anthropology of archaeological populations from northeast asia*

東洋學第49輯(2011年 2月) 檀國大學校東洋學硏究所

- 23 -

Anthropology of Archaeological Populations from

Northeast Asia*

34)Tumen D.**

❙Abstract❙Archaeological investigations show that during the prehistoric period (Neolithic, Bronze and Iron age

and subsequent historical periods) of Northeast Asia the territory of the Asian region was inhabited by

multicultural populations and occurred cross regional extensive migration resulted cultural exchange

between the multicultural populations. Anthropological comparative studies of the archaeological

populations from Northeast Asia through of time from Neolithic up to medieval period show that the

prehistoric populations from region were great heterogeneity of anthropological traits. In the Neolithic and

Early Bronze age, Xiongnu period the territory of Kazakhstan, Altai mountain, South Siberia, Xinjiang and

Western Mongolia was inhabited by people with Caucasoid or Mongoloid and Caucasoid mixed

anthropological features while the Baikal region, East Mongolia and Inner Mongolia were occupied by

populations with developed Mongoloid anthropological traits.

Obtained results of anthropological comparative analysis between archaeological populations from the

Northeast Asia show that the first wave of mongoloids migration from east to west and Caucasoid populations

from west to east of Northeast Asia likely took place at the end of Neolithic period. The populations

migrations continued during the subsequent historical periods and lasted up to medieval or Mongolian period.

The cross regional migration of archaeological populations from Northeast Asia played noticeable role in

history, culture, etnogenesis and anthropological structure of populations from the region of Asia.

[Key Words] Neolithic age, Bronze age, Iron age, Xiongnu, cross regional migration, Caucasoid, Mongoloid

* We thank the POSCO foundation for their financial support to undertake the anthropological research in China and

Russia within the research project “Cultural relationship and migration of ancient nomads of Eurasian steppe:

anthropological perspective 2008~2009 and ARC, NUM (Asian Research Center at National University)”

We heartedly thank Dr. Zho Xong, Director of Anthropological laboratory, Research Center for Chinese Frontier

Archaeology, Jilin University, Dr.Zhang Quan‐chao, researcher Wei Dong, Anthropological laboratory, Research

Center for Chinese Frontier Archaeology, Jilin University, Dr. Nasanbayar, Department of Anthropology and

Sociology, Inner Mongolian University and Dr. Chikisheva T.A. Head of the anthropological laboratory, Institute of

archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch of RAS, Dr. Dashibalov B.B. and Buraev A.B., Institute of

Mongolian studies, Buryat State University for giving us excellent opportunity to study valuable anthropological

collection housed at their institutions and for their help and hospitality during our stay at the institutions.

** Professor, National University of Mongolia / [email protected]

東洋學

- 24 -

❙목 차❙Ⅰ. Historical and Archaeological Background

Ⅱ. Anthropological Study of Archaeological

Populations from Inner Asia

Ⅲ. Materials and Methods

Ⅳ. Results and Discussion

Ⅴ. Conclusion

Ⅰ. Historical and Archaeological Background

Archaeological investigations show that during the prehistoric period (Neolithic, Bronze and Iron

age and subsequent historical periods) of Northeast Asia show that the territory of the Asian region

was inhabited by multicultural populations and occurred cross regional extensive migration resulted

intensive cultural exchange between the multicultural populations.

According to archaeological investigations that during Neolithic there were two different cultures of

nomadic hunters and gatherers in Baikal region, Russian Far East and populations with agricultural

economy in Inner Mongolia and Manchuria regions. However, during the period East Mongolia was

the contact zone and key place where took place intensive admixture between nomadic hunters and

gatherers from Baikal region on one side and agriculture populations from Northeast Inner Mongolia

and Manchuria on another hand.(Okladnikov, 1970; Larichev, 1959, 1960; Dorj, 1971).

<Fig.1> Neolithic period, some stone artifacts from East and South Mongolia.

Archaeological studies reveal that during the Bronze and Early Iron Age (3rd millennium – 3rd

century BC) there were significant cultural differences between the western and eastern parts of

2

Anthropology of Archaeological Populations from Northeast Asia

- 25 -

<Fig.2> Bronze age. Surface construction of grave and other monuments.

<Fig.3> Xiongnu Chiefdom (3rd BC‐2nd AD) (Mongolian National Atlas, (2009)

Mongolia (Volkov 1967, 1981; Novgorodova

1987; 1989, Erdenebaatar 2002). In western

Mongolia, a culture associated with stone

kurgans, deerstone monuments, and rock art

was widely distributed.

The western Mongolian Bronze and Early

Iron Age culture belongs to the Altai‐Sayan

variant of the south Siberian Bronze and Iron

Age culture (Tseveendorj, 1980, Tseveendorj

and et.al 2003; Erdenebaatar, 2002; Volkov,

1967; Novgorodova, 1987). During this period

there was intensive cultural admixture between

the western and eastern regions of Mongolia, Baikal region and South Siberia. However, remains

dated to the Bronze and Early Iron Age in eastern and central Mongolia are characteristic of the so‐called slab grave culture: rectangular enclosures built using stone slabs set on edge, sometimes

grouped in cemeteries.

The slab grave culture was widely distributed, not only all over eastern and central Mongolia, but

also in surrounding areas, from the Lake Baikal region in the North to the Ordos in the South, as

well as from the Khangai mountains in the west to Manchuria in the east. In spite of its wide

distribution, remains of the slab grave culture are homogeneous in terms of surface and sub‐surface

construction techniques and the range of associated material culture (Navaan 1975; Tsybekhtarov

1998; Erdenebaatar 2002). Mongolian archaeologists suggest that the people associated with the slab

grave culture were the direct ancestors of the

Xiongnu (Sukhbaatar 1980).

During the last years, hitherto unknown

monuments belonging to the Early Bronze age

were discovered in the Altai mountain region

of western Mongolia as a result of work by

members of the joint Mongolian‐Russian

“Central Asian Archaeology 2002‐7 ” project.

Construction of these monuments is attributed

to peoples successively affiliated with the

Afanasevo culture (2800~2500 BC) of south

3

東洋學

- 26 -

Siberia and the Chemurchek culture (2500~1800 BC) of Northwest China, followed by the local

Munkh Khairkhan culture (1800~1500 BC) of Northwest region of Mongolia, Baitag culture

(1500~1200 BC) of Mongolian and Russian Altai mountain region, and Tevsh culture (1300~1100 BC)

of Mongolian Southwest and South region (Erdenbaatar and Kovalev 2006; 2007).

<Fig.4> Xianbei chiefdom (3rd‐5th C.AD)(Mongolian National Atlas,2009)

<Fig.%> Joujan (3rd‐6th C.AD)(Mongolian National Atlas, 2009)

According to historical sources and historical investigations (Ser‐Odjav, 1970, 1977; Sukhbaatar,

1978, 1980; 1992, 2000, 2001; Khandsuren, 2005; Perlee, 1959; Batsaikhan, 2002, Batsuren, 2009),

since the end of 1st millennium BC and through the first millennium AD (the Early Mongolian

Period), there were several tribal unions or chiefdoms and states in the Inner Asia, such as Xiongnu

(3rd BC‐2nd AD), Xianbei (2nd–3rd centuries AD), Joujan (4th–5th centuries AD), Turkic (6th–8th centuries

AD), Uighur (8th–9th centuries AD), and Qidan (10th–12th centuries AD). In the article are given

chiefdoms maps extracted from Mongolian National Atlas (2009). However, archaeological monuments,

especially grave monuments, from the historic period are not well studied, with the exception of the

Turkic and Uighur periods.

Xiongnu tribes union some tribes migrated to the west and eastward, and most of tribes stayed in

their homeland. In discussing the ethnic identity of the Xiongnu, Chinese scholars, like their

Western counterparts, have also argued about the relative plausibility of a Turkic, Mongolian, Finno‐Ugrian, or Indo‐European affiliation. The majority opinion is that they were of Mongol stock, but

this point remains controversial. Mongol scholars have long maintained that the Xiongnu were proto‐Mongolic people and trace the origins of the historical Mongols back to them. Official historiography

of the former Mongolia maintained that as for “social development, customs and culture the Huns

[i.e., the Xiongnu] were very close to the proto‐Mongolian tribes of the Tungus group. It is quite

4


- 27 -

<Fig.5> Turkic Chiefdom (6th‐8th C.AD)(Mongolian National Atlas, 2009)

<Fig.6> Uigur Chiefdom (8th‐9th C.AD) (Mongolian National Atlas, 2009)

<Fig.7> Qidan period (10th‐12th C.AD) (Mongolian National Atlas, 2009)

possible that the Huns were of Mongolian origin

[sic] but that subsequently, after they seized the

‘Western Territory’ (Eastern Turkestan, Central

Asia), they were largely assimilated by Turkic

tribes” (Nicola Di Cosmo, 2002).

Most Mongolian historians and archaeologists

support the third conception (Dorjsuren, 1961,

1966; Delgerjargal, 2004, 2007; D.Navaan, 2000;

Sukhbaatar, 1970, 1974, 1980; Tseveendorj, 1993,

2002, 2007; Turbar, 2004 and Batsaikhan, 1994,

2002, 2003, 2005; Tsybektarov, 1996).

Archaeological investigation has shown that

Xiongnu monuments or graves varied considerably

in terms of size, surface and sub‐surface grave

construction, and associated grave goods. These

differences have been interpreted as reflecting a

pronounced gradient in social status (high status

versus commoners) (Tseveendorj 1987; Batsaikhan

2002; Turbat 2004; Davydova 1995, 1996;

Konovalov 1999). Russian archaeologist Davydova

AB. (1995, 1996) suggests that Xiongnu grave

construction can be divided into seven types: 1‐burial without intra‐burial construction; 2‐flat graves without coffins; 3‐frame coffins made of

thin logs; 4‐Stone cists; 5‐Coffins; 6‐whole log

coffins; and 7‐double chamber burials.

Most archaeologists and historians propose that

the Xiongnu were the direct ancestors of early,

medieval, and contemporary Mongolians (Dorjsuren

1961, 1966; Navaan 1975; Sukhbaatar 1978,

1980a.b., Tseveendorj 1987; 1993; Ser‐Odjav,

1956, 1964, 1977; Batsaikhan 2002; Turbat 2004;

Delgerjargal, 2005).

5

東洋學

- 28 -

The principal archaeological monuments of the Turkic and Uighur periods include stone men

(anthropomorphic stone carvings/statues), runic inscriptions, sacrificial monuments, settlement ruins,

and graves. Approximately 400 stone men from the Turkic and Uighur periods have been discovered

to date in Mongolia, mostly in the western and central regions (Bayar 1985,1987, 1995).

The Mongolian period (12th‐15th century AD) is the best studied from a historical perspective,

based on the availability of numerous texts and historical sources written in the medieval period in

Persian, Chinese, Arabic, and other languages (Yuan Shi, Trans, Dy Den and Ulziit, Beijing,

National Press Committee of China, 1987; Marco Polo, The Travels of Marco Polo, Trans. Roland

Latham, London: Penguin, 1958; Rashid al‐Din, The Successors of Genghis Khan, Trans, John

Andrew Boyle, NY, Columbia University Press, 1971; Carpini, Friar Giovanni Di Plano, The Story

of the Mongols Whom We Call the Tatars. Trans., Erik Hildinger, Boston; Branding Publishing,

1999; Juvaini, Ata‐Malik. Genghis Khan: The History of the World Conqueror. Trans. J.A.Boyle.

Seatle: University of Washington Press, 1977).

One of the main historical sources is “The Secret History of Mongols,” which was written by

unknown author in the 13th Century AD. Archaeological investigation in Mongolia, as well as in

surrounding territories has identified numerous sites stemming from the historic period, including

settlements, stone men, inscriptions, rock art, and graves. About historic period 300 graves have

been excavated in Mongolia and Buryatia. Typically, such graves were clustered in groups of 2‐3 or

5‐10, connected at the surface, and often had sheep tibia as grave inclusions.

<Fig.8> Mongolian tribes (9th‐12th C.AD) (Mongolian National Atlas, 2009)

<Fig.9> Mongolian Empire (13th‐14th) (National Geography, 1996)

6


- 29 -

Ⅱ. Anthropological Study of Archaeological Populations from Inner Asia

Human remains belonging to prehistoric periods of South Siberia, Altai mountain region, Baikal

Lake region, Inner Mongolia and Mongolia have been studied by G.F.Debets (1948), M.G.Levin

(1958), I.I.Gokhman (1960, 1967), T.A.Chikisheva (2000a, 2000b, 2003), T.A.Chikisheva and D.V.

Pozdnyakov (2000), V.V.Ginzburg and T.A.Trofimova (1972), O.Ismagulav (1970), D.V.Pozdnyakov

(2001, 2006), D.V.Pozdnyakov and S.A.Komissarov (2007), A.I.Buraev (2006), A.N.Popov and et

al.,(1997), Jang Qijin (1989), Zhu Hong and Znang Quan‐chao (2003, 2007), Znang Quan‐chao (2005),

Znang Quan‐chao and et al., (2006), D.Tumen (1978, 1985, 1987, 1992, 1995, 2002, 2003, 2007),

V.P.Alexseev and et al. (1984, 1980) and N.N.Mamonova (1979), M.V.Kruykov and et al.(1978),

A.N.Baghashev (2000). The authors concluded that ancient populations from the region reveal great

heterogeneity of anthropological traits. People with Caucasoid morphological features inhabited Central

Asia, Altai mountain region, South Siberia and Western Mongolia while population with developed

Mongoloid traits occupied Baikal Lake region, Amur river basin, Russian Far East, Inner Mongolia,

central and eastern Mongolia. However, the Caucasoid populations of the Bronze Age from Altai

Mountain and South Siberia exhibited more pronounced Mongoloid morphological features than seen

in earlier times. It can be hypothesized that the Early Bronze Age was characterized by movements

from eastern part of Asia to western Part of Inner Asia where intensive admixture between local

Caucasoid and Mongoloid populations took place.

The aims of the anthropological study of human remains belonging to different historical periods

of Northeast Asia are: 1). To carry out craniofacial studies of human remains from different

historical periods of the Asian region, 2). To conduct comparative craniofacial studies of prehistoric

populations from Northeast Asia to clarify the cultural and historical relationship of prehistoric

populations from the Northeast Asia and to solve some disputed problems of cross regional migration

of ancient Asian populations from Neolithic through the medieval or Mongolian Period.

In the paper are given main results of craniofacial anthropological comparative studies of

archaeological populations from Northeast Asia.

7

東洋學

- 30 -

Ⅲ. Materials and Methods

During the visit in 2008 to Laboratory of Anthropology, Research Center for Chinese Frontier

Archaeology of Jilin University, Changchun, China and Sector of Anthropology, Institute of

Archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk, and

Department of History and Culture of Central Asia, Institute of Mongolian Studies, Buddology and

Tibetology, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Ulan‐Ude (Russia) we carried out

craniofacial anthropological study of human skeleton collection of archaeological populations from

South Siberia, Buryatia and Inner Mongolia (China) belonging to different historical periods. Detailed

information on studied human remains is given in the Cranial series used to provide a craniofacial

comparative foundation for the studied human remains from China, Central Asia, Baikal Lake region

and West and South Siberia encompass a timeframe from the Neolithic (8000~6000 BC) up to

Mongolian period (13th century AD) and consist of twenty Neolithic samples, twenty six Bronze and

Early Iron samples, twenty two Xiongnu and 1st melleinum AD samples, and twenty four medieval

and contemporary samples. Materials for comparison included craniofacial data on prehistoric

populations from Mongolia (Tumen, 1977, 1985, 2006a, 2007); Central Asia, South Siberia, Russian

Far East, China, Korea and Japan (Alexseev and Gohman, 1983; Buraev, 2006; Chikisheva, 2000,

2003; Kruykov and et al. 1978, Popov and et al., 1997; Pozdnyakov, 2000, 2006; Rykushina,1976;

1978; Wu and Olsen, 1985, Zhang, 2007, Zhu Hong, 2007).

8


- 31 -

<Table 1> Characteristics of the studied archaeological populations of Northeast Asia

Historical periodSample

sizeSite Curation institution

INNER MONGOLIA, CHINA Laboratory of Anthropology,

Research Center for Chinese

Frontier Archaeology of Jilin

University, Changchun,

China

Neolithic 4 Hebei

Bronze 20 Jiangjungou

Early Iron age 38 Nileke

Warring States (403‐221 BC) 33 Dashanquian, Tuchenzi

Xianbei 51 Ba gou,Hulunbuir‐zalanur

Liaoning‐Beipyo‐Lamadong

Liaoning‐Tsoyang‐Zartai

yanze,,Tsayuhuji, Sandovan

Tsayuhuji Ulaantsav

Ulaantsav‐Sandu‐dundaji

Tsayuzunji‐Chilansan

Qidan 26 Allucurchin‐Yelyu

Liaoning‐Faku‐Imotai

Sandu‐Chi‐an‐Haizi

Shiliin hot‐dunsan

Ulaanhad‐Chifeng‐Ning‐Shanz

uizi Wu‐nyu‐ziYuan 34 Chengpuzi Zhenzishan

SOUTH SIBERIA and Buryatia

Neolithic 8 Educhanka, Makarovo,

Manzurka, Marintui

Obhoi, Olihon

Sector of Anthropology,

Institute of Archaeology and

Ethnography, Siberian

Branch of Russian Academy

of Sciences, Novosibirsk,

Russia

Early Iron age

Pazyryk 40

Ala‐Gail and Ala‐Gail 2,

Balyk‐Sook, Baratal‐2Bike‐3,Bor burgazy‐1,2 and 3,

Borotal‐2, Buraty‐8Jolin‐2,Kara Tenesh

Maltalu and Maltalu‐80Ulandryk‐1 and Ulandryk‐2

Xiongnu‐Sarmat period 21 Kara‐Bom‐11Turcik period 22 Jolin‐1,Yustyd‐12Mongolian period, Buryatia 17 Enhor, Kiya, Olihon,

Onontycha, Ulanhad

Department of History and

Culture of Central Asia,

Institute of Mongolian

Studies, Buddology and

Tibetology, Siberian Branch

of Russian Academy of

Sciences, Ulan‐Ude, Russia

Total 314

9

東洋學

- 32 -

The comparative study was conducted separately for each historical period. Hierarchical cluster

analysis was used for comparative analysis and Euclidean distance is calculated as actual measurement

of the precision of the mean difference between two populations (Knusmann, 1992). The cluster

analyses are conducted using SPSS (version 15) statistical software.

Ⅳ. Results and Discussion

1. Neolithic populations

Craniofacial morphological study of human remains from Neolithic period of Altai mountain,

Buryatia and Inner Mongolia China show great heterogeneity of morphological traits among

populations of the historic periods. Due to obtained craniofacial data the Neolithic Afanasev

population from Altai mountain characterize Caucasoid anthropological features while studied Neolithic

populations from Inner Mongolia, Baikal lake region show typical mongoloid anthropological features.

Nevertheless most taxonomic traits of some skulls from Kharagol site of Afanasev culture of Altai

mountain demonstrate their mongoloid features. It may show that Neolithic Afanasev population from

Altai mountain anthropologically was heterogeneity which can be explained by migration of

mongoloid population from East Asia.

<Fig.10> Geographic location of compared Neolithic populations from Northeast Asia

10


- 33 -

The Euclidean distance analysis and cluster analysis (Fig.11) show that the compared Neolithic

populations from Northeast Asia are divided into two major clusters. One of clusters includes several

sublusters. All Neolithic populations from the Baikal lake region and East Mongolia include to one

subcluster. Surprisingly, Neolithic populations from Usti‐Isha and Itkuli site, Altai mountain join

Neolithic population from Servo and Kitoi period of Baikal lake region in the subcluster. The second

subcluster contains Neolithic populations from Central China (ban’po population), Neolithic population

Tranbaikalia (Fafonov site) and Korean Neolithic population(Fig.11). The Neolithic populations from

Amur river basin and Central Yakutia belong to the third subcluster. However, Davenkou population

from East China locates separately in the first cluster.

The second cluster contains populations from West Mongolia, East Kazakhstan, Altai high

mountain (Afanasev culture), South Turkmenistan. It can be concluded that all compared populations

cluster from the region belonged to the second cluster. All populations from the second cluster

anthropologically characterized by Caucasoid features.

However, the Neolithic population from Primor’e occupies in separate position in the clusters

(Fig.11).

Morphologically, all populations belonging to one cluster are more similar to each other than to

one from the other clusters. The results of this cluster analysis confirm that the Eastern Mongolian

Neolithic population share closer phenetic affinities to the Neolithic population from the Baikal lake

region. It supports a biological relationship of those populations. This anthropological type of the

Neolithic population from the Baikal region was called by Russian anthropologist Ya.Ya.Roginskii

(1978) as proto‐mongoloid type and by G.F.Debets (1948) and V.P.Alexseev (1987) as Baikal

anthropological type of the continental Mongoloids. According to those facts, there were very close

biological relationship between the Neolithic inhabitants from Eastern Mongolia and Baikal region.

Archaeological evidence supports that in those region there was common Neolithic culture in the

Eastern Mongolian and Baikal lake region (Dorj, 1975). The West Mongolia Neolithic population is

included to one cluster with Caucasoid populations from South Siberia, Altai and Central Asia which

means that the populations might have close relationship and had common ancestors in the early

time. Surprisingly, Neolithic population from Itkuli and Usti‐Isha sites in Altai mountain with

Neolithic populations from Baikal lake region belong to same subcluster. The phenomenon may

displays cross regional migration of the Neolithic populations from the region resulted admixture

between the populations.

11

東洋學

- 34 -

* * * * * H I E R A R C H I C A L C L U S T E R A N A L Y S I S * * * * *

Dendrogram using Average Linkage (Between Groups)

Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine

<Fig.11> Dendrogramm showing relationship of compared Neolithic populations

2. Bronze and Early Iron age.

Obtained results of craniofacial studies of afanasev and pazyryk crania from the Bronze and Early

Iron of Altai mountain, glazkov crania from Buryatia, nileke crania from Xingjian and warring states

crania from Inner Mongolia illustrate that the Bronze and Early Iron age populations of the regions

reveal great heterogeneity of morphological traits.

People with Caucasoid and mixed morphological features inhabited Altai mountain region, Xingjian

12


- 35 -

while population with developed Mongoloid traits occupied Buryatia (population from Glazkov culture)

and warring state population from Inner Mongolia. However, some skulls among of the Late Bronze

and Early Iron Age crania from Altia mountain exhibit more pronounced Mongoloid morphological

features than seen in earlier times.

The Euclidean distance comparative analysis between Asian Bronze and Early Iron age populations

exhibits that compared populations from Asia are divided in to several clusters. The separation of the

compared population in to several clusters undoubtedly show that the studied Bronze and Early Iron

Age populations from the region of the Asia, anthropologically were very heterogeneity (Fig. 13).

<Fig.12> Geographic location of compared Bronze and Early Iron age populations from Northeast Asia

The first cluster combines the populations from Cis‐Baikalia (Glazkov culture, Lena and Angar

river Basin), East Mongolia (Slab grave culture) and Inner Mongolia (Warring States).

The second cluster divided in to several subclusters. The populations from Minisun basin,South

Siberia (Okunev culture), Scythians from Altai mountain region and populations of culture without

inventory from West Mongolia belong to the one subcluster. The second subcluster contains andronov

populations from Central and North Kazakhstan and Minisun basin, South Siberia, afanasev

populations from Altai mountain valley region and Minisun basin of South Siberia (Fig. 13.). The

early Iron age populations of chandman culture from West Mongolia, Chaukhou culture of Xianjang,

tagar, tashtyk and karasuk cultures of Minusin basin, South Siberia, pazyryk of Altai mountain

region, Scytians from Tuva and West Siberia exhibit in the third subcluster (Fig. 13.).

13

東洋學

- 36 -

The separation of the Bronze and Early Iron Age populations from Northeast Asia into several

clusters and subclusters can be explained by extensive and intensive cross regional migration and

admixture between Caucasoid and Mongoloid populations during this historical period.




<Fig.13> Dendrogram showing relationship bronze and Early Iron Age populationsfrom Asia

According to V.P.Alekxseev (1983), O.Ismagulov (1970) that Mongoliod and Caucasoid admixture

in Central Asia (Kazakhstan and Kirgizia) and South Siberia increases step‐by step, beginning with

the end of Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. Also the authors concluded that Transbaikalia and Cis‐

14


- 37 -

Baikalian Bronze and Early Iron Age population with slab grave culture were mongoloids

characterizing brachycrany, moderate high, broad, flattened face and flat nasal roots (Alexseev, 1983).

Accordingly to the researchers conclusion that there indeed was some eastern mongoloid admixture in

Bronze and Early Iron age population from Altai mountain region, South Siberia. Based on many

common decorative elements of artifacts and archaeological findings unearthed from excavations of

archaeological grave monuments in South Siberia and Altai mountain region Russian archaeologists

E.L.Novgorodova (1970, 1987, 1989) and V.V.Volkov (1967, 1981), Tsebyktarov (2006) noticed that

the origin of Okuvev, Pazyryk, Tagar, Karasuk culture of South Siberia and Altai mountain region

had some relations to Bronze Age Culture of Mongolia and Inner Mongolia and concluded that

during the Bronze age period extensive cross regional migration taken place in South Siberia,

Mongolia and North China.

3. The Xiongnu period

The results of craniofacial study of Xiongnu crania from Altai, Buryatia show that the studied

population was not anthropologically quite homogeneous. Due to obtained results the xiongnu sample

from Altai characterize more pronounced caucasiod features than xiongnu samples from Buryatia.

The Euclidean distance methods applied for comparative analysis of craniofacial data on inhabitants

from Xiongnu and subsequent historical period of Asia displays that all compared populations from

those historical period of Asia are divided in to several major clusters (fig.15.).

<Fig.14> Geographic location of compared populations from Xiongnu period

15

東洋學

- 38 -

The first cluster includes Usunians from Semirechiya (Central Asia) and East Kazakhstan, xiongnu‐sarmatians from Altai high mountain, Turkic from Tuva (Fig.15.). Xiongnu of Kirgizstan, Central and

West Tuva, Xiongnu‐sarmatians from Chui river basin, Altai mountain, sarmatians from West

Kazakhstan, usunians from North Kazakhstan and Turkic from West Siberia include to the second

subcluster. The third cluster contains usunians from Tyani‐Shani mountain region and populations from

xiongnu‐sarmat period of Fergan valley, Tajikistan and West Turkmenistan. All Xiongnu populations

from Xingjian, Mongolia and Altai mountain belong to fourth cluster. The fifth cluster includes mokhe

people from Primor’e, xianbei from Inner Mongolia and Transbaikalia, and xiongnu from Transbaicalia

ans Cis‐Baikalia. The population from xiongnu period of Chukotka locate separate position in the

cluster showing relationship between compared Asian populations from Xiongnu period.




<Fig.15> Dendrogram showing historical relationship of populations from Xiongnu period and the 1st millennium AD. of Asia

16


- 39 -

The clustering of Xiongnu populations from Inner Asia clearly displays that Xiongnu

anthropologically were very heterogeneous and at least there were six anthropological types for the

Xiongnu population. The xiongnu populations from Mongolia, Altai mountain region and Xingjian

(Chaukhou samples) belong to same cluster. It clearly show similarity of their anthropological type.

Chaukhou skulls were studied by Russian anthropologist D.B. Pozdnyakov and C.A.Komissarov

(2007).

According to conclusion of the authors the chaukou crania characterize mixed caucasiod and

mongoloid anthropological features. The Caucasoid morphological traits related to local caucasiod

inhabitant from the earlest historical periods of the region and mongoliod traits may genetically

connect with migrants from mainland of North Asia. Studied xiongnu‐sarmatian skulls from Altai

mountain russian anthropologist B.A. Dremov (1990), B.P.Alexseev (1984) and T.A.Chikisheva et al.

(2000) concluded that Xiongnu from the region belong to populations with mixed anthropological

type of caucasiods and mongoloids and noticed that female skulls demonstrate more mongoloid

features than male skulls. Due to conclusion of the authors the mongoloid peculiarities were

originated from population from Bronze and Early Iron age, and Xiongnu populations of Mongolia

and Baikal lake region.

The studied xianbei and xiongnu people from Baikal lake region and mokhe people from Far East

include to one cluster and it means the population characterize common anthropological features

(Fig.15.). Russian anthropologist G.F. Debets (1948, 1951) and B.P.Alexseev (1984) concluded that

xiongnu people from Trans and Cis‐baikal characterize anthropological features of northasian

mongoliods. Chinese anthropologist Zhu Hong and Zhang Quan‐chao studied xianbei crania from

several sites of Inner Mongolia and noticed that anthropological features of studied xianbei crania

show that the racial type is closely related to the modern North Asiatic Mongoloids, and some

physical characteristics of those skulls are closer to modern Mongols and ancient populations in

North China. In accordance with the conclusion the studied xiongnu and xianbei samples from

Baikal and Inner Mongolia morphologically belong to the Central Asiatic variant of North

Mongoloids.

As V.P.Alexseev and I.I.Gokhman (1983) concluded that Xiongnu migration from Mongolia to

West through Altai and Tuva played an important role in ethnogenetical process, as well as

anthropological structure of the region. V.P.Alexseev and I.I.Gokhman noticed that the Mongoloid

anthropological component increases in local Caucasoid inhabitants of the region. This phenomena

related with Mongoloid migrants from Mongolia in the late Bronze Age and Xiongnu period which is

contemporaneous with the formation of the Xiongnu tribal union in Mongolia and Baikal steppe and

17

東洋學

- 40 -

with the extension of the Xiongnu influence towards south and west. (Alexseev and Gokhman,

1984). Russian anthropologists G.F.Debets (1948), I.I.Gokhman (1960, 1967) and N.N.Mamonova

(1979) studied Xiongnu skulls from Baikal region and the Far East and concluded about visible

Caucasoid and Far‐East mongoloids admixture in anthropological structure of population from this

period. These two facts go well together with archaeological data and written Chinese sources

(Alexseev and Gokhman, 1983).

According to recent historical and archaeological studies (Konovalov, 1999; Tsybektarov, 1998),

ethnically and linguistically Xiongnu was not homogeneous. Based on the results of archaeological

studies of Xiongnu in Mongolia, Ts.Turbat (2004) concluded that Xiongnu culture was created on the

basis of mixture and combination of the Iron Age Slab graves culture and the culture of early

nomads of North China. This process developed during 4th–3rd century BC (Turbat, 2004).

Investigated Xiongnu archaeological monuments Z.Batsaikhan concluded that in the beginning of

the 3rd century BC, Indo‐European groups migration across the territories of Inner Asia progressed

in several stages. These migrations affected not only the development of ethno‐culture in Mongolia

but also had significant impact on all Central Asian populations and really represented an important

feature of global processes of the time. On the other hand, a migration of groups from northern

China to Northeast Asia occurred and based on archaeological evidence, these populations established

the slab grave cultural complex as known from the territory of Mongolia and southern Siberia

(Batsaikhan, 2002).

4. Early medieval and Mongolian period.

The results of craniofacial study of skulls from Early medieval (Turkic period) and Mongolian

period of Altai mountain Baikal region, and skulls from Qidan and Yuan period from Inner

Mongolia display that all studied human remains from those regions illustrate morphological features

of North Asian Mongoloid populations.

Comparative analysis between the Early medieval period, Mongolia period, and Asian contemporary

ethnic groups demonstrates that compared populations are separated into several clusters (Fig.17.).

The Figure 17. shows that Cis‐baikalian population from medieval period (XII‐XIV c.) with

contemporary tuvinians, buryats from Tunk and Transbaikal, kirgizs, and yakuts belong to one of the

clusters. However all samples from early medieval (Burkhutai site‐VI‐X c.), Premongolian (X‐XIV)

and medieval (XII‐XIV) periods of Transbaikalia, and contemporary Mongolians belong to one cluster

(Fig.17.). Unpredictably Monglians from Mongolian Period (XII‐XV c.), populations from medieval

18


- 41 -

period of Altai mountain and West Siberia belong to same cluster (Fig.17.). The third cluster

includes population from Mongolian period of East Buryatia (Eraven site sample), contemporary

reindeer evenks and orochi (Fig.17.). On the dendrogram (Fig.17.) clearly is shown that the

populations from Qidan and Yuan period, and contemporary Koreans join in same cluster. However

Undugen samples from late Mongolian period of Buryatia occupies separate position in the cluster

(Fig.17.). Based on the cluster of medieval and modern populations from Inner Asia can be

concluded that the ancient and contemporary populations from one cluster might had close historical

and genetic relationship. i. e. contemporary Koreans, population from Qidan and Yuan period are

very close to other in one hand. Tuvinians, Tunk Buryats, Transbaikalian buryats, Kirgizs and

Yakuts might had close historical relationship with medieval population from XII‐XIV century of Cis‐baikalia.

<Fig.16> Geographic location of compared medieval and contemporary populations from northeast Asia

19

東洋學

- 42 -




<Fig.17> Dendrogram showing historical relationship of populations from Early medieval and Mongolian, and modern periods

Ⅴ. Conclusion

Comparative craniofacial anthropological studies of human remains belonging to the archaeological

and contemporary populations from Inner Asia through of time from Neolithic up to medieval or

Mongolian period show that the studied populations above mentioned historical periods great

heterogeneity of morphological or anthropological traits. In the Neolithic and Early Bronze age,

20


- 43 -

Xiongnu period the Altai mountain, Xingjian Western Mongolia was inhabited by people with

Caucasoid or mixed morphological features of the Mongoloid and the Caucasoid while the Baikal

region, East Mongolia and Inner Mongolia were occupied by populations with developed Mongoloid

anthropological traits.

Obtained results of craniofacial comparative analysis between archaeological populations from Inner

Asia show that the first wave of mongoloids migration from east to west and Caucasoid from west

to east of Inner Asia likely took place at the end of Neolithic period. The population migrations

continued during the subsequent historical periods and lasted up to medieval or Mongolian period.

The cross regional migration of archaeological populations from Inner Asia played noticeable role in

history, culture, etnogenesis and anthropological structure of populations from the region of Asia.

<References>

Alexseev V.,P., Debets G.F., Craniometriya. Moscow.(in Russian), 1964.

Alexseev V.P., Osteometriya, Moscow, (in Russian), 1966.

Alexseev V.P., Gohman I.I., Tumen D., “Paleoanthropology of Central Asia: Archaeology, Ethnography

and Anthropology of Mongolia”, Science, Novosibirsk. Russia, 1987.

Alexseev V.P., “Materialii po kraniologii mohe”, Paleoanthroplogiya SSSR, Moscow, 1980.

Alexseev V.P., “Kratkoe izlojeniye paleoanthropologii Tuvi v svyzi s istoricheskimi voprosami”,

Anthropo-ekologicheskie issledovaniya v Tuve. M, Nayka, 1984, c.6-75.

Allard F. ERdenbaatar D., Batbold N., Miller B.A., “A Xiognu cemetery found in Mongolia”,

Antiquity 76, 2002.

Baghashev A.N., Paleoanthropologiya Zapadnoi Sibiri: Lesostepi v epohy rannevo jeleza, Novosibirsk,

Nayka. 2000. C.374.

Bass W.M., Human Osteology: A laboratory and field manual, Third edition, 1987.

Batsaikhan Z., “Dornod Suynnuuiin tuukhiin zarim asuudal”, SH. Tom. XXVII-XXVIII, Fasc.1,

Ulaanbaatar, 1994, pp.25-35.

Batshaikhan Z., Hunnu (Xiongnu). Ulaanbaatar: Printing House of the National University of

Mongolia, 2002.

Batsaikhan, “Nuudelchdiin niigmiin khariltsaany tuukhiin asuudal”, Procceedings of National University

of Mongolia. Seria-II: History, No-211(20), 2003.

Batsaikhan Z., “Dornod Mongolin ert, dundad ueiin tuukh”, Mongolian Journal of Anthropology,

21

東洋學

- 44 -

Arcaheology and Ethnology, Vol.1., No-1(242), 2005, pp.1-14.

Batsuren. B., Under teregtenuud ba ertnii turguud (6th-9thc.AD), Ulaanbaatar, Printinghouse “Munkhiinuseg”.

2009.

Bayar D., “Kamennye izvayaniya iz Sukh-Batorskogo aimaga.” Drevnie kultury Mongolii, Novosibirsk,

1985, pp.148-158.

Bayar D., “Dornod Mongolyn khun chuluu Mongolyn dundad ueiin tuukhend kholbogdokh ni”,

Archaeologyn sudlal (SA), 1987, pp.110-147.

Bayar D., Mongolchuudyn chuluun khureg, Ulaanbaatar, 1995.

Bernshtein A.N., Ocherk istorii gunnov, Leningrad, USSR. (in Russian), 1950.

Brothwell, D.R., Diging Up Bones, Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History). London, 1965.

Chard, CH. S., Northeast Asia in Prehistory, The University of Wisconsin press, USA, 1974.

Buraev A.I., “Anthropologiya pribaikaliya I zabaikaliya”, drevnosti I srednevekovie, 2006.

Chikisheva T.A., “Novie dannie ob anthropologicheskom sostave naselenie Altaya v epohi neolita-

bronzii-//Archaeologiya, etnografiya anthropologiya Evrazii. Novosibirsk. №1., 2000a, С.139-148.

Chikisheva T.A., “К voprosy o formirovanii anthropologicheskovo sostava naseleniya Zapadnoi Sibiri

v epohy pozdnei bronzii (interpretatsiya paleoanthropologicheskovo materiala iz mogilnika

Starii Sad v Tsentralnoi Barabe)”, Archaeologiya, etnografiya I anthropologiya Evrazii. Novosibirsk,

№2, 2000b. С-131-147.

Chikisheva T.A., “Naselenie Gornogo Altai v epohu rannego jeleza po dannym anthropologii”,

Naselenie Gornogo Altai v epohu rannego jeleznego veka kak etnokuliturnii fenomen:

proisxojdenie, genesis, istoricheskie sudiby, Novosibirsk, Russia, 2003.

Dashibalov, Archaeologicheskie pamyatniki Kurkykan I Hori, Ulan-Ude, Buryatia, 1995.

Dashibalov, Namongolo-turkskom pogranichie: Ethnokuliturnie procesi v Ugo-Bostochnoi Asii, Ulan-Ude,

Buryatia, 1989.

Davydova A.B., “Ivolginskii archeologicheskii kompleks”, Ivolginskii mogil’nik, Saint-Petersburg,

Russia, 1995.

Davydova A.B., “Ivolginskii archeologicheskii kompleks”, Ivolginskii mogil’nik, Saint-Petersburg,

Russia, 1996.

Debets G.F., Paleoanthropologiya USSR, Moscow (in Russian), 1948.

Delgerjargal P., “Mongol nutagt tur uls uussen tuuhiin asuudals”, SN.Tom.XXXV, Fasc.2, Ulaanbaatar,

Press of Mongolian Academy of Sciences, 2004, pp.12-27.

Delgerjargal P., Mongolchuudyn ugsaa garval, Ulaanbaatar, 2005.

Dorj D., Neolithic Vostochnoi Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar, Press of Mongolian Academy of Sciences (in

22


- 45 -

Russian), 1971.

Dorjsuren Ts., “Umard Hunnu”, Archeologiin sudlal. Ulaanbaatar (in Mongolian), 1961.

Howells W.W., Cranial variation in Man: A Study by Multivariate Analysis of Patterns of Difference

Among Recent Human Populations, Harvard University Press, USA, 1973.

Erdenebaatar D., Mongolin durveljin bulsh ba kheregsuuriin soel (Slab Grave and Heregsuur Culture

of Mongolia). Ulaanbaatar, “Soembo” printing house, 2002.

Erdenebaatar D. and Kovalev A., “Report of Mongolian-Russian joint archaeological expedition

“Central Asian Archaeology”, Annual archaeological fieldwork reports achieves, Deparment of

Archaeology, Ulaanbaatar University, 2006.

Erdenebaatar D. and Kovalev A., “Mongol Altain bus nutgiin archeologiin soel (Archaeological culture

of Mongolian Altai)”, Mongolian Journal of Anthropology, Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 3,

No1(287), 2007, pp.35-51.

Gokhman I.I., “Anthropologichaya kharakteristika cherepov Ivolginskogo gorodisha”, Trudy Buryatskogo

kompleksnogo nauchno-issledovateliskogo institute, SO AN SSSR, Vol.3, 1960.

Gokhman I.I., “K voprosu ob antropologicheskih osobennostyah drevnego skotovodov Zabaikaliya”,

Sovetskaya Etnograpiya, No-6, 1967.

Gumelev., Hunnu (Xiongnu), Moscow, USSR (in Russian), 1960.

Gunchinsuren Ch., “Tamsagbulagiin shune chuluun zevsgiin suuringiin on tsagiig dahin avch uzeh ni”,

Archeologiin sudlal, Vol.20, Ulaanbaatar, 2000.

Imenokhoev N.B., K voprose o kuliture rannih mongolov (po dannym archeologii), Novosobirsk,

Russia, 1989.

Ismagulov O., Drevnie naselenie Kazakhstana, Alma-Ata, 1970.

Ismagulov O., Naselenie Kazakhstanaotepohibronziidosovremennosti (paleoanthropologicheskoeissledovanie),

Alma-Ata.Izd-voAHkazCCR, 1970, C-239.

Kavelev A.A. and Erdenbaatar D., Research report of archaeological fieldwork, 2002 & 2003.

Khandsuren Ts., Joujany khaant uls ba tuukhiin sudalgaa, 2005.

Konovalov P.B., Raskopki kurganov xiongnuskogo znati v IL’movoi padi, Ulaan-Ude, 1974.

Konovalov P.B., Xiongnu Zabaikalia, Ulan-Ude, Buryatia, 1976.

Konovalov P.B., Ethnicheskie aspekti istorii Central Asia (Drevnosti i srednevekovie), Ulaan-Ude,

1999.

Konovalov P.B., Usypalinitsa xiongnu knyazya v Sudji, Ulan-Ude, Buryatia, 2008.

Kovychev E.V., Ethnichesaya istoriya Vostochnogo ZAbaikaliya v epohu srednebekoviya, Novosibirsk,

1989.

23

東洋學

- 46 -

Kruykov M.V., Sofronov M.V. and Cheboksarov N.N., Drevnie Khitaitsy: Problemy ethnogeneza

(Ancient Chinese: the problem of ethnogenes), Moscow, 1978.

Larichev E.B., “Neolith Dunbai I ego svyazi s kuliturgbi Severovoctochnoi Asia”, Archaeologicheskii

sbornik, 1. BKNII, SO. USSR Academy of Sciences, 1959.

Larichev B.E., K problem o microlithiceskom charakterictike neolithickogo kulturin Central Asia,

Pabaikalii I Dunbai, TRudi BKNII, SO. USSR Academy of Sciences, 1960.

Levin M.G., “Etnicheskaya anthropologiya I problemi etnogeneza narodov Dalinovo Vostoka”, TIE.

H.ser.T. XXXYI. Moskow, 1958.

Marco Polo, The Travels of Marco Polo, Trans. Roland Latham, London: Penguin, 1958.

Miller B.K., Allard F., Erdenebaatar D. and Lee C.A., “Xiongnu tomb Complex: Excavations in

GOl Mod-2 Cemetery, Mongolia.(2002-2005)”, Mongolian Journal of Anthropology, Archaeology

and Ethnology, Vol.2, 2006.

Mamonova N.N., Drevnee naselenie Mongolii po dannim paleoanthropologii: Archaeologiya, anthropologiya

and ethnographiya of Mongolii, Novosibirsk (in Russian), 1979.

Minyaev C.C., “Kul’tury skifskogo vremeny Central’noi ASii I slojenie plemennogo souyza Xiognu”,

v book Problemi skifo-sibirskogo kuliturno-istoricheskogo edinstva. Kemerov, 1979.

Minyaev C.C., “K topographii kurganoykh pamyatnikov xiongnu”, Kratkii ocheik Vyp, 184. Jeleznii

vek Kavkaza, Crednii ASii I Sibirii, 1985.

Minyaev C.C., Derestuisii mogil’nik, Saints Petersburg, Russia, 1998.

Minyaev C.C. and Sakhorovskaya L.M., “Elitnii kompleks zakhoronenii xiongnu v padi Tsaram.”,

Rossiskaya Archaeologiya, No-1, 2007.

Mongolian National Atlas, 2009.

Namsrainaidan L., “Tamsag bulgaas oldson neolitiin uein khunii bulshnii tukhai”, Studiya Archaeologii,

Vol.10. fasc.6. Ulaanbaatar (in Mongolian), 1975.

Navaan D., Dornod Mongoliin Khurel (Bronze age of Eastern Mongolia), Ulaanbatar, 1975.

Navaan D., Ertnii Mongoliin tuukhiin dursgaluud (Historical monuments of Mongolia), Ulaanbaatar (in

Mongolian), 1980.

Nicola Di Cosmo, Ancient China and Its Enemies: The Rise of Nomadic Power in East Asian

History, University of Canterbury and Christchurch, New Zealand, 2002.

Novgorodova E.A., Central’naya Azia I karasukskaya problema, 1970.

Novgorodova E.A., Ancient Culture of Mongolia, Moscow, Science Press (in Russian), 1987.

Novgorodova E.A., Drevnyaya Mongoliya, Moscow (in Russian), 1989.

Okladnikov AP., “Archeologicheskoe issledovanie v Mongolii 1961-1962 gg”, Proceeding of Siberian

24


- 47 -

Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences. Series: Social sciences, Vol.1. Novosibirsk (in

Russian), 1963.

Okladnikov AP., “Pervobytniay Mongolia”, Studiya Archeologii, Vol.III fasc. 3-13, Ulaanbaatar, 1964.

Penrose L.S., “Distance, Size and Shape”, Annals of Eugenics, 18, 1954, pp.337-343.

Perlei H., “Hyadan nar, tednii mongoltoi holbogdson ni”, Tuuhiin sudlal, Fasc. 1, Ulaanbaatar (in

Mongolian), 1959.

Polos’mak, “Nekotorie analogi pogrebeniyam v mogil’nike u der, Daodu’tszi I prblemi proishojdeniya

xiognuskoi kul’turi”, Kitai v epohu drevnosti, 1990.

Pozdnyakov D.V., “Formirovanie drevneturkskovo naseleniya Gornovo Altaya po dannim anthropologii”,

Archeologiya, etnografiya I anthropologiya Evrazii, №3, 2001, C.142-154.

PozdnyakovD.V., Paleoanthropologiya naseleniya yvo zapadnoi sibiri epohi srednevekobiya (vtoraya

polovina I, pervaya polovina II tis.n.e.), 2006.

Popov A.N., and et al., Boismanskaya archeologicheskaya kultura Yujnovo Primoriya, Novosibirsk,

1997.

Rashid al-Din, The Successors of Genghis Khan, Trans. John Andrew Boyle, NY, Columbia University

Press, 1971.

Roginskii Ya.Ya., Anthropologiya, Moscow, 1978.

Rykushina G.V., Anthropologija epochi en-olita-bronzy Krasnoyarskogo kraya: Nekotorie problemi

etnogeneza i etnichesoi istorii narodov mira, Moscow, 1976.

Ser-Odjav N., “Mongol orni neolit (Neolithic of Mongolia)”, Jour. Shinjlekh Ukhaan ba amidral,

Vol.1, Ulaanbaatar (in Mongolian), 1956.

Ser-Odjav N., Ertnii turguud, Ulaanbaatar, Printing house of Mongolisn Academy of Sciences (in

Mongolian), 1970.

Ser-Odjav N., Mongolin ertnii tuukh, Ulaanbaatar (in Mongolian), 1977.

Sukhbaatar Ts., “Hunnugiin tuukhend kholbogdokh khereglegdekhuun”, Mongolin Shinjlekh Ukhaani

Akadeiin medee, No-3, Ulaanbaatar, 1970, pp.15-21.

Sukhbaatar Ts., Hunnu narin ugsaa khamaadalin tukhai asuu;laas, SH. Tom, X. Fsc. 11, Ulaanbaatar,

1974, pp.145-195.

Sukhbaatar Ts., Xianbei, Ulaanbaatar: Press of Mongolian Academy of Sciences, 1978.

Sukhbaatar G., Mongolchuudyn ertnii uveg (Hunnu naryn aj akhui, hiigmiin baiguulal, soel, ugsaa

garval. MEU.IV-ME II zuun), Ulaanbaatar, 1980.

Sukhbaatar G., Mongol Nirun Uls (330-555 year. AD.), Ulaanbaatar: Press of Mongolian Academy of

Sciences, 1992.

25

東洋學

- 48 -

Sukhbaatar G., Mongolchuudin tuukh sudlal, MOngolchuudin ertnii uveg, Ulaanbaatar: Press of

Mongolian Academy of Sciences, 2000.

Sukhbaatar G., “Mongolchuudin nen ertnii tuukh sudlal”, nen ertnii ueees m.e. 4th zuun hurtel, 2001.

Tseveendorj D., “Chandmany soel”, Archaeologyn sudlal, T-IX, F.3. Ulaanbaatar. Press of Mongolian

Academy of Sciences, 1980.

Tseveendorj. D., “Hunnugiin archaeology (Xiongnu Archaeology)”, Mongoliin Archaeology, Archeologyn

sudlal (SA), tom. XII, Ulaanbaatar, 1987, pp.58-81.

Tseveendorj. Ts., “Hunnu naryn orshuulgyn zan uil ba ugsaa hamaadlyn zarim asuudal”, Mongol,

Solongos ulsyn hamtrasan erden shinjilgee-2, Seoul, 1993, pp.208-218.

Tseveendorj. D., Bayar D., Tserendagva YA. and Ochirkhuyag Ts., Mongolyn archaeology, Ulaanbaatar,

2002.

Tseveendorj TS., “Hunnugiin dursgalyn sudalgaany toim. – Xiongnu, the First Empire of the Steppes:

Archaeological research of the its Tombs”, International Symposium in celebration of the

10th anniversary of MON-SOL Project, Seoul, 2007, pp.48-73.

Tsybektarov A.D., “O datirovke kherekhsurov v Uyjnoi Buryatia”, Chronology, I kul’turnaya

prinadlejennosti pamyatnikov kamennego I bronzovogo bekov Uyjnoi Sibirii, Barnaul, Russia, 1988.

Tsybektarov A.D., “Khereksuuri Buryatia, SevernoiI Central Mongolii”, Kulitury I pamyatnikov

bronzogo I rannego jeleznogo vekov Zabakaliya I Mongolii, Ulan-Ude. Russia, 1996.

Tsybektarov A.D., Kul’tura plitochnih mogil Mongolii i Zabaikaliya, Ulan-Ude. (in Russian), 1998.

Tsybektarov A.D., “Mogil’niki afanasevskogo tipa Mongolii I Tuvi (boprosikul’turnoi prinadlejennosti

I datirovki)”, Central Asia and Pribaikalie v drebnosti, Ulan-Ude, Russia, 2002.

Tsybektarov A.D., Cerntralinaya Asia v epokhu bronzi I rannego jeleznogo vekov (problem

etnokuliturnoi istorii Mongolii I Uyjnogo Zabaikalia seredini II – I tysyache letiya BC), 2003.

Tsybektarov A.D., Central Asia na zare bronzovogo veka, Ulan-Ude, Buryatia, Russia, 2006.

Tumen D., “Paleoanthropology Zapadnoi Mongolii”, Jour. Study archaeology, T-7. fasc.7. MAS.,

1976.

Tumen D., “Nekotorie voprosi anthropologicheskogo issledovaniy Bostochnoi Mongolia”, Trudi Instituta

Obshei I Experimentalnoi Biologii, N.2, Ulaanbaatar (in Russian), 1977.

Tumen D., PaleoanthropologicheskienakhodkiinKhar-Khorin.Studyofarchaeology, T-8. fasc.10. MAS., 1979.

Tumen D., “Voprosi etnogeneza mongolob v sveta dannie paleoanthropologii”, Trudi Mejdunarodnogo

Kongressa Mongolovedov, Ulaanbaatar (in Russian), 1985.

Tumen D., “Anthropologicheskaya kharakteristika Hunnu Mongolii” Drevnaya kulitura Mongolii,

Novosibirsk (in Russian), 1987.

26


- 49 -

Tumen D., “Anthropologiya sovermennogo naseleniya Mongolii”, Science Doctor Thesis, Moscow (in

Russian), 1992.

Tumen D., “Craniofacial morphology of ancient population from Eastern Mongolia”, Procceding of

Mongolian-Korean Joint Research Project ‘Eastern Mongolia’, Vol. 5, Souel, South Korea,

1996.

Tumen D., “Paleoanthropological study of Hunnu from Mongolia. Scientific J. National University of

Mongolia”, Series: Archaeology, anthropology and Ethnology, Vol.187(13). Ulaanbaatar, Printing

House of NUM, 2002.

Tumen D., “Craniofacial morphology of human remains from ancient burials of Tsuvraa mountain in

Uguumur area, Khulenbiur sum, Dornod aimag, Mongolia”, Scientific J. National University

of Mongolia. Series: Archaeology, anthropology and Ethnology, Vol.210(19), Ulaanbaatar,

Printing House of National University of Mongolia, 2003.

Tumen D., “Craniofacial comparative study of ancient populations of Mongolia”, Mongolian Journal

of Anthropology, Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 1, 2006.

Tumen D., “Ancient populations of Mongolia”, Toronto studies in Central and Inner Asia, No.8.

University of Toronto, Asian Institute, Canada, 2007.

Turbat Ts., Hunnugiin jiriin irgediin bulsh. Ulaanbaatar. (in Mongolian), 2004.

Trofimova and Ginzburg, Paleoanthropologiya Srednei Azii.M., Nayka, 1972, C-371

Volkov V.V., Bronzovyi i rannii jeleznyi vek Severnoi Mongolii, Ulaanbaatar (in Russian), 1967.

Volkov V.V., OlennyekamniMongolii, Ulaanbaatar (in Russian), 1981.

Wu Rukang and John W.Olsen, Paleolithic and Paleoanthropology of China, Academic press, INC.

Orlando Sandirgo, New York, London, 1985.

Zhu Hong and Zhang Quan-chao, “A Research on the Ancient Humqn Bones Unearthed from the

Jinggouzi Cemetery in Linxi County, Inner Mongolia”, Acta anthropologica sinica, 26(2),

2007, pp.97-106.

* 이 논문은 2010년 10월 20일에 투고되어,

2011년 1월 4일에 편집위원회에서 심사위원을 선정하고,

2011년 1월 17일까지 심사위원이 심사하고,

2011년 1월 20일에 편집위원회에서 게재가 결정되었음.

27

東洋學

- 50 -

❙국문초록❙


35)Tumen D.*

고고학적 연구에 의해 동북아시아의 선사시대(신석기, 청동기, 철기와 그 이후의 역사적 시기)에

다양한 문화의 인류가 아시아 영역 안에 거주하였으며, 지역을 횡단하는 광범위한 이주의 발생이 다

양한 문화의 인종 간에 문화적 교류라는 결과를 가져왔다는 사실을 알 수 있다.

신석기에서 중세 시대에 이르기까지 동북 아시아의 고고학적 인종에 대한 인류학적 비교 연구는

선사시대 인종이 인류학적 특성에 있어서 상당한 이질성을 띠고 있다는 것을 보여준다. 신석기 및

초기 청동기, 흉노 시대에 카자흐스탄, 알타이 산맥, 시베리아 남부, 신장(Xinjiang), 몽골 서부의 영

역에는 코카서스인 혹은 몽골인과 코카서스인이 혼합된 인류학적 특징을 가지고 있는 사람들이 거주

했던 반면, 바이칼 지역, 몽골 동부, 내몽골 지역은 발달된 몽골인의 인류학적 특성을 가지고 있는

인종이 점유하였다.

동북아시아의 고고학적 인종에 대한 인류학적 비교 분석의 결과에 의하면, 동부에서 서부로의 몽

골인 이주와, 서부에서 동부로의 코카서스인의 이주의 첫 번째 파동은 신석기 시대 말엽에 발생한

것으로 추정된다. 인종의 이동은 이후 이어지는 역사 시대에도 지속되었는데, 중세 혹은 몽골시기까

지 지속되었다. 동북 아시아의 고고학적 인종의 지역 횡단 이주는 역사, 문화, 민족기원, 아시아 지

역 인종의 인류학적 구조에 있어서 중요한 역할을 했다.

[주제어] 신석기, 청동기, 철기, 흉노, 지역횡단, 코카서스인, 몽골인

* Professor, National University of Mongolia

28

anthropology of archaeological populations from northeast asia*

Documents