04); log group from the Saratov region (-0.89); Scythians of Nikolaevka (-0.58) and Nosakov (0.48); Chernogorovskaya group (0.60); group of the Scythian era from Western Mongolia - Ulangom (0.61); representatives of The Bactrian-Margian complex of Southern Uzbekistan-Sapalli-tepe (0.66); the early catacomb group from the Molochnaya River (0.84); carriers of the multi - rock ceramics culture of Moldavia - Kalfa (0.85); representatives of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age of Armenia-Akunk (0.87).

4. Prisivashye: group of the Early Scythian epoch from Western Tuva-culture of non-caste burials (0.39); Saks of Northern and Central Kazakhstan (0.75); group of the Scythian epoch from Central Tuva (0.76).

5. Gaimanovo Field: Scythians of Kerch (-2.44) and the right-bank forest-steppe group (-0.90); carriers of pit culture from the upper reaches of the Ingulets (0.05); log group from Ukraine - ground burial grounds (0.07); Scythians of Nikolaevka (0.24) and Medvin (0.27); Chernogorovskaya group (0.59); Okunevskaya from Tuva (0.76); Shiroky Scythians (0.91); representatives of the Bactrian-Margian complex of Southern Uzbekistan-Jarkutan (0.98).

6. Nosaks: Scythians of Kerch (0.48); carriers of the pit culture from the upper reaches of the Ingulets (0.49); late catacomb group from the steppe Crimea (0.70).

7. Zlatopol: Chernorovskaya group (-1.79); population of Southwestern Sevan from the Late Bronze and Early Iron Eras (-1.18); late catacomb group

page 148

from the right bank of the lower Dnieper (-0.59); Okunevskaya group from Tuva (-0.49); Scythians of Nikopol (-0.20); carriers of the pit culture from the Volga-Urals (0.15); log cabin group from the Volgograd and Astrakhan regions (0.20); Scythians of Kakhovka (0.25); population of Southern Tajikistan of the Late Bronze Age-Tigrovaya Balka, Makoni-Mor (0.62); early catacomb group from the Molochnaya River (0.76).

8. Mamai Mountain: Poltavka group (-0.22); Scythians of Aktash (-0.05); late catacomb group from the steppe Crimea (0.53); Okunevskaya group from Tuva (0.64); population of Southern Bronze Age Turkmenistan - Altyn-depe (0.81); log cabin group from the forest-steppe Volga region (0.90).

9. Kakhovka: Scythians of Zlatopol (0.25); Okunevskaya group from Tuva (0.92).

10. Shirokoe: Scythians of the forest-steppe right bank (0.04) and Gaimanov Field (0.91).

11. Mikhaylovka, Kut, Kalinovka: group of the Scythian epoch from Western Tuva (-0.31); Okunevskaya group from Tuva (-0.23) ; Scythians of Nikolaevka (-0.15); Saks of Kyrgyzstan (-0.11), Northern and Central Kazakhstan (-0.03) ; groups of the Early Scythian epoch from Western Tuva-landless burials (0.37) and from Altai (0.44); carriers of pit culture from the upper reaches of the Ingulets River (0.73); log cabin group from the Saratov region (0.87).

12. Alexandropol: sauromaty (0,92).

13. Nikopol: Zlatopol Scythians (-0.20); late catacomb group from the right bank of the lower Dnieper (0.12); Frontline Scythians (0.49); late catacomb group from the steppe Crimea (0.64); early from the Molochnaya River (0.70).

14. Verkhne-Tarasovka: not a single close parallel. The smallest difference is from the Scythian-era group from Western Tuva (1.36).

15. Ingulets group: carriers of the Moldavian polyvalic ceramics culture - Kalfa (-0.33); yamnaya group from the left bank of the lower Dnieper (0.83).

16. North-Western Black Sea region: Scythian age groups from Central (0.11) and Western (0.96) Tuva.

17. Nikolaevka on the Dniester: carriers of pit culture from the upper Ingulets (-1.02); Okunevskaya group from Tuva (-0.87); Scythians of Kerch (-0.58); log groups from the Saratov region (-0.53) and Ukraine - ground burial grounds (-0.48); Chernogorovskaya group (-0.23); Scythians of Mikhaylovka, Kut and Kalinovka (-0.15), Gaiman Fields (0.24); early catacomb group from the Molochnaya River (0.40); representatives of the Bactrian-Margian complex of Southern Uzbekistan - Jarkutan (0.76).

One of the 17 steppe Scythian series (from Verkhne-Tarasovka) is not closely related to any of the other 119 groups. If the maximum value of D2 is reduced by half to 0.5 (only extremely close connections remain), then another relatively isolated steppe series is added to the group from Verkhne-Tarasovka - Alexandropolskaya. It is precisely in relation to these two populations that the question of the key role of microevolutionary processes in their formation could be raised, following S. G. Efimova, if the eastern (Sauromatic) connections of the Alexandropol group were not obvious (Firshtein, 1966). The connections of other steppe groups are too clear to prefer the microevolutionary factor to the ethnic one.

Let's try to evaluate the results obtained. The following groups found the greatest number of close parallels when compared with 17 steppe Scythian series: Okunevskaya from Tuva-seven (41.2%), Yamnaya from the upper reaches of the Ingulets-five (29.4%), early catacomb from the Molochnaya River-five (29.4%), late catacomb from the steppe Crimea-five (29.4%), Chernogorovskaya - five (29.4%), log cabins from the Saratov region - three (17.6%). There are eight groups that have two parallels with the steppe Scythians, including three Central Asian, log cabin, catacomb, multicolored pottery cultures, Bactrian-Margian and Saka. None of the other 84 non-Scythian series shows close links with more than one steppe Scythian population.

So, contrary to the widespread opinion, which until recently was shared by all anthropologists, there is not the slightest anthropological evidence that the only or at least the main ancestors of the steppe Scythians were the carriers of the log culture. Now that we have data on a number of groups from different areas of its distribution, we can state this with confidence, and not only in relation to the steppe Scythians as a whole, but also to the overwhelming majority of their local populations. Connections with log structures are most pronounced for Scythians from Kerch, Gaimanov Field and Nikolaevka, but even in these cases, pit parallels are still in the foreground (specifically, we are talking about the pit series from the upper reaches of the Ingulets).

The Scythians of Frontovoi, Aktash, and Nikopol were most similar to the bearers of the catacomb culture (L. S. Klein [1963, 1980, 1987] wrote that the latter could have been the ancestors of the royal Scythians). Recently, the possibility of a significant role of the catacomb population in the formation of some groups of steppe Scythians was discussed on the basis of anthropological data by S. I. Kruz (2004).

page 149

The Nosakov Scythians show both pit and catacomb parallels, the Zlatopolskys show catacomb, pit and log parallels, and the Mamai - Gory Scythians show Poltavkinsky, catacomb and log parallels.

Ten steppe Scythian groups gravitate only to the carriers of Eastern European cultures of the Bronze Age. However, only four of them (from the Frontline. Nosakov, Nikopol and from Ingulets) there are no other parallels. Six others (from Aktash, Kerch, Gaimanov Field, Zlatopol, Mamay-Gora and Nikolaevka) also show Central Asian connections.

The Scythians of Prisivashia, Kakhovka, Mikhaylovka-Kuta-Kalinovka, Alexandropol, the North-Western Black Sea region and, possibly, Verkhne-Tarasovka are characterized exclusively by the eastern direction of communication. For the Alexandropol group, we are talking about Sauromatic parallels, for the rest - mainly about Central Asian (Tuvan) ones.

Let us pay attention to the fact that the relations with the "near" nomadic world (Sauromatian-Saka) occupy a clearly subordinate place; in their scale, they are not comparable with the "far" ones (Central Asian) and are hardly relevant to the problem of the origin of the steppe Scythians as a whole. Only the Alexandropol group is attracted to Sauromats, and only the groups from Prisivashya and Mikhaylovka - Kuta-Kalinovka are attracted to Saks, but in the last two cases, the Central Asian connections are still in the first place.

We leave aside the South-Central Asian parallels (there are five of them) and the Transcaucasian ones (two), since according to new materials they are not fixed at the level of the Scythian steppe massif as a whole. In relation to the three steppe groups, we are talking about similarity with the population of Bactria-Margiana (Jarkutan and Sapalli-tepe). In no case are these parallels in the first place.

As already mentioned, different cultural and territorial groups are very unevenly represented in our array. And since the probability of getting a random match, all other things being equal, is higher the more samples are attracted, let's try to put the groups in equal conditions.

16 samples representing the log culture were used, which gives 272 comparisons in the presence of 17 Scythian series from the steppe. In seven of them, low D2 values were obtained (see above). Consequently, according to this criterion, the indicator of proximity of the steppe Scythians to the creators of the log culture is very low - 2.6% (7/272). The corresponding indicator calculated for 12 groups of the pit and 16 catacomb cultures is higher - 3.4% (7/204) and 5.1% (14/272), respectively, for two groups of the polyvalid ceramics culture - 5.9% (2/34), for eight Bronze Age groups from southern Central Asia and Iran-3.7% (5/136). Fluctuations, as we can see, are small. The maximum values were recorded for one small Chernogorskaya series - 29.4% (5/17) and six Tuvan series-12.7% (13/102). Both are higher than the level of proximity of steppe Scythian groups to each other - 7.4% (10/136).

So, the closest to the steppe Scythians in this indicator are the people who left the monuments of the Black Sea type. This connection, which has already been pointed out by S. I. Kruz [2002], deserves special attention, since the Chernogorov culture belongs to the Cimmerian epoch and fills the time hiatus between the carriers of the log culture and the Scythians (IX - VII centuries BC). It is possible that the Chernomorians were not Cimmerians, but the direct ancestors of some steppe Scythian groups (according to new data, their similarity is especially great with the Scythians from Zlatopol and Nikolaevka, and to a somewhat lesser extent with the groups from Gaimanov Field, Kerch and Frontovoye). However, when the results are averaged over different Scythian groups of the steppe, these parallels "dissolve" in the total mass and the proximity disappears (see above). For this reason, as well as due to the uniqueness of the Chernogorov series and its small number (only five skulls of poor preservation), the reliability of the obtained results is problematic.

The Novocherkassk-type culture, which also belongs to the pre-Scythian period, is represented by only one male skull from Vasilyevka, brachycranial and very broad-faced, i.e. sharply different from the main mass of Scythian ones [Ibid.]. Perhaps the creators of the Novocherkassk culture were Cimmerians? This assumption corresponds to the views of E. And Krupnova [1960, p. 126], N. L. Chlenova [1971] (and oral communication) and I. V. Perevozchikov [1971]. However, while this can only be guessed. The population that left the monuments of the Belozersk culture does not show close craniological analogies with any Scythian group from the steppe.

As for the connection of the steppe Scythians with the Tuva groups, it is necessary to take into account the significant anthropological heterogeneity of the Tuvan population of the Bronze and Early Iron Eras. In particular, one of the six Tuvan series at our disposal, namely, the Bronze Age series from Baidag III, is extremely far from any Scythian groups*. The Scythian-era series from Aymyrlyg is not particularly close to them. All 13 parallels were obtained by comparing the steppe Scythians with the Chetyr-

* According to archaeological data, this group reveals Baikal connections (personal report by E. U. Stambulnik), as well as anthropological data (Gokhman, 1980).

page 150

There are three other Tuvan groups - Okunevs from Aymyrlyg (seven), bearers of the cultures of non-caste burials in Western Tuva, representatives of the Scythian era from Western and Central Tuva (two for each). Thus, the Tuva Oku Neva series, in contrast to the Chernogorskaya series, is characterized by exceptional proximity to the Scythian steppe by all the criteria used. What is the origin of this amazing group? The fact that we were looking at aliens from some very distant land was clear at a glance. But which ones? I. I. Gokhman (1980), who studied this series, attributed it to the "hyper-morphic form of the ancient Mediterranean race" and suggested that it could be migrants from Central or even Near Asia. This possibility was not excluded in my previous work on the origin of the Scythians [Kozintsev, 2000]. However, as it now turns out, the archaeological evidence is more likely to indicate a different ancestral homeland - Western Europe.

According to the bold hypothesis of A. A. Kovalev (2005, 2007), the origin of funerary monuments of the Chemurchek culture (on the territory of Kazakhstan - with stone corridors facing east and closed by huge locking plates) is directly related to the corridor tombs of Western Europe at the end of the IV millennium BC. e. With megalithic cultures of the Western European Eneolithic, i.e., with the area of According to some representatives of the St. Petersburg archaeological school, it was the main focus of Indo-European migrations to the east (Klein, 1990, in print; Safronov, 1989). It also connects the origin of the Chemurchek stone statues, the shape of ceramic and stone vessels similar to Okunevsky from Aymyrlyg. The analogies, according to A. A. Kovalev, are so clear that it is impossible to explain the emergence of the corridor tomb culture in Inner Asia by anything other than the migration of Indo-Europeans from the territory of Western Europe. The reverse migration of the descendants of Chemurchek to the west, as he believes, led to the appearance of the Scythians in the historical arena.

What was the basis of the opinion about the Mediterranean identity of the Okunev people of Tuva? First, on the hypothesis of their southwestern origin, which seemed obvious. Secondly, based on the results of statistical analysis, which clearly contrast the gracile ancient forms of the Caucasian race (mainly southern) with the massive, i.e. proto-European ones (Kozintsev, 2000). Third, it is based on the proximity of the total Scythian samples, as well as the Okunev series from Tuva, to the groups representing the Bronze Age Bactria-Margiana population [Ibid.]. By the way, it is this population that some archaeologists identify with Indo-Iranians (Sarianidi, 2001; Lamberg-Karlovsky, 2002). However, new craniological materials on the Scythians cast doubt on the reality of their Central Asian connections (see above). The inclusion of a series from Gonur reinforces these doubts - it does not show proximity to any Scythian sample. And the Okunevites of Tuva show the most distinct similarity, apart from the Scythians, not with the inhabitants of Bactria-Margiana, but with some groups of carriers of pit, catacomb and log cultures.

Further, not all gracile Caucasians were dark-pigmented. Gracilization really began in the southern parts of the area of the Caucasian race, but over time it also took over the northern regions. Already in the Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age, craniological differences between most groups of the territory of foreign Europe (not only Southern, but also Central, Western, and Northern) and the inhabitants of the Middle East were practically absent (Schwidetzky and Rosing, 1990). Only the Eastern European groups that preserved the features of the ancient variants of the Europoid (proto-European) race (the creators of the battle axe cultures of Estonia, the cord ceramics of East Prussia, the late catacomb culture of Ukraine, etc.) and their relatives who migrated to the east (the carriers of the pit culture of the Volga region, the eastern groups of the carriers of the log culture, the Afanasyevites, Andronovites, and Tagars) by the way [Ibid; Kozintsev, 2000]. The foci of two processes-gracilization and depigmentation-were located in opposite parts of the Caucasoid range (the first - in the south, the second-in the north). These processes did not coincide in time (the second, apparently, preceded the first) and they were independent of each other. As shown by V. P. Alekseev [1974, pp. 205-212], the relationship between the geographical distribution of pigmentation and facial morphology in the modern population of Europe and the Caucasus is very uncertain and, contrary to popular belief, there are no craniological criteria for distinguishing southern (dark-pigmented) and northern (light-pigmented) Caucasians. It follows that it is wrong to use the term "Mediterranean" as we usually do in relation to gracilized ancient Caucasians (in particular, the Okunevites of Tuva and the Scythians), since we do not know anything about their pigmentation. They may well have been fair-haired, like the heroes of the ancient Greek epic [Makkay, 2000, p. 63-64], because the concepts of "northern race" and "proto-European race" are by no means identical.

Indeed, the Caucasians that lived in the Tarim River basin (Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China) in the second and first millennia BC, judging by the well-preserved soft tissues, were blond (Mallory and Mair, 2000). Their Indo-European identity-

page 151

there is no doubt about it. Everything from blonde hair to the plaid woolen material - "Tartan" - indicates the European roots of this population. For the first time, a close acquaintance with the "blond race in Central Asia", whose features were previously known only from descriptions in Chinese sources and from craniological materials, was presented (Debets, 1931). The Tarim findings do not agree with the theory that Indo-Europeans migrated to the east directly from their hypothetical ancient Near Eastern ancestral homeland, bypassing Europe.

Most likely, the migrants from Europe to Xinjiang were not Aryans, but Tochars (Yuezhi); but if they were fair-haired, then we may well assume the same for the gracilized Caucasians of the more northern regions of Central Asia, who seem to be close to them in craniological features. According to published data (Hemphill and Mallory, 2004), the cranial index in three male series with Tarim ranges from 74-77, the face width is 131 - 136 mm, i.e. we are talking about rather graceful dolicho - mesocrane Caucasians. According to the calculations of B. Hemphill [Ibid], the earliest Tarim series (beginning of the second millennium BC) is closest to the groups of the third - second millennium BC from Harappa, and the later, synchronous Scythian (VII-III centuries BC)-to the inhabitants of Bactria-Margiana (Jarkutan and Sapalli).tepe), and therefore not far from both the Tuvan Okunevites and the Scythians. The result, which belongs to the early series, is probably explained by the fact that B. Hemphill did not use material from Europe.

The above hypothesis of A. A. Kovalev does not contradict the fact that the gracilization process began in the southern part of the Europoid range, but it also corresponds to the theory of two ancestral homelands of Indo - Europeans-early, Middle Eastern, and late, European, localized in the territory from the Balkans [Dyakonov, 1982] to Central or even Northern Europe [Safronov, 1989; Klein, 1990, in print], i.e. areas captured by the depigmentation process.

In the light of all this, the "strange" similarity of the steppe Scythians with some very early groups of the Bronze Age becomes clear, in particular, the yamnaya group from the upper reaches of the Ingulets and the early catacomb group from the Molochnaya River. The first one shows a close connection not only with a number of catacomb and log groups in Ukraine, but also with gracilized Caucasians of much more eastern regions - Alakuls of Western Kazakhstan (D2 = -0.36) and Okunevs of Tuva (D2 = -0.21). The same applies to the named early catacomb group (-1.35 and 0.41, respectively). It seems that the point here is not so much in the local roots of the steppe Scythians (if the hypothesis of autochthonous nature was correct, then the most pronounced similarity should be with the carriers of the log culture, which in fact does not exist), but in the fact that their ancestors belonged to an extremely mobile pastoral Indo-European population, which in the Bronze Age made distant migrations from from west to east across the steppes of Eurasia. The number of clearly non-specific parallels between steppe Scythians and Indo-European Bronze Age groups could be increased. Thus, the Scythians of Aktash are craniologically closest to the Abashevites (D2 = 0.33), the Scythians of Kakhovka are closest to the Fatyanovites (D2 Such analogies are difficult to explain by anything other than randomness in the distribution of the total Indo-European anthropological heritage.

The carriers of the Yamnaya culture are considered to be undifferentiated Aryans (Merpert, 1974; Grantovsky, 1970; Safronov, 1989). This point of view corresponds to the latest lexical and statistical data on the time of the Aryan community's disintegration (Gray and Atkinson, 2003). Carriers of the catacomb culture are identified with Indo-Aryans (Klein, 1987), Indo-Iranian (or Proto-Iranian) belonging to the Srubno-Andronovo massif is very likely (Kuzmina, 1994), and the Iranian-speaking Scythians are not in doubt. However, the migration of the ancestors of the latter to Central Asia could have taken place even before the collapse of the Indo-Iranian community. Accordingly, the question of when and where the ancestors of the Scythians became Iranian-speaking remains open.

Returning to the Chernogorov parallels, we should recall that M. P. Gryaznov [1983] once distinguished the "Arzhano-Chernogorov phase" in the development of Scythian-Siberian cultures, and understood it in a purely stadium sense. Although today such an interpretation hardly has many supporters, the anthropological heterogeneity of the Scythian culture carriers in relation to the first-order races is beyond doubt. Thus, the Mongoloid nature of the Arzhans (Chikisheva, 2004; Moiseev, 2006) excludes their kinship with the pre-Scythian or Scythian population of Eastern Europe. By the way, the people buried in the graves of the Scythian period in Aymyrlyg are far from both the Chernorovites and the Scythians due to the obvious Mongoloid admixture [Kozintsev, 2000]. On the other hand, their predecessors buried in the same burial field - the Okunevites of Tuva - were extremely similar to the Chernogorites (D2 = 0.04) and the Scythians. The striking difference between them and the Okunevites of the Minusinsk basin (D2 = 14.98) shows that in the Okunev era, as in the Scythian era, the carriers of the same culture could be groups of completely different origins. Who exactly created the Scythian culture and who borrowed it - we do not know. But it is quite appropriate to ask: perhaps the influx of Mongoloids into the territory

page 152

Tuva and was the reason that forced the descendants of the ancient Caucasians of this territory to return to Europe?

It is appropriate to ask another question: could the anthropological features of the steppe Scythians have arisen as a result of the mestizoization of migrants from Central Asia with the descendants of the local Eastern European population of the Bronze Age? It will be easier to answer this question if we simplify the picture, leaving in our array only the steppe Scythian series, as well as the groups closest to them - East European and Central Asian-and subject the data to canonical analysis.

The first canonical variable, which accounts for 30% of the variability, arranges the groups in order of decreasing Caucasicity. Their sequence is as follows: Scythians of Kakhovka (-1.76), Chernogorovtsy (-1.50), Scythians of Zlatopol (-1.43), early catacomb group from the Molochnaya River (-1.06), Scythians of Nikopol (-1.06), log group from the Volga region-Luzanovka (-0.78), Scythians of Aktash (-0.66), pit group from the upper Ingulets (-0.49), okunevtsy of Tuva (-0.49), Scythians of Mamai Mountain (-0.46) and Frontovoye (-0.45), late catacomb group from Crimea (-0.30), Scythians of Gaimanov Field (-0.30), log group from Saratov region (-0.25), late catacomb group from Kakhovka (-0.24) , Scythians of Nikolaevka (-0.22), log group from Ukraine-ground burial grounds (-0.12), Scythians of Verkhne-Tarasovka (0.24), Shiroky (0.28), Ingulets (0.29), Kerch (0.32), Nosakov (0.72), Mikhaylovka, Kut and Kalinovka (0.76), a group of Scythian epoch from Western Tuva (0.98), Scythians of the North-Western Black Sea region (1.31), a group of Early Scythian age from Western Tuva - bezveshchevye burials (1.93), Scythians of Alexandropol (2.04) and Prisivashya (2.37), a group of Scythian age from Central Tuva (2.42).

Three of the four Tuvan groups are located at one pole, while the Chernomorians and the early catacomb culture carriers from the Molochnaya River are located at the other, which would seem to support the Mestizo hypothesis. But, first of all, there are Scythian groups at the same poles (on the Europoid - from Kakhovka, Zlatopol and Nikopol, on the relatively "Mongoloid" - from Prisivashye, Alexandropol, North-Western Black Sea region and Mikhailovka-Kut-Kalinovka). In other words, the steppe Scythians differed no less in the ratio of Europeoid and Mongoloid than their predecessors who lived in the Bronze Age on the same territory, and they differed from the groups of the Scythian era from Tuva used in this analysis. Secondly, the Eastern European series of the Bronze Age are very variable in this respect, occupying places from the 2nd (Chernorovtsy) to the 17th (log group from ground burial grounds of Ukraine) in terms of Europeoid character. Third, the Okunev group from Tuva, which is ahead of all others in terms of proximity to the steppe Scythians, is quite neutral on this vector, taking the 9th place in terms of the degree of expression of Caucasian features (which, of course, does not indicate a Mongoloid admixture). The same should be said about its position on the following canonical vectors. Only the penultimate, 13th vector, which accounts for an insignificant part of the variability (about 1%), fully reveals the uniqueness of the Tuvan Okunevites, but at the opposite end of it are not the European groups of the Bronze Age, but the Scythian series. Finally, fourthly, and most importantly, different groups of steppe Scythians show a generalized similarity with the Okunev group from Tuva, regardless of the ratio of their Caucasian and Mongoloid features. This applies equally, for example, to the Mikhailovka-Kuta-Kalinovka series, which is located near the relatively "Mongoloid" pole of the first vector, and to the most Europoid series - from Kakhovka and Zlatopol. As can be seen ,the" Central Asian " deviation of the steppe Scythians in comparison with the forest-steppe ones is not limited to the weakening of Caucasian features. None of the other 13 vectors gives the expected sequence in which the Eastern European groups of the Bronze Age would be at one pole, the Central Asian groups at the other, and the steppe Scythians in the middle.

Thus, the results of the analysis do not actually indicate that the steppe Scythians were intermediate between the earlier inhabitants of the same territory and the inhabitants of Central Asia. This supports the hypothesis that the steppe Scythian population - at least since the fifth century BC - was mostly newcomers. Its anthropological heterogeneity may indicate a multiplicity of migrations or the unequal participation of local groups in its composition. However, the main core of this population seems to have been genetically related to one of the branches of Indo-Iranians, who migrated from Europe far east to Central Asia in the Bronze Age, and then, in the early Iron Age, returned to the steppes of the Northern Black Sea region.

Forest-steppe Scythians

1. Seimin Group: not a single close parallel. Even among the Scythian series, there is not a single one that even remotely resembles this one. It could be assumed that the reason for this isolation is the extremely small size of the sample (only four skulls), but the correction for the number made at all distances (see above), in principle, should insure against exaggerating the uniqueness of small groups.

page 153

2. Posul group: carriers of the early catacomb culture from the Molochnaya River (-0.27); Alakul group from Western Kazakhstan (-0.26); group from Tepe-Hissar-3 (0.99).

3. Vorskla-Boryspil group: no close parallels even among the Scythian series, although this sample is slightly larger than the Seymin group (six skulls).

4. Medvin: Scythians of the forest-steppe right bank, combined series (-0.87); log group from ground burial grounds of Ukraine (-0.20); Scythians of Gaimanov Field (0.27); yamnaya group from Kakhovka (0.42); Belozerskaya group from Shiroky (0.59); same-total series (0.61); Bactrian-Margian group from Dzharkutan (0.63); srubnaya from the right-bank Ukraine (0.78); Kemi-Obin group (0.85); Yamnaya from the Kherson region (0.97).

5. Combined series from the right-bank forest-steppe Ukraine: log group from ground burial grounds of Ukraine (-1.34); Okunevskaya from Tuva (-1.09) ; Scythians of Gaimanov Field (-0.90) and Medvin (-0.87); log group of Ukraine, according to A.V. Shevchenko [1986] (-0.35) ; Scythians of Shiroky (0.04); The Bactrian-Margian group from Dzharkutan (0.17); the early catacomb group from Ukraine (0.25); the log cabin group from right-bank Ukraine (0.32); and the Belozersk group from Shirokoe (0.51).

First of all, we note that two of the five forest-steppe series are completely separate and do not resemble either one or any of the other 118. Among the 17 steppe groups, there is not a single one that is equally isolated, although samples of the same small volume are available. Does this mean that microevolutionary (in particular, stochastic) processes played a more significant role in the forest-steppe than in the steppe? This is quite possible if we take into account the sedentary nature and lower density of the forest-steppe population, and, accordingly, the greater endogamous nature of local populations in the forest-steppe compared to the steppe. Indeed, the average distance between forest-steppe groups is 5.88, whereas between steppe groups (with the entire breadth of their circle of connections) - 5.25. This indicator between the steppe and forest-steppe series is significantly higher - 8.04. This, of course, does not mean that the two territorial groups of Scythians are completely anthropologically separate. There are, in particular, three "connecting links": between the steppe group from Gaimanov Field and two forest-steppe groups - from Medvin and combined pravoberezhnaya, as well as between the latter and the steppe group from Shiroky.

The structure of external relations of the forest-steppe Scythians is quite different from that of the steppe ones. Among the 23 close parallels, there is only one Central Asian one. Due to its uniqueness, it may well be random. The same applies to the four geographically closer eastern and southeastern parallels: They are not in the first place and lack a clear localization (from Kazakhstan to Iran). Two of them belong to the Posul group, whose connections are rather vague, so that even here the key role could belong to random processes. For the other two groups - Medvinsky and combined right - bank forest-steppe-the most obvious connections with the carriers of log culture, and in two cases out of five they take the first place. This is especially important, since the Medvinsky group is probably the earliest of all the Scythian groups available to us. Three Belozero parallels should also be added here. This culture dates back to a later time than Srubnaya, which means that, like Chernogorskaya and Novocherkasskaya, it is very important for identifying the local roots of the Scythians. The attraction of the forest-steppe Scythians to the Belozersk group was already pointed out by S. G. Efimova [2000].

The differences in the direction of relations between steppe and forest-steppe Scythian groups and the population of the pre-Scythian period are interesting. For steppe Scythians, there are five Chernozero parallels and no Belozero parallels; for forest - steppe Scythians, there are three Belozero parallels and no Chernozero parallels. However, when averaging distances over local samples (see above), this gravity of individual groups "dissolves" and disappears. There are still log parallels, which for the two named forest-steppe Scythian groups, in contrast to any steppe ones, are very distinct. First of all, we are talking about the similarity with a series of underground burial grounds of the log culture of Ukraine. Connections with native Yamnaya and catacomb cultures are more rare (two for each) and may be random*.

So, although there are practically no Bronze Age materials from the forest-steppe at our disposal, indirect data related to the log culture confirm the theory of autochthonous forest-steppe population, which by tradition (although, perhaps, without sufficient grounds) is called Scythian. It remains only to emphasize that this theory should in no case be extended to the steppe Scythians.

Conclusions

1. The Scythians of the Northern Black Sea region were very heterogeneous in anthropological terms.-

* S. I. Krutz (2004) wrote about the possible role of the bearers of the multicolored ceramics culture in the ethnogenesis of the forest-steppe Scythians. According to my data, none of the two samples belonging to this culture (from Ukraine and Moldova) shows proximity to any forest-steppe Scythian group.

page 154

for the differences between steppe and forest-steppe groups are more pronounced. Apparently, these groups had different origins.

2. Anthropological data indirectly confirm the autochthonous nature of the forest-steppe Scythians. Both for this group as a whole and for local populations (including the earliest - from Medvin), the most distinct connections are with the carriers of the log culture of Ukraine, especially with those buried in underground burial grounds of this culture. The Belozero parallels also deserve attention. The peculiarity of some forest-steppe populations that do not show any clear connections may indicate a significant role of microevolutionary (in particular, stochastic) factors.

3. The connections of the steppe Scythians are different. In the first place - an exceptional similarity with the Okunevs from Tuva, which is manifested at all levels and finds correspondence in the archaeological facts that testify to the Central Asian origin of the Scythian culture. There is also a gravitation to other Tuvan groups. Anthropological connections with the" near "nomadic world (Sauromatian, Saka) are not numerous and are not comparable in meaning to the" far " (Central Asian) parallels.

4. The connections of the steppe Scythians with the carriers of the log culture, apparently, are not specific. They are less distinct than with the carriers of earlier Bronze Age cultures (pit and catacomb) and, apparently, indicate not so much the local roots of the steppe Scythians, but rather the belonging of their ancestors to the Indo-European (most likely, Indo-Iranian) population, some groups of which moved far east in the Bronze Age, up to Central Asia. The reverse migration of their descendants to the steppes of the Northern Black Sea region in the early Iron Age was probably the main factor in the formation of the steppe Scythians (at least those relatively late groups that are represented in our material).

5. The hypothesis about the formation of the steppe Scythian massif as a result of the mestizoization of newcomers (Central Asian) and local groups originating from the Bronze Age population is not confirmed. The role of the local component in shaping the anthropological composition of the steppe Scythians remains unclear. The catacomb and Black Sea parallels deserve the most attention.

Acknowledgements

I express my heartfelt gratitude to S. I. Kruz for her generous willingness to share with me the unpublished results of her many years of tireless work on the study of anthropological materials from the Bronze and Early Iron Eras from Ukraine and for the fruitful discussion of the manuscript of this article. I thank A. Y. Alekseev, D. G. Savinov, and V. A. Kisel for their help and comments, and L. S. Klein for providing unpublished materials.

List of literature

Great Scythia or two Scythians? // Scythia and Bosporus: Materials of the conference in memory of M. I. Rostovtsev. - Novocherkassk, 1993. - P. 28-38.

Alekseev V. P. Antropologicheskie dannye k probleme proiskhozhdeniya naseleniya tsentralnykh predgoriy Kavkazskogo khrebta [Anthropological data on the problem of the origin of the population of the central foothills of the Caucasian Ridge].

Alekseev V. P. Geografiya chelovecheskikh ras [Geography of human races], Moscow: Mysl, 1974, 349 p.

Artamonov M. I. Etnogeografiya Scifii [Ethnogeography of Scythia]. Leningrad State University. - 1949. - N 85. - p. 129-171.

Babakov O., Rykushina G. V., Dubova N. A., Vasiliev S. V., Pestryakov A. P., Khodjayov T. K. Antropologicheskaya kharakteristika nekropolya Gonur-Depe [Anthropological characteristics of the Gonur-Depe necropolis]. Sarianidi V. I. Nekropolis of Gonur and Iranian Paganism, Moscow: Nauka, 2001, pp. 105-135.

Velikanova M. S. Paleoanthropology of the Prut-Dniester interfluve, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1975, 283 p.

Gokhman I. Issledovaniya po paleoanthropologii i kraniologii SSSR [Research on Paleoanthropology and Craniology of the USSR], Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1980, pp. 5-34 (Collection of MAE; vol. 36).

Grakov B. N., Melyukova A. P. Dva arkheologicheskie kul'tury v Scifii Gerodota [Two archaeological cultures in Herodotus ' Scythia].

Grantovsky E. A. Rannaya istoriya iranskikh plemen Perednoi Azii [Early history of the Iranian tribes of Western Asia], Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1970, 396 p.

Gryaznov M. P. Nachalnaya faza razvitiya scifo-sibirskikh kul'tury [The initial phase of development of Scythian-Siberian cultures]. Kemerovo: Kem. state University Press, 1983, pp. 3-18.

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: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1948, 392 p.

Dyakonov I. M. O prarodine nositelei indo-evropeiskikh dialektov [About the ancestral homeland of Indo-European dialect speakers]. - 1982. - N 3. - p. 3-30; N 4. - p. 11-25.

Дяченко В. Д., Покас П. М. До антропологи населения пивничного Криму в епоху бронзи // Археологія. - 1986. - N 53. - P. 64-68.

Efimova S. G. Otnoshenie lesostepnykh i stepnykh gruppov naseleniya Evropeyskoy Scifii po dannym kraniologii [Correlation of forest-steppe and steppe groups of the population of European Scythia according to craniology]. Scythians and Sarmatians in the VII-III centuries BC: paleoecology, anthropology and Archeology, Moscow: Institute of Archeol. RAN, 2000, pp. 39-44.

Zhilyaeva-Kruts S. I. Skulls from Scythian burials of the Kerch expedition of 1964-1967. Kiev: Nauk, dumka Publ., 1970, pp. 180-189.

Жиляєва-Круц С. І. До палеоантропології кеми-обинської культури // Матеріали з антропології України. - 1972. - N 6. - p. 28-36.

page 155

Zinevich G. P. Essays on paleoanthropology of Ukraine. Kiev: Nauk, Dumka Publ., 1967, 223 p. (in Russian)

Зіневич Г. П. Антропологічні дослідження медвінских курганів ранньоскифського періоду // Археологія. - 1985. - N 52. - p. 68-72.

Зіневич Г. П., Круц С. І. Антропологічна характеристика давнього населения території України. - Київ: Наук, думка, 1968. - 102 с.

Kisel, V. A., The Story of Herodotus and ritual vessels of ancient Nomads, in Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2007. - Issue 3 (31). - p. 69-79.

Klein L. S. Proiskhozhdenie skifov tsarskikh po dannym arkheologii [The origin of the Royal Scythians according to archaeological data]. SA. - 1963. - N 4. - pp. 27-35.

Kleinl. S. The third hypothesis about the origin of the Scythians / / Peoples of Asia and Africa. - 1980. - N 6. - p. 72-74.

Klein L. S. Indo-Aryans and the Scythian world: general sources of ideology / / Peoples of Asia and Africa. - 1987. - N 5. - p. 63-82, 92-96.

Klein L. S. Early Indo-Europeans in the Caucasus and North Pontic steppes // Interdisciplinary studies of the cultural and ethnogenesis of the Armenian Highlands and adjacent regions. Yerevan: Yerevan State University Publ., 1990, pp. 162-175.

Klein L. S. Ancient migrations and the origin of Indo-European peoples. - St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg State University (in print).

Kovalev A. A. The origin of the Scythians according to the data of archeology // Between Asia and Europe: The Caucasus in the IV-I millennium BC. 100th anniversary of the birth of A. A. Jessen. St. Petersburg, 1996, pp. 121-127.

Kovalev A. A. Stone sculptures of the Black Irtysh (once again about the Dzungarian ancestral homeland of the Scythians). Khazars. Slavs. Drevnyaya Rus': Mezhdunar. nauch. konf., posv. 100th anniversary of the birth of M. I. Artamonov. St. Petersburg, 1998, pp. 24-29.

Kovalev A. A. Chemurchek cultural phenomenon: Its origin and role in the formation of cultures of the Early Bronze Age of Altai and Central Asia / / Zapadnaya i Yuzhnaya Sibir v drevnosti: Sb. nauch. trudy k 60-letiyu Yu. F. Kiryushin. Barnaul: [B. I.] Publ., 2005. - P. 178-184.

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.

Konduktorova T. S. Antropologicheskiy sostav naseleniya territorii Ukrainy v epokhu bronzy [Anthropological composition of the population of the territory of Ukraine in the Bronze Age]. - 1969. - N 4. - p. 33-57.

Konduktorova T. S. Anthropology of the ancient population of Ukraine (I millennium BC-mid-I millennium AD), Moscow: Moscow State University Press, 1972, 156 p.

Konduktorova T. S. Anthropology of the population of Ukraine of the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age. - Moscow: Nauka, 1973. - 127 p.

Konduktorova T. S. Antropologicheskiy tip chelovek kul'tury shnurovoy keramiki Ukrainy [The anthropological type of people of the shnurovoy keramiki cultures of Ukraine]. - 1978. - Issue 59. - p. 3-23.

Konduktorova T. S. Antropologicheskii tip chelovek komarovsko-tshinetskoy kul'tury Ukrainy [The anthropological type of people of the Komarovo-Tshynets culture of Ukraine]. - 1979. - Issue 62. - p. 44-60.

Krupnov E. And the Ancient History of the North Caucasus, Moscow: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1960, 500 p.

Kruts S. I. Paleoanthropological studies of the Steppe Dnieper region (Bronze Age). Kiev: Nauk, dumka Publ., 1984, 207 p.

Kruts S. I. Antropologiya Steblevskogo mogilnika (k voprosu o fizicheskom tipe naseleniya lesostepi v skifskoe vremya) [Anthropology of the Steblevsky burial ground (on the question of the physical type of the forest-steppe population in the Scythian time)]. Kiev: [B. I.], 1997, pp. 91-106.

Kruz S. And Anthropological data on the Cimmerian problem. - 2002. - N 4. - p. 13-29.

Kruts S. I. Antropologiya stepnykh skifov Severnogo Prichernomorya (novye dannye k voprosu ob ikh proiskhozhdenii) [Anthropology of the Steppe Scythians of the Northern Black Sea region (new data on their origin)]. readings on the 75th anniversary of the birth of Academician V. P. Alekseev, Moscow: Institute of Ethnography and Anthropology. Russian Academy of Sciences, 2004, pp. 94-98.

Kuzmina E. E. Where did the Indo-Aryans come from?: Material culture of the tribes of the Andronovo community and the origin of Indo-Iranians. - M.: East lit., 1994. - 464 p.

Litvinova L. V. Antropologicheskii material iz mogilnika Mamai-Gora [Anthropological material from the Mamai-Gora burial ground]. Zaporozhye: [B. I.], 1999. - Book 1. - Appendix 1. - pp. 188-210.

Litvinova L. V. Antropologicheskii material iz mogilnika Mamai-Gora [Anthropological material from the Mamai-Gora burial ground]. - Zaporozhye: [B. I.], 2001. - Book 2. - Adj. 1. - pp. 246-271.

Mandelshtam A.M., Stambulnik E. U. O nekotorykh problemakh istorii rannykh kochevnikov Tuva [On some problems of the history of early nomads of Tuva]. - Kyzyl: [B. I.], 1980. - p. 43-59.

Machinsky D. A. Strana arimaspov, prostor aryevs i "Scythian" mirrors s bortikom [The land of the Arimasps, the expanse of the Aryans and the "Scythian" mirrors with a side]. - St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg State University, 1998. - p. 102-117. - (Problems of archeology; issue 4).

Melnik L. A. Anthropological characteristics of the population of the Orel-Samara interfluve in the Bronze Age // Antiquities of the steppe Dnieper region (III-I thousand BC). - Dnepropetrovsk: [B. I.], 1982. - pp. 76-88.

Merpert N. Ya. Drevneyshie skotovody Volzhsko-Uralskogo mezhdurechya [Ancient cattle breeders of the Volga-Ural interfluve], Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1974, 400 p.

Moiseev V. G. Kranioskopicheskaya kharakteristika naseleniya Zapadnoy i Yuzhnoy Sibiri scifskogo vremeni [Cranioscopic characteristics of the population of Western and Southern Siberia of the Scythian period]. - 2006. - N 1 (25). - p. 145-152.

Perevozchikov I. V. Appendix to the work of N. L. Chlenova "Monuments of the first millennium BC of Northern and Western Iran in the problem of the Cimmerian-Karasuk community". Iskusstvo i arkheologiya Irana: Dokl. Vsesoyuz. conf. - Moscow, 1971. - p. 339-340.

Pokas P. M., Nazarova T. A., Dyachenko V. D. Materials on the anthropology of the Aktash burial ground // Bessonova S. S., Bunyatyan E. P., Gavrilyuk N. A. Aktashsky burial ground of Scythian time in the Eastern Crimea. - Kiev: Nauk. dumka, 1988, pp. 118-144.

Pyatkin B. N. Proiskhozhdenie okunevskoy kul'tury i istoki zverinogo stilya rannikh kochevnikov [The origin of the Okunev culture and the origins of the animal style of early nomads]. Omsk: [B. I.], 1987, pp. 79-83.

Rostovtsev M. Both Hellenism and Iranism in southern Russia. - Pg.: [B. I.], 1918. - 156 p.

page 156

Savinov D. G. Tuva ranneskifskogo vremeni "na perekrestke" kul'turnykh traditsii (aldy-belskaya kul'tura) [Early Scythian Tuva "at the crossroads" of cultural traditions (Aldy-belskaya kul'tura)]. St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg State University, 1994, pp. 76-92.

Savinov D. G. Problemy izucheniya okunevskoy kul'tury (v istoriograficheskom aspekte) [Problems of studying Okunevskaya culture (in the historiographical aspect)]. St. Petersburg: Petro-RIF Publ., 1997, pp. 7-18.

Sarianidi V. I. Gonur necropolis and Iranian paganism. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 2001, 200 p. (in Russian)

Safronov V. A. Indo-European ancestral lands. Gorky: Volgo-Vyatka Publishing House, 1989, 402 p.

Smirnov A. P. Scythians, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1966, 250 p.

Stambulnik E. U., Chugunov K. V. Pogrebeniya epokhi bronzy na mogilnom pole Aimyrlyg [Burials of the Bronze Age on the grave field of Aimyrlyg]. Okunevsky sbornik 2. - SPb.: Publishing House of SPb State University, 2006.-pp. 292-302.

Firshtein, B. V., Skulls from the Alexandropolsky Scythian Kurgan, Vopr. - 1966. - N 22. - p. 62-76.

Khokhlov A. A. Paleoanthropology of the borderlands of the forest-steppe and steppes of the Volga-Ural region in the Neolithic - Bronze Age: Author's abstract.... Candidate of Historical Sciences, Moscow, 1998, 24 p.

Chikisheva T. A. On the formation of the anthropological composition of early Tuva nomads // Ecology and demography of a person in the past and present, Moscow: Encikl. ros. derevenov, 2004, pp. 118-122.

Chlenova N. L. Monuments of the first millennium BC of Northern and Western Iran in the problem of the Cimmerian-Karasuk community. Iskusstvo i arkheologiya Irana: Dokl. Vsesoyuz. conf. - Moscow, 1971. - p. 323-339.

Chlenova N. L. Central Asia and the Scythians, Moscow: [B. I.], 1997. 1: Date of the Arjan mound and its place in the cultural system of the Scythian world. - 98 p.

Chugunov K. V., Nagler A., Parzinger G. Arzhan-2: materials of the Bronze Age / / Okunevsky sbornik 2. - St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg State University, 2006. - pp. 303-311.

Shevchenko A.V. Anthropology of the population of the Southern 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.

Sher Ya. A. On possible origins of the Scythian-Siberian animal style // Questions of archeology of Kazakhstan. - Алматы; М.: Гылым, 1998. Issue 2, pp. 218-229.

Shramko B. And to the question of the significance of cultural and economic features of steppe and forest-steppe Scythia // Problems of Scythian Archeology, Moscow: Nauka, 1971, pp. 92-102.

Yablonsky L. T. O proiskhozhdenii skifskoy kul'tury Prichernomorya po dannym sovremennoy paleoanthropologii [On the origin of the Scythian culture of the Black Sea region according to modern paleoanthropology]. Scythians and Sarmatians in the VII-III centuries BC: paleoecology, anthropology and Archeology, Moscow: Institute of Archeol. RAN, 2000, pp. 73-79.

Gray R. D., Atkinson Q. D. Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origins // Nature. - 2003. - Vol. 426, N 6965. - P. 435 - 438.

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 // Am. J. Phys. Anthropology. - 2004. - Vol. 124, N 3. - P. 199 - 222.

Konduktorova T. S. The ancient population of the Ukraine // Anthropologie (Brno). - 1974. - Vol. 12, N 1/2. - P. 5 - 149.

Lamberg-Karlovsky C. C. Archaeology and language: The Indo-Iranians // Current Anthropology. - 2002. - Vol. 43, N 1. - P. 63 - 88.

Makkay J. The Early Mycenaean Rulers and the Contemporary Early Iranians of the Northeast. - Budapest: J. Makkay, 2000. - 84 p.

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.

Rightmire G. P. On the computation of Mahalanobis' generalized distance (D2) // Am. J. Phys. 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 03.10.07.

page 157

Permanent link to this publication: