Anthropology of Archaeological Populations from Northeast Asia*

8東 洋 學Ⅲ. Materials and MethodsDuring the visit in 2008 to Laboratory of Anthropology, Research Center for Chinese FrontierArchaeology of Jilin University, Changchun, China and Sector of Anthropology, Institute ofArchaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk, andDepartment of History and Culture of Central Asia, Institute of Mongolian Studies, Buddology andTibetology, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Ulan‐Ude (Russia) we carried outcraniofacial anthropological study of human skeleton collection of archaeological populations fromSouth Siberia, Buryatia and Inner Mongolia (China) belonging to different historical periods. Detailedinformation on studied human remains is given in the Cranial series used to provide a craniofacialcomparative foundation for the studied human remains from China, Central Asia, Baikal Lake regionand West and South Siberia encompass a timeframe from the Neolithic (8000~6000 BC) up toMongolian period (13th century AD) and consist of twenty Neolithic samples, twenty six Bronze andEarly Iron samples, twenty two Xiongnu and 1 st melleinum AD samples, and twenty four medievaland contemporary samples. Materials for comparison included craniofacial data on prehistoricpopulations from Mongolia (Tumen, 1977, 1985, 2006a, 2007); Central Asia, South Siberia, RussianFar 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).- 30 -

Anthropology of Archaeological Populations from Northeast Asia9 Characteristics of the studied archaeological populations of Northeast AsiaHistorical periodINNER MONGOLIA, CHINASamplesizeSiteNeolithic 4 HebeiBronze 20 JiangjungouEarly Iron age 38 NilekeWarring States (403‐221 BC) 33 Dashanquian, TuchenziXianbei 51 Ba gou,Hulunbuir‐zalanurLiaoning‐Beipyo‐LamadongLiaoning‐Tsoyang‐Zartaiyanze,,Tsayuhuji, SandovanTsayuhuji UlaantsavUlaantsav‐Sandu‐dundajiTsayuzunji‐ChilansanQidan 26 Allucurchin‐YelyuLiaoning‐Faku‐ImotaiSandu‐Chi‐an‐HaiziShiliin hot‐dunsanUlaanhad‐Chifeng‐Ning‐Shanzuizi Wu‐nyu‐ziYuan 34 Chengpuzi ZhenzishanSOUTH SIBERIA and BuryatiaNeolithic 8 Educhanka, Makarovo,Manzurka, MarintuiObhoi, OlihonEarly Iron agePazyryk 40Ala‐Gail and Ala‐Gail 2,Balyk‐Sook, Baratal‐2Bike‐3,Bor burgazy‐1,2 and 3,Borotal‐2, Buraty‐8Jolin‐2,Kara TeneshMaltalu and Maltalu‐80Ulandryk‐1 and Ulandryk‐2Xiongnu‐Sarmat period 21 Kara‐Bom‐11Turcik period 22 Jolin‐1,Yustyd‐12Mongolian period, Buryatia 17 Enhor, Kiya, Olihon,Onontycha, UlanhadTotal 314Curation institutionLaboratory of Anthropology,Research Center for ChineseFrontier Archaeology of JilinUniversity, Changchun,ChinaSector of Anthropology,Institute of Archaeology andEthnography, SiberianBranch of Russian Academyof Sciences, Novosibirsk,RussiaDepartment of History andCulture of Central Asia,Institute of MongolianStudies, Buddology andTibetology, Siberian Branchof Russian Academy ofSciences, Ulan‐Ude, Russia- 31 -

10東 洋 學The comparative study was conducted separately for each historical period. Hierarchical clusteranalysis was used for comparative analysis and Euclidean distance is calculated as actual measurementof the precision of the mean difference between two populations (Knusmann, 1992). The clusteranalyses are conducted using SPSS (version 15) statistical software.Ⅳ. Results and Discussion1. Neolithic populationsCraniofacial morphological study of human remains from Neolithic period of Altai mountain,Buryatia and Inner Mongolia China show great heterogeneity of morphological traits amongpopulations of the historic periods. Due to obtained craniofacial data the Neolithic Afanasevpopulation from Altai mountain characterize Caucasoid anthropological features while studied Neolithicpopulations 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 Altaimountain demonstrate their mongoloid features. It may show that Neolithic Afanasev population fromAltai mountain anthropologically was heterogeneity which can be explained by migration ofmongoloid population from East Asia. Geographic location of compared Neolithic populations from Northeast Asia- 32 -

Anthropology of Archaeological Populations from Northeast Asia11The Euclidean distance analysis and cluster analysis (Fig.11) show that the compared Neolithicpopulations from Northeast Asia are divided into two major clusters. One of clusters includes severalsublusters. All Neolithic populations from the Baikal lake region and East Mongolia include to onesubcluster. Surprisingly, Neolithic populations from Usti‐Isha and Itkuli site, Altai mountain joinNeolithic population from Servo and Kitoi period of Baikal lake region in the subcluster. The secondsubcluster contains Neolithic populations from Central China (ban’po population), Neolithic populationTranbaikalia (Fafonov site) and Korean Neolithic population(Fig.11). The Neolithic populations fromAmur river basin and Central Yakutia belong to the third subcluster. However, Davenkou populationfrom East China locates separately in the first cluster.The second cluster contains populations from West Mongolia, East Kazakhstan, Altai highmountain (Afanasev culture), South Turkmenistan. It can be concluded that all compared populationscluster from the region belonged to the second cluster. All populations from the second clusteranthropologically 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 toone from the other clusters. The results of this cluster analysis confirm that the Eastern MongolianNeolithic population share closer phenetic affinities to the Neolithic population from the Baikal lakeregion. It supports a biological relationship of those populations. This anthropological type of theNeolithic 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 Baikalanthropological type of the continental Mongoloids. According to those facts, there were very closebiological relationship between the Neolithic inhabitants from Eastern Mongolia and Baikal region.Archaeological evidence supports that in those region there was common Neolithic culture in theEastern Mongolian and Baikal lake region (Dorj, 1975). The West Mongolia Neolithic population isincluded to one cluster with Caucasoid populations from South Siberia, Altai and Central Asia whichmeans that the populations might have close relationship and had common ancestors in the earlytime. Surprisingly, Neolithic population from Itkuli and Usti‐Isha sites in Altai mountain withNeolithic populations from Baikal lake region belong to same subcluster. The phenomenon maydisplays cross regional migration of the Neolithic populations from the region resulted admixturebetween the populations.- 33 -

12東 洋 學* * * * * 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 Dendrogramm showing relationship of compared Neolithic populations2. Bronze and Early Iron age.Obtained results of craniofacial studies of afanasev and pazyryk crania from the Bronze and EarlyIron of Altai mountain, glazkov crania from Buryatia, nileke crania from Xingjian and warring statescrania from Inner Mongolia illustrate that the Bronze and Early Iron age populations of the regionsreveal great heterogeneity of morphological traits.People with Caucasoid and mixed morphological features inhabited Altai mountain region, Xingjian- 34 -

Anthropology of Archaeological Populations from Northeast Asia13while 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 Bronzeand Early Iron Age crania from Altia mountain exhibit more pronounced Mongoloid morphologicalfeatures than seen in earlier times.The Euclidean distance comparative analysis between Asian Bronze and Early Iron age populationsexhibits that compared populations from Asia are divided in to several clusters. The separation of thecompared population in to several clusters undoubtedly show that the studied Bronze and Early IronAge populations from the region of the Asia, anthropologically were very heterogeneity (Fig. 13). Geographic location of compared Bronze and Early Iron age populations from Northeast AsiaThe first cluster combines the populations from Cis‐Baikalia (Glazkov culture, Lena and Angarriver Basin), East Mongolia (Slab grave culture) and Inner Mongolia (Warring States).The second cluster divided in to several subclusters. The populations from Minisun basin,SouthSiberia (Okunev culture), Scythians from Altai mountain region and populations of culture withoutinventory from West Mongolia belong to the one subcluster. The second subcluster contains andronovpopulations from Central and North Kazakhstan and Minisun basin, South Siberia, afanasevpopulations from Altai mountain valley region and Minisun basin of South Siberia (Fig. 13.). Theearly 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 mountainregion, Scytians from Tuva and West Siberia exhibit in the third subcluster (Fig. 13.).- 35 -

14東 洋 學The separation of the Bronze and Early Iron Age populations from Northeast Asia into severalclusters and subclusters can be explained by extensive and intensive cross regional migration andadmixture between Caucasoid and Mongoloid populations during this historical period.* * * * * 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 Dendrogram showing relationship bronze and Early Iron Age populationsfrom AsiaAccording to V.P.Alekxseev (1983), O.Ismagulov (1970) that Mongoliod and Caucasoid admixturein Central Asia (Kazakhstan and Kirgizia) and South Siberia increases step‐by step, beginning withthe end of Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. Also the authors concluded that Transbaikalia and Cis‐- 36 -

Anthropology of Archaeological Populations from Northeast Asia15Baikalian Bronze and Early Iron Age population with slab grave culture were mongoloidscharacterizing 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 inBronze and Early Iron age population from Altai mountain region, South Siberia. Based on manycommon decorative elements of artifacts and archaeological findings unearthed from excavations ofarchaeological grave monuments in South Siberia and Altai mountain region Russian archaeologistsE.L.Novgorodova (1970, 1987, 1989) and V.V.Volkov (1967, 1981), Tsebyktarov (2006) noticed thatthe origin of Okuvev, Pazyryk, Tagar, Karasuk culture of South Siberia and Altai mountain regionhad some relations to Bronze Age Culture of Mongolia and Inner Mongolia and concluded thatduring the Bronze age period extensive cross regional migration taken place in South Siberia,Mongolia and North China.3. The Xiongnu periodThe results of craniofacial study of Xiongnu crania from Altai, Buryatia show that the studiedpopulation was not anthropologically quite homogeneous. Due to obtained results the xiongnu samplefrom Altai characterize more pronounced caucasiod features than xiongnu samples from Buryatia.The Euclidean distance methods applied for comparative analysis of craniofacial data on inhabitantsfrom Xiongnu and subsequent historical period of Asia displays that all compared populations fromthose historical period of Asia are divided in to several major clusters (fig.15.). Geographic location of compared populations from Xiongnu period- 37 -

16東 洋 學The first cluster includes Usunians from Semirechiya (Central Asia) and East Kazakhstan, xiongnusarmatiansfrom Altai high mountain, Turkic from Tuva (Fig.15.). Xiongnu of Kirgizstan, Central andWest Tuva, Xiongnu‐sarmatians from Chui river basin, Altai mountain, sarmatians from WestKazakhstan, usunians from North Kazakhstan and Turkic from West Siberia include to the secondsubcluster. The third cluster contains usunians from Tyani‐Shani mountain region and populations fromxiongnu‐sarmat period of Fergan valley, Tajikistan and West Turkmenistan. All Xiongnu populationsfrom Xingjian, Mongolia and Altai mountain belong to fourth cluster. The fifth cluster includes mokhepeople from Primor’e, xianbei from Inner Mongolia and Transbaikalia, and xiongnu from Transbaicaliaans Cis‐Baikalia. The population from xiongnu period of Chukotka locate separate position in thecluster showing relationship between compared Asian populations from Xiongnu period.* * * * * 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 Dendrogram showing historical relationship of populations from Xiongnu period and the 1 stmillennium AD. of Asia- 38 -

Anthropology of Archaeological Populations from Northeast Asia17The clustering of Xiongnu populations from Inner Asia clearly displays that Xiongnuanthropologically were very heterogeneous and at least there were six anthropological types for theXiongnu 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 andmongoloid anthropological features. The Caucasoid morphological traits related to local caucasiodinhabitant from the earlest historical periods of the region and mongoliod traits may geneticallyconnect with migrants from mainland of North Asia. Studied xiongnu‐sarmatian skulls from Altaimountain 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 anthropologicaltype of caucasiods and mongoloids and noticed that female skulls demonstrate more mongoloidfeatures than male skulls. Due to conclusion of the authors the mongoloid peculiarities wereoriginated from population from Bronze and Early Iron age, and Xiongnu populations of Mongoliaand Baikal lake region.The studied xianbei and xiongnu people from Baikal lake region and mokhe people from Far Eastinclude 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 thatxiongnu people from Trans and Cis‐baikal characterize anthropological features of northasianmongoliods. Chinese anthropologist Zhu Hong and Zhang Quan‐chao studied xianbei crania fromseveral sites of Inner Mongolia and noticed that anthropological features of studied xianbei craniashow that the racial type is closely related to the modern North Asiatic Mongoloids, and somephysical characteristics of those skulls are closer to modern Mongols and ancient populations inNorth China. In accordance with the conclusion the studied xiongnu and xianbei samples fromBaikal and Inner Mongolia morphologically belong to the Central Asiatic variant of NorthMongoloids.As V.P.Alexseev and I.I.Gokhman (1983) concluded that Xiongnu migration from Mongolia toWest through Altai and Tuva played an important role in ethnogenetical process, as well asanthropological structure of the region. V.P.Alexseev and I.I.Gokhman noticed that the Mongoloidanthropological component increases in local Caucasoid inhabitants of the region. This phenomenarelated with Mongoloid migrants from Mongolia in the late Bronze Age and Xiongnu period which iscontemporaneous with the formation of the Xiongnu tribal union in Mongolia and Baikal steppe and- 39 -

18東 洋 學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 visibleCaucasoid and Far‐East mongoloids admixture in anthropological structure of population from thisperiod. 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 archaeologicalstudies of Xiongnu in Mongolia, Ts.Turbat (2004) concluded that Xiongnu culture was created on thebasis of mixture and combination of the Iron Age Slab graves culture and the culture of earlynomads of North China. This process developed during 4 th –3 rd century BC (Turbat, 2004).Investigated Xiongnu archaeological monuments Z.Batsaikhan concluded that in the beginning ofthe 3rd century BC, Indo‐European groups migration across the territories of Inner Asia progressedin several stages. These migrations affected not only the development of ethno‐culture in Mongoliabut also had significant impact on all Central Asian populations and really represented an importantfeature of global processes of the time. On the other hand, a migration of groups from northernChina to Northeast Asia occurred and based on archaeological evidence, these populations establishedthe 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 Mongolianperiod of Altai mountain Baikal region, and skulls from Qidan and Yuan period from InnerMongolia display that all studied human remains from those regions illustrate morphological featuresof North Asian Mongoloid populations.Comparative analysis between the Early medieval period, Mongolia period, and Asian contemporaryethnic 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.) withcontemporary tuvinians, buryats from Tunk and Transbaikal, kirgizs, and yakuts belong to one of theclusters. 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- 40 -

Anthropology of Archaeological Populations from Northeast Asia19period of Altai mountain and West Siberia belong to same cluster (Fig.17.). The third clusterincludes population from Mongolian period of East Buryatia (Eraven site sample), contemporaryreindeer evenks and orochi (Fig.17.). On the dendrogram (Fig.17.) clearly is shown that thepopulations from Qidan and Yuan period, and contemporary Koreans join in same cluster. HoweverUndugen 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 beconcluded that the ancient and contemporary populations from one cluster might had close historicaland genetic relationship. i. e. contemporary Koreans, population from Qidan and Yuan period arevery close to other in one hand. Tuvinians, Tunk Buryats, Transbaikalian buryats, Kirgizs andYakuts might had close historical relationship with medieval population from XII‐XIV century of Cisbaikalia. Geographic location of compared medieval and contemporary populations from northeast Asia- 41 -

20東 洋 學* * * * * 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 Dendrogram showing historical relationship of populations from Early medievaland Mongolian, and modern periodsⅤ. ConclusionComparative craniofacial anthropological studies of human remains belonging to the archaeologicaland contemporary populations from Inner Asia through of time from Neolithic up to medieval orMongolian period show that the studied populations above mentioned historical periods greatheterogeneity of morphological or anthropological traits. In the Neolithic and Early Bronze age,- 42 -

Anthropology of Archaeological Populations from Northeast Asia21Xiongnu period the Altai mountain, Xingjian Western Mongolia was inhabited by people withCaucasoid or mixed morphological features of the Mongoloid and the Caucasoid while the Baikalregion, East Mongolia and Inner Mongolia were occupied by populations with developed Mongoloidanthropological traits.Obtained results of craniofacial comparative analysis between archaeological populations from InnerAsia show that the first wave of mongoloids migration from east to west and Caucasoid from westto east of Inner Asia likely took place at the end of Neolithic period. The population migrationscontinued 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 inhistory, culture, etnogenesis and anthropological structure of populations from the region of Asia.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, Ethnographyand 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 ofMongolia, 2002.Batsaikhan, “Nuudelchdiin niigmiin khariltsaany tuukhiin asuudal”, Procceedings of National Universityof Mongolia. Seria-II: History, No-211(20), 2003.Batsaikhan Z., “Dornod Mongolin ert, dundad ueiin tuukh”, Mongolian Journal of Anthropology,- 43 -

22東 洋 學Arcaheology and Ethnology, Vol.1., No-1(242), 2005, pp.1-14.Batsuren. B., Under teregtenuud ba ertnii turguud (6 th -9 th c.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 neolitabronzii-//Archaeologiya,etnografiya anthropologiya Evrazii. Novosibirsk. №1., 2000a, С.139-148.Chikisheva T.A., “К voprosy o formirovanii anthropologicheskovo sostava naseleniya Zapadnoi Sibiriv epohy pozdnei bronzii (interpretatsiya paleoanthropologicheskovo materiala iz mogilnikaStarii 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- 44 -

Anthropology of Archaeological Populations from Northeast Asia23Russian), 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 DifferenceAmong Recent Human Populations, Harvard University Press, USA, 1973.Erdenebaatar D., Mongolin durveljin bulsh ba kheregsuuriin soel (Slab Grave and Heregsuur Cultureof 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 ofArchaeology, Ulaanbaatar University, 2006.Erdenebaatar D. and Kovalev A., “Mongol Altain bus nutgiin archeologiin soel (Archaeological cultureof 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 Buryatskogokompleksnogo 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.- 45 -

24東 洋 學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”, Archaeologicheskiisbornik, 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 inGOl Mod-2 Cemetery, Mongolia.(2002-2005)”, Mongolian Journal of Anthropology, Archaeologyand Ethnology, Vol.2, 2006.Mamonova N.N., Drevnee naselenie Mongolii po dannim paleoanthropologii: Archaeologiya, anthropologiyaand 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. Jelezniivek 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 (inMongolian), 1980.Nicola Di Cosmo, Ancient China and Its Enemies: The Rise of Nomadic Power in East AsianHistory, 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- 46 -

Anthropology of Archaeological Populations from Northeast Asia25Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences. Series: Social sciences, Vol.1. Novosibirsk (inRussian), 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 (inMongolian), 1959.Polos’mak, “Nekotorie analogi pogrebeniyam v mogil’nike u der, Daodu’tszi I prblemi proishojdeniyaxiognuskoi 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 (vtorayapolovina 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 UniversityPress, 1971.Roginskii Ya.Ya., Anthropologiya, Moscow, 1978.Rykushina G.V., Anthropologija epochi en-olita-bronzy Krasnoyarskogo kraya: Nekotorie problemietnogeneza 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 (inMongolian), 1970.Ser-Odjav N., Mongolin ertnii tuukh, Ulaanbaatar (in Mongolian), 1977.Sukhbaatar Ts., “Hunnugiin tuukhend kholbogdokh khereglegdekhuun”, Mongolin Shinjlekh UkhaaniAkadeiin 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, ugsaagarval. MEU.IV-ME II zuun), Ulaanbaatar, 1980.Sukhbaatar G., Mongol Nirun Uls (330-555 year. AD.), Ulaanbaatar: Press of Mongolian Academy ofSciences, 1992.- 47 -

26東 洋 學Sukhbaatar G., Mongolchuudin tuukh sudlal, MOngolchuudin ertnii uveg, Ulaanbaatar: Press ofMongolian 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 MongolianAcademy of Sciences, 1980.Tseveendorj. D., “Hunnugiin archaeology (Xiongnu Archaeology)”, Mongoliin Archaeology, Archeologynsudlal (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 the10th anniversary of MON-SOL Project, Seoul, 2007, pp.48-73.Tsybektarov A.D., “O datirovke kherekhsurov v Uyjnoi Buryatia”, Chronology, I kul’turnayaprinadlejennosti pamyatnikov kamennego I bronzovogo bekov Uyjnoi Sibirii, Barnaul, Russia, 1988.Tsybektarov A.D., “Khereksuuri Buryatia, SevernoiI Central Mongolii”, Kulitury I pamyatnikovbronzogo 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 prinadlejennostiI datirovki)”, Central Asia and Pribaikalie v drebnosti, Ulan-Ude, Russia, 2002.Tsybektarov A.D., Cerntralinaya Asia v epokhu bronzi I rannego jeleznogo vekov (problemetnokuliturnoi 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 InstitutaObshei 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 MejdunarodnogoKongressa Mongolovedov, Ulaanbaatar (in Russian), 1985.Tumen D., “Anthropologicheskaya kharakteristika Hunnu Mongolii” Drevnaya kulitura Mongolii,Novosibirsk (in Russian), 1987.- 48 -

Anthropology of Archaeological Populations from Northeast Asia27Tumen D., “Anthropologiya sovermennogo naseleniya Mongolii”, Science Doctor Thesis, Moscow (inRussian), 1992.Tumen D., “Craniofacial morphology of ancient population from Eastern Mongolia”, Procceding ofMongolian-Korean Joint Research Project ‘Eastern Mongolia’, Vol. 5, Souel, South Korea,1996.Tumen D., “Paleoanthropological study of Hunnu from Mongolia. Scientific J. National University ofMongolia”, Series: Archaeology, anthropology and Ethnology, Vol.187(13). Ulaanbaatar, PrintingHouse of NUM, 2002.Tumen D., “Craniofacial morphology of human remains from ancient burials of Tsuvraa mountain inUguumur area, Khulenbiur sum, Dornod aimag, Mongolia”, Scientific J. National Universityof 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 Journalof 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-371Volkov 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 theJinggouzi 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.- 49 -

28東 洋 學❙국문초록❙Anthropology of Archaeological Populations from Northeast Asia35)Tumen D.*고고학적 연구에 의해 동북아시아의 선사시대(신석기, 청동기, 철기와 그 이후의 역사적 시기)에다양한 문화의 인류가 아시아 영역 안에 거주하였으며, 지역을 횡단하는 광범위한 이주의 발생이 다양한 문화의 인종 간에 문화적 교류라는 결과를 가져왔다는 사실을 알 수 있다.신석기에서 중세 시대에 이르기까지 동북 아시아의 고고학적 인종에 대한 인류학적 비교 연구는선사시대 인종이 인류학적 특성에 있어서 상당한 이질성을 띠고 있다는 것을 보여준다. 신석기 및초기 청동기, 흉노 시대에 카자흐스탄, 알타이 산맥, 시베리아 남부, 신장(Xinjiang), 몽골 서부의 영역에는 코카서스인 혹은 몽골인과 코카서스인이 혼합된 인류학적 특징을 가지고 있는 사람들이 거주했던 반면, 바이칼 지역, 몽골 동부, 내몽골 지역은 발달된 몽골인의 인류학적 특성을 가지고 있는인종이 점유하였다.동북아시아의 고고학적 인종에 대한 인류학적 비교 분석의 결과에 의하면, 동부에서 서부로의 몽골인 이주와, 서부에서 동부로의 코카서스인의 이주의 첫 번째 파동은 신석기 시대 말엽에 발생한것으로 추정된다. 인종의 이동은 이후 이어지는 역사 시대에도 지속되었는데, 중세 혹은 몽골시기까지 지속되었다. 동북 아시아의 고고학적 인종의 지역 횡단 이주는 역사, 문화, 민족기원, 아시아 지역 인종의 인류학적 구조에 있어서 중요한 역할을 했다.[주제어] 신석기, 청동기, 철기, 흉노, 지역횡단, 코카서스인, 몽골인* Professor, National University of Mongolia- 50 -