UKRAINE MESOLITHIC CEMETERIES: DENTAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

(1)

Pavel M. Dolukhanov

Lu yna Doma«ska

Ali e Marie Haeussler

LeiuHeapost Ken Ja obs Valeriy I. Khartanovi h PhilipL.Kohl Nadezhda S. Kotova Ri hard W. Lindstrom Ilze Loze Dmitriy Nuzhnyi Inna D. Potekhina Dmitriy Telegin Vladimir I. Timofeev Aleksander A. Yanevi h LeonidZaliznyak 1 V O L U M E 5

•

1998

(2)

w.Mar in78

Tel.(061)8536709ext. 147,Fax(061)8533373

EDITOR AleksanderKo±ko EDITOROFVOLUME Lu ynaDoma«ska KenJa obs EDITORIALCOMMITEE

SophiaS.Berezanskaya (Kiev),AleksandraCofta-Broniewska

(Pozna«), Mikhail Charniauski (Minsk), Lu yna Doma«ska

(ód¹), ViktorI. Klo hko (Kiev), Valentin V. Otrosh henko

(Kiev),PetroTolo hko (Kiev)

SECRETARY

MarzenaSzmyt

SECRETARYOFVOLUME

Andrzej Rozwadowski

ADAMMICKIEWICZUNIVERSITY

EASTERNINSTITUTE

INSTITUTEOFPREHISTORY

Pozna«1998

ISBN83-86094-04-4

(3)

Pavel M. Dolukhanov

Lu yna Doma«ska

Ali e Marie Haeussler

LeiuHeapost Ken Ja obs Valeriy I. Khartanovi h PhilipL.Kohl Nadezhda S. Kotova Ri hard W. Lindstrom Ilze Loze Dmitriy Nuzhnyi Inna D. Potekhina Dmitriy Telegin Vladimir I. Timofeev Aleksander A. Yanevi h LeonidZaliznyak 1 V O L U M E 5

•

1998

(4)

CoverDesign: EugeniuszSkorwider

Lingvisti onsultation:MonikaWoj ieszek

PrintedinPoland

(5)

(6)

(7)

EDITORS'FOREWORD ... 7

KenJa obs,Lu ynaDoma«ska, "BEYONDBALKANIZATION"{AN

OUTLINEPROGRAMFORADISCUSSION ... 9

PavelM.Dolukhanov,THENEOLITHICWITHAHUMANFACE

ORDIVIDINGLINESINNEOLITHICEUROPE? ... 13

Ri hard W.Lindstrom,HISTORYANDPOLITICSINTHEDEVELOPMENT

ETHNOGENETICMODELSINSOVIETANTHROPOLOGY ... 24

Philip L.Kohl, NATIONALIDENTITYANDTHEUSE

OFTHEREMOTEPASTINTHECAUCASUS ... 34

Vladimir I.Timofeev, THEEAST|WESTRELATIONS

INTHELATEMESOLITHICANDNEOLITHIC

INTHEBALTICREGION ... 44

Ilze L oze,THEADOPTIONOFAGRICULTUREINTHEAREA

OFPRESENT-DAYLATVIA(THELAKELUBANABASIN) ... 59

DmitriyTelegin, MESOLITHICCULTURAL-ETHNOGRAPHIC

ENTITIESINSOUTHERNUKRAINE:GENESISANDROLE

INNEOLITHIZATIONOFTHEREGION ... 85

DmitriyNuzhnyi,THEUKRAINIANSTEPPEASAREGION

OFINTERCULTURALCONTACTSBETWEENATLANTIC

ANDMEDITERRANEANZONESOFEUROPEANMESOLITHIC ... 102

L eonidZaliznyak,THELATEMESOLITHICSUBBASE

OFTHEUKRAINIANNEOLITHIC ... 120

Aleksander A.Yanevi h, THENEOLITHICOFTHEMOUNTAINOUS

CRIMEA ... 146

Nadezhda S.Kotova,THEROLEOFEASTERNIMPULSEIN

DEVELOPMENTOFTHENEOLITHICCULTURESOFUKRAINE ... 160

Ali e MarieHaeussler, UKRAINEMESOLITHICCEMETERIES:

DENTALANTHROPOLOGICALANALYSIS ... 195

InnaD.Potekhina,SOUTH-EASTERNINFLUENCESON

THEFORMATIONOFTHEMESOLITHICTOEARLYENEOLITHIC

POPULATIONSOFTHENORTHPONTICREGION:

THEEVIDENCEFROMANTHROPOLOGY ... 226

L eiuHeapost,GENETICHETEROGENEITYOFFINNO-UGRIANS

(ONTHEBASISOFESTONIANMODERNANDARCHAEOLOGICAL

MATERIAL) ... 232

ValeriyI.Khartanovi h, NEWCRANIOLOGICALMATERIAL

ONTHESAAMIFROMTHEKOLAPENINSULA ... 248

(8)

(9)

This volume ontains the majority of the papers presented during a

onfe-ren ethattookpla e on16th-21stMay,1997inód¹,Poland.The onferen e was

organized by the Institute of Ar haeology, University of ód¹ and Departement

d'anthropologie, Universitede Montreal(Canada). The onferen e wasfundedby

theUniversityofód¹andbyIREX(InternationalResear h&Ex hangesBoard),

whi h also supported this publi ation. The publi ation was partly foundedbythe

Universityofód¹andbytheFoundationofAdamMi kiewi zUniversity,too.

The major questions of the onferen e were, 1) whatisthe urrenteviden e

foreastern orsouthernin uen es inthedevelopmentofeastern European

Meso-lithi andNeolithi populations,and2)to whatextentare urrentpoliti altrends,

espe ially the reassertion or, in some ases, the reation of ethni and national

identities, in uen ingourinterpretationsoftheprehistori data.

The idea for su h a onferen e ame into being through the o-organizers'

long-termstudiesofthedevelopmentofthoseprehistori humanpopulationswhi h

inhabitedthevastregionstret hingnorthandeastfromtheOderriverand

Carpa-thianMountainstothefoothillsoftheUrals. Ina traditionestablishedin modern

times byGordon Childe, virtually all of the transformationsof EasternEurope's

Neolithi Age human lands ape have been assumed to be responses to prior

de-velopments in the Balkan peninsula and Danube basin. We think that a body of

neweviden e requiresa renewedanalysisof thedistributionsof ultural produ ts,

peoples,andideas a rossEasternEuropeduringtheMesolithi throughtheEarly

Metal Age withina mu h wider geographi ontext than previouslyhas been the

ase.Thisin ludesgivingadequateattentiontothefar-rangingintera tionsof

om-munitiesbetweenthePonti andBalti areawiththoselo atedinboththeCau asus

andtheAralo-Caspianregions.

Wehope thatthisvolumewill ontributetosu ha redire tion offuture

ana-lyses.

Lu ynaDoma«ska

(10)

1.All datesintheB-PSare alibrated [see:Radio arbonvol.28,1986,andthe

next volumes℄(other versions are ited for thewish of authors).Deviations from

thisrulewillbe pointoutin notes.

2. The names of thear haeologi al ultures (espe ially from theterritory of

theUkraine)arestandarizeda ordingtotheEnglishliteratureonthesubje t(e.g.

Mallory 1989). In the ase of a new term, the author's original name has been

(11)

PLISSN1231-0344

Ali eMarieHaeussler

UKRAINE MESOLITHIC CEMETERIES: DENTAL

ANTHROPOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

1. INTRODUCTION

The earliest known skeletal eviden e for relatively large-s ale habitation of

UkrainehasbeenfoundinDnieperRapids Region Mesolithi emeteries [Telegin

1982; 1989℄. Hypotheses dealing with the aÆnities of the people buried in three

ofthese, Voloshskoe,VasilyevkaI, andVasilyevkaIII,are examinedin thispaper.

A ordingto I.I.Gokhman[1966℄ andT.S. Konduktorova[1973℄theskeletal

me-tri s of the skeletons ex avated from these emeteries in orporated a variety of

physi al features, whi h resulted from a omplex regional intera tion of peoples

duringtheMesolithi Era.Voloshskoeisthoughttohave ontainedtwogroupsof

peoples,Mediterraneans,whowerenarrowfa edandverygra ile, andAustraloids

(twoskulls) [Debets1955a℄.VasilyevkaIburialswereAn ientMediterraneansand

Protoeuropeans, whowere broad fa ed and massive NorthEuropeans des ended

fromamixtureoflatePalaeolithi peoples,su hasthosefromBrnoandPredmost

i

[Konduktorova1957;Gokhman1966℄.VasilyevkaIII exedburialswere

Protoeuro-peans,andVasilyevkaIIIextendedburialswere Mediterraneans[Gokhman1966℄.

2. METHODSANDMATERIALS

To evaluate these hypotheses,I studied 32 dental morphologi al traits, three

dentalpathologies,andeightmortuaryfeaturesintheUkraineMesolithi and

om-parativeEuropeanandNearEastsamples[Haeussler1995a;1996,n.d.a℄.The

sam-ples, uration information, and ar haeologi al histories are listed in Appendix I.

Theirlo ationsare showninFigure1.

(12)

Fig.1.Mapshowingthelo ationsofsamples omparedinthetext.

luation.Followingthissystem,frequen iesofthedentalfeatures,in luding

patholo-gies,arebasedonspe imen ounts[Dahlberg1956;Turneretal.1991℄.Hypoplasia

means two or more teeth with hypoplasti pits and/or lines; aries, one or more

ariousteethperindividual.

Be ausethesamplesareverysmall,IusedtheCoeÆ ientofSimilarity(C

s

)and

Indexof Similarity (I

s

) [Haeussler,n.d.a℄ for omparingthemorphologi al dental

trait frequen ies. If two samples are very similar to one another, the C

s

values

should be lose to 1.0. Ahigh I

s

value indi ates a relatively large sample and/or

manytraits. A relatively low value re e ts a verysmall sample size |usually six

orlessinthesamples ompared here.Inthisanalysis,aC

s

value with anI

s

lower

than 0.980 is onsidered less reliable than one with a value of 0.980 or greater.

Appendix IIhas the formulae andbrief explanations. The omparative C

s

values

are presented ondiagonal bar graphs, whi h havebeen onstru ted so thatea h

barisrootedinthe oordinates0,0.The graphshavebeenrotatedsothatea h of

thebarsisvisible.

Inaddition to biologi al traits, I omparedeightfeatures asso iated with the

(13)

the ulture ofthede eased andthepeople whoburied them[Binford1971℄.The

features fall into three ategories: thoserelating to 1) theburials (existen e of a

burial ground,presen eofa habitation site,andproximitytoa bodyofwater), 2)

theskeleton(bodyposition,numberofskeletonstoagrave);and3)personalgrave

goods(thosefromstoneandbone,red o her,andanthropomorphi gures).

For onsisten y, I have followed the hronologi al lassi ation of Telegin

[1982; 1989℄: Voloshskoe, Vasilyevka I, Vasilyevka III exed, and Vasilyevka III

extendedburials.Herein, emeterymeansaburialground.Ihavea eptedasa

e-meteryany sitedesignatedasa mogilnikintheRussian-language literatureorasa

emeteryin English-language a ounts.The massgrave at Predmost

iis onsidered

a emetery for omparative purposesof this analysis. Near East means thelands

aroundtheeasternshoresoftheMediterraneanSea,in ludingnortheasternAfri a

andsouthwesternAsia. ThetermMediterraneanin ludes theNearEast.

Theresultsoftheanalysisarepartitionedintotwotopi s.Thesearetheregional

heterogeneityoftheMesolithi peopleandtheaÆnityoftheMesolithi peoplewith

EuropeansandNearEasterners.

3. HETEROGENEITYOFTHEUKRAINEMESOLITHICSAMPLES

3.1. DENTALANTHROPOLOGICALCOMPARISONS

Thedentalmorphologi altraitanalysessupportthe on eptthatUkraine

Me-solithi peoples were biologi ally heterogeneousona regional s ale. By

heteroge-neousImeanthat,outofthe22featuresforwhi hallfoursampleshadtraitsites,

threetraitso urinallofthesampleswithvaryingfrequen ies,ninetraitsare

pre-sentin some samples andare absent inothers,and ninetraitsare absent fromall

thesamples [Haeussler 1996℄. Figures2to 5 graphi ally illustrate thatVasilyevka

I, Voloshskoe, andthe two Vasilyevka III sub-samples are dentally dierent from

oneanother.Werethesampleshomogeneous,thebarswouldextendto1.0or lose

toit.VoloshskoeandVasilyevkaI,theearlysamples ofD.Y.Telegin's [1982;1989℄

hronology, are dentally heterogeneous (Fig. 2, 3), as are the two Vasilyevka III

sub-samples(Fig. 4,5).Thelatter indi atesthatthetwotypesofburialsrepresent

dierentpeoples,regardlessof hronologyorar haeologi al typology.

Additional eviden e for thedental heterogeneity of thefour samples an be

observedinthevariationsinthefrequen iesofdentalhypoplasia.Per entagesrange

from 0.0%in Voloshskoeto20.0% in VasilyevkaI to37.5% in theVasilyevka III

exedburialsubsample[Haeussler 1996℄.Thefrequen iesofhypoplasiaintheV

(14)

Ar haeologi alfeaturesasso iatedwithburials

Site Dates(BP) Burial Habitation Proximity Body Singleor Personalgrave Redo her Anthropomorphi

ground site towater position multiple goodsmadefrom guresinburial

boneandstone

UkraineMesolithi

Voloshskiy Yes Site Dnieper Most exed Mostsingle Shell None None

River 13onright 1pair mi rolithi tools

1onleft

2onba k,

2extended

VasilyevkaI Yes No Dnieper 24 exed Mostsingle, Fragmentsof Yes None

River (16onright, 3pairs bladeswith

8onleft) bluntededges

trapezoid

mi roblades

s rapers

VasilyevkaIII 10,080

±

100to Yes No Dnieper 33 exedonside Mostsingle, Mi rolithi tools Yes None 8,030

±

100 River (24onright 3pairs,3tripole

9onleft,1on

ba k)

7extended

FatmaKoba No Unknown Chernaya Flexedonright Single None None None

River side

MurzakKoba No Burialinsite Chernaya Extended Two Workedbone, None None

River headtoeast smallblade

trapeze,end s raper RussianPalaeolithi Kostenki2,14,15,17,18 38,080

±

3

,

200 5

,

460

No Yes Don 2 exed(14,18) Single Headdressof Yes(14,15) Noneinburials

River 2seated(2,15) polarfoxteeth

(15)

Sungir 25,500

±

200to ? Yes Klyazma Allextendedon Thousandsof Kostenki14,15 Horseand

14,600

±

600 River ba k beadsand allSungir mammoth

bra elets, arvings

pendants

RussianMesolithi

NearEastPalaeolithi

Amud,Qafzeh, 27,000

±

500to No Caves Unknown Skuhl,Tabun 45,000

±

2000

NearEastNeolithi

'AinGhazal 4,000to6,300 No Yes Unknown Flexed, Single, Yes Plasterhuman

semi- exed a hesofskulls statues

underhouse

oors

Cze hRepubli Palaeolithi

Predmost

i 26,320

±

320to Yes Yes Unknown Flexed Massgrave Mammoth Yes

26,870

±

250 s apula

Flatpebbles,

(16)

boneandstone

Brno 1

W urmII No No Unknown Unknown Single Mammoth Yes Ivoryhuman

tusk,s apula, malestatue

rhino erosribs

600shells

(Dentalia)

ivory&stone

ir les

1

BrnoInformationisforBrnoII. 2

A ordingtoTimofeev(personal ommuni ation).

CompiledfromBibikov[1940:175,Fig.6℄,Zhirov[1940℄,Haeussler[1996:Table37℄,Konduktorova[1973:9-12;1974℄,Telegin[1982:Fig.3,Table24,240-241;1989:109,123℄,

Day[1986℄,Oshibkina[1983:180-191;1989:37-38,1990℄Praslov[1984:110℄,Gurina[1989:31℄,MamonovaandSulerzhitskiy[1989:Table2℄,Pri eandJa obs[1990℄,Ja obs[1994℄,

(17)

representeither1)peoplewhoweremembersofdierent ontemporaneousgroups

living under various ulturaland subsisten e-related stresses, su h as thosewhi h

mighthave beenasso iated with themany ases of violentdeaths[Konduktorova

1974;Nuzhnyi1990;Balakan, Nuzhnyi1995;Gokhman,personal ommuni ation℄;

or2)peoplewholivedatdierenttimesandunderdissimilare ologi alstressesthat

ae tednutritionandeventuallydental enamel formation[Hillson 1986℄.In

om-parison, Ifoundthatonly5.3%of thedentitionsin theOleneostrovskiyMogilnik

samplehadhypoplasia.In ontrast,61.8%oftheburialsintheNeolithi emetery

of L okomotivon theAngara River (6870

±

70 to 6670

±

80 BP

∗

) [Mamonova,

Su-lerzhitskiy1989℄ hadhypoplasia[Haeussler 1996℄,aswell as numerousindividuals

witheviden e ofviolentdeath [Mamonova,Bazaliyskiy 1991℄.

In ontrastto thebroad rangeoffrequen ies ofhypoplasia,thefourUkraine

Mesolithi samplesarealikeintheirmutualla kof aries,abs esses,and

periodon-taldisease. The healthystatusinthese pathogen-relateddiseases in allfourofthe

Mesolithi samplesindi ates adependen eonfoods ommontoa hunter-gatherer

subsisten e,andala kofhabitual onsumptionofpro essedfoodsasso iated with

a subsisten e based on agri ulture or transitionto it [Turner 1979; 1982; Clarke

etal.,1986;Meikeljohn,etal.1988℄.

3.2. ARCHAEOLOGICALCOMPARISONS

Variations in all three types of hara teristi s (features of the emetery, the

skeletons,andpersonalgravegoods)indi atethe ulturalheterogeneity ofthefour

Ukrainian Mesolithi samples (Table 1). Two features were ommon to thethree

emeteries: lo ation adja enttotheDnieperriver,a emeteryfeature, and

mi ro-liths.Althoughmi roliths anbeinterpretedasgravegoods[Haeussler1996℄,they

arepresently onsideredaseviden eof on i twithinthepopulation[Balakin,

Nu-zhnyi 1995; Nuzhnyi, personal ommuni ation℄. Mi roliths embedded in bone in

threeofthe12 exedskeletonsatVoloshskoe,twooutofthe24 exedskeletonsat

VasilyevkaI,andsevenoutofthe45 exedskeletonsatVasilyevkaIIIareindi ative

of violent deaths. Extended skeletons at Vasilyevka III also had mi roliths whi h

dieredinshapefromthoseinthe exedburials[Nuzhnyi1990;Balakin,Nuzhnyi

1995;Nuzhnyi,personal ommuni ation℄.

Twoofthethree emeteries (VasilyevkaIandIII)la kedeviden e ofan

asso- iatedhabitationsite,a emeteryfeature.Thismayindi atepurposefulandpossibly

eremonialtransportationofthedeadtoadesignatedareaapartfromthatonwhi h

thepeoplelived.Theywerethenpositionedinamannerpros ribedbythefolkways

of their ulture, sprinkled with red o her, and provided with grave goods

indi a-tiveofthemselvesandthepersonaland ommunityexpressionsoftheir ohorts.In

light of thenumerous violent deaths, the possibilityof a battleground or a ritual

(18)

Fig.2.Graphshowing

C

S

valuesforVoloshskoe omparedwiththethreeotherUkraineMesolithi

S

valuesfortheVasilyevkaIIIextendedburialsubsample omparedwiththe

(20)

burialgroundforthoseinvolvedinthe on i tmustbekeptinmind[Nuzhnyi1990;

Balakan, Nuzhnyi1995℄.

The numbers ofindividuals ina grave andpositionsoftheskeletons diered

withinandamong the emeteries.Inea h emeterysingle burialswere in the

ma-jority. However, multiple burialsalso o urredin all three.Most remains were in

a exed position, although Voloshskoe and Vasilyevka III also had extended

bu-rials(Table1).D.Y.Telegin[1982;1989℄hasinterpretedthis exed-extendedburial

di hotomyinVasilyevkaIIIaseviden e fortwo dia hroni ultures.

Infeatures of a personalnature, theburialsdiered intwo elements (a shell

andredo her)andwerealikeinone(mi roliths),dis ussedabove.Theshell(Nassa

reti ulata) [Nuzhnyi, personal ommuni ation℄ was found in only one Voloshskoe

burial.Red o her o urredin Vasilyevka IandVasilyevka III exed andextended

burials, butnotinVoloshskoe(Table 1).

3.3. SUMMARY

The dental morphologi al trait data suggest that the Voloshskoe, Vasilyevka

I, andVasilyevka III exedandextended burialsamples were heterogeneousona

regional s ale. Ar haeologi al eviden e (dieren es in one emetery feature, two

skeletal features, and personal goods)points to the ultural heterogeneity of the

samples.Variationinthedentalpathologyofhypoplasiaindi atesdierential

patho-logy-produ ingstressamongtheMesolithi samples.Absen eofdentalpathologies

of aries, abs ess, andperiodontaldisease pointto a homogeneoussubstan e

de-pendantonhuntingandgathering.

4. NEAREASTANDPROTOEUROPEANAFFINITIES

The se ond part of this paper has a dental anthropologi al evaluation of an

an ientMediterranean (NearEast)skeletalaÆnityforVoloshskoe[Debets1955a℄,

aProtoeuropeanandan ientMediterraneanskeletal aÆnityforVasilyevkaI

[Kon-duktorova1957℄,a Protoeuropeanskeletal aÆnityforVasilyevkaIII exed burials

[Gokhman1966℄,anda Mediterraneanskeletal aÆnityforVasilyevkaIIIextended

burials[Gokhman1966℄.Theresultsofthedentalmorphologi alanalysisaregiven

in four pairs of bar graphs (Fig. 6to 13). In ea h ase, the rstgraph showsthe

omparativeC

s

withalloftheextra-regionalsamples,butabasi dieren efromtheRussianUpper

Palaeolithi andNearEastPalaeolithi andNeolithi sites(Table1).Parallelsexisted

in theproximity to a habitation site, exedskeletal position, andthepresen e of

personalgravegoods,su hasredo her.

TheUkraineburialsindi atethattheyandtheRussianUpperPalaeolithi and

Mesolithi peopleswere members ofdierent ultures. The basi dieren eisthe

presen e ofa emetery atVoloshskoeanditsabsen eat theRussianUpper

Pala-eolithi andNearEastPalaeolithi andNeolithi sites. Thisobservation,however,

appliesonlytothesites omparedinthisstudy.Forexample,aMesolithi emetery

existedatAfalou-Bou-RhummelinAlgeria[Vallois1952℄.

Habitationsites were asso iatedwith Voloshskoe, aswell as withmost ofthe

extra-regional omparative burial sites. Those at 'Ain Ghazal were in a village

[S hmandt-Besserat 1997℄. The Russian (Kostenki and Sungir)and Cze h

Repu-bli Upper Palaeolithi (Predmost

i)burials were asso iated withsites. A sitemay

haveexisted at theMesolithi emeteries of Popova[Oshibkina1982℄ and

(22)

Fig.6.Graphshowing

at Voloshskoe (Table 1). The burials at Fatma Koba, Kostenki 14 and 18, a few

OleneostrovskiyMogilnikgraves,andallofthePredmost

iand'AinGhazal burials

were exed.

In spite of the parallels in the presen e of a habitation site and the exed

positionoftheskeleton,the omparisonofgravegoodsinVoloshskoeandRussian

UpperPalaeolithi andMesolithi emeteriessuggestsmembershipindierent

ul-tures.Gravegoodsvaried inquantityandintype.When omparedwiththewealth

of artfully made obje ts found in the Russian UpperPalaeolithi and Mesolithi

graves (Table 1), the Voloshskoe burials were relatively poor. Voloshskoe had a

shellandmi rolithi tools,whereas theRussian UpperPalaeolithi andMesolithi

burials hadelk head gures, zig-zag motifonbone, bear and beaver teeth, stone

andbonetoolsatOleneostrovskiyMogilnikandanimalteethpendants,bones,and

fragmentsoftoolsatPopova(Table 1).'AinGhazal alsohadgravegoods,yetthey

dieredfromthoseatVoloshskoebe ausetheyhadplasterhumangures andred

o herS hmandt-Besserat[1997℄.

TheMesolithi Ukrainiansmayhavehadlessopportunityforartisti endeavors

than did theUpper Palaeolithi and Mesolithi Europeans and Near Easterners.

Dire teviden e forviolentdeathhasbeenreportedatVoloshskoe[Balakin,

Nuzh-nyi 1995℄,but notat Kostenki,Sungir, Oleneostrovskiy Mogilnik, or Popova. Yet,

the numerous stone points in graves at Oleneostrovskiy Mogilnik [Gurina 1956:

Fig. 14,15, 21,22, 25, 29, 33℄ ould well havebeen involved in human life

thre-atening a tivities. No su h eviden e has been reported in 'Ain Ghazal, although

noexplanation oftheofthede apitationsand a hes ofskullshasbeenpublished

[S hmandt-Besseral1997℄.

5.3. CONCLUSIONSABOUTVOLOSHSKOE

Dental morphologi al trait data suggest that the individuals buried at V

olo-shskoe were dentallymore like Palaeolithi and Mesolithi Europeans (Cau asus,

Cze hRepubli ,Russia,andSi ily)thanthePalaeolithi andNeolithi Near

Easter-ners ompared here. Ar haeologi ally, numerous parallel elements exist between

Voloshskoeand all of the emeteries. A major dierentiating feature is the

pre-sen eofa emeteryatVoloshskoeandtheabsen eofaburial groundintheNear

East,aswellastheCau asusPalaeolithi andMesolithi ,andtheRussian

(24)

6. VASILYEVKAIPROTOEUROPEANAND/ORMEDITERRANEANAFFINITIES

6.1. DENTALMORPHOLOGICALTRAITCOMPARISONS

VasilyevkaIdentalmorphologi altraitfrequen y omparisonsparallelthe

Eu-ropeanandNearEasternosteologi alsimilarities suggestedbyT.S.Konduktorova

[1957℄.TheCrimeanMesolithi andCau asianPalaeolithi andMesolithi samples

arethemostsimilartoVasilyevkaIdentally,followedbytheEuropeanCze h

Repu-bli Palaeolithi samples (Fig.8).TheRussianPalaeolithi andMesolithi samples

areseventhandeighthinthede reasingorderofC

s

values,withtheNearEast

Pa-laeolithi andNeolithi samples o upyingthepla esaboveandbelowtheRussian

samples (Fig.8). Moreover, theSi ilian sample is dentallymore like Vasilyevka I

thanare theRussian samples.

Eliminationofthesamples withlowI

s

values(0.980orless) learly illustrates

theaÆnitiesbetweenVasilyevkaIandbothEuropeanandNearEastsamples (Fig.

9).The VasilyevkaI|EuropeanRussia C

s

valuesfall betweenthoseoftheNear

EastPalaeolithi andNeolithi omparisons (Fig.9).

Aswas the asewith Voloshskoe, parallels existbetween VasilyevkaIandthe

EuropeanRussian Mesolithi and the Cze h UpperPalaeolithi Republi burials

(Table 1). For example, Vasilyevka I and Oleneostrovskiy Mogilnik, Popova, and

Predmost

iwere emeteries withapredominan e ofsinglegravesinRussia.Similar

to the Voloshskoe omparisons, Vasilyevka I and Predmost

i burials were mostly

exed, while extended burials predominated in Russian Upper Palaeolithi and

Mesolithi graves.Redo herandothergravegoodswasfoundthesesites,although

VasilyevkaIwasrelativelypooringrave goodswhen omparedtotheRussianand

Cze hRepubli sites.

Like the Voloshskoe omparison, the major dieren e between Vasilyevka I

and the Near East is the presen e of a emetery at Vasilyevka Iand the la k of

a burialground at'Ain Ghazal (Table 1).Yet,'Ain Ghazal burialswere similar to

VasilyevkaIintwofeatures( exedbodypositionandredo her),althoughthey

dif-feredinthepresen eofanthropomorphi gures at'AinGhazalandtheirabsen e

(25)

Fig.8.Graphshowing

Dentally, Vasilyevka IhasaÆnities to bothNear EastandEuropeansamples

analyzed herein. Ar haeologi al eviden e indi ates some parallels between V

asi-lyevka I, European Upper Palaeolithi and Mesolithi , and Near East Neolithi

burials (body positionand red o her). However, the presen e of a burial ground

dierentiatesthesitefromtheNearEastsites omparedhere.

7. VASILYEVKAIIIFLEXEDBURIALSUB SAMPLE|PROTOEUROPEANAFFINITY

The dental trait frequen y omparisons (Fig. 10) supporta lose dental

re-lationship between the Vasilyevka III exed burial subsample and the European

samples, as exemplied by the Russian Upper Palaeolithi and Mesolithi

frequ-en ies. These results parallel the out ome of I.I. Gokhman's [1966℄ osteologi al

analysis.

Asintheprevioustwo omparisons,theCrimeaMesolithi andCau asus

Pala-eolithi samplesaremoreliketheVasilyevka exedburialsubsamplethanareallof

theothers.However,theCze hRepubli Palaeolithi sampleisonlyseventhoutof

nineintheorderofrelatedness. Unlikeitspla e intheprevioustwo omparisons,

the Cau asus Mesolithi sample is the least like the Vasilyevka III exed burial

subsample.

Further omparisonofsampleswhoseI

s

valuesare0.980ormore learlyshows

the lose dental relationship between the Vasilyevka III exed burial subsample

andtheEuropeansamples. The similarity isgreater than thatwith theNear East

Palaeolithi andNeolithi samples (Fig.11).

Parallels existbetweentheVasilyevkaIII exedburialsandtheRussian

Meso-lithi burials(Table 1).The UkraineandRussianMesolithi burialswere in

eme-teries. Intermentswere exed andhad grave goodsand red o her. However, the

Russian emeteries variedfromtheVasilyevkaIII exedburial subsamplebe ause

(28)

Some orresponden esbetweentheVasilyevkaIII exedburialsubsampleand

Russian and Cze h Upper Palaeolithi burials an also be found: a emetery at

VasilyevkaIII andPredmost

ibut notatKostenki, and exedburials ando herin

VasilyevkaIII,Kostenki(2 and15), andPredmost

i.

AswasshownwiththeVoloshskoeandVasilyevkaI omparisons,basi

ar ha-eologi aldieren eswiththeNearEasto ur.Thesearethepresen eofa emetery

andtheabsen eofanthropomorphi guresinalloftheUkraineMesolithi

eme-teries,andthereversein'Ain Ghazal.

7.3. CONCLUSIONSABOUTVASILYEVKAIIIFLEXEDBURIALS

Boththedentalmorphologi altraitandar haeologi alanalysessupporta lose

relationshipbetweentheVasilyevkaIII exedburialsampleandEuropeans,

exem-pliedbytheRussianUpperPalaeolithi andMesolithi samples.Thisrelationship

is loser to European than to NearEastern samples. The ex eption is theCze h

Republi sample, whi h isdentally among theleast like the Vasilyevka III exed

burialsubsample.

8. VASILYEVKAIIIEXTENDEDBURIALSUB SAMPLE|NEAREASTAFFINITY

Comparisonofthedentaltraitfrequen iesoftheVasilyevkaIIIextendedburial

subsampleshowsNearEastern(Mediterranean)relationshipssuggestedbyI.I.

Go-khman's [1966℄skeletal analysis,as well as aÆnities with Europeansamples (Fig.

12). As wasthe asewith theprevious three omparisons,however, theCau asus

Palaeolithi andCrimean Mesolithi samples are the most dentally like theV

asi-lyevkaIIIextended burialsubsample. Contributingto thepi tureof dualaÆnities

istheequidistan efromtheVasilyevkaIIIextendedburial subsampleoftheNear

East Palaeolithi and Russian Upper Palaeolithi bars midwayin thesequen e of

C

s

values(Fig.12).In ontrast,theNearEastNeolithi sampleistheleastlikethe

VasilyevkaIIIextendedburialsubsample.

Examination of samples with highI

s

values (equal to or greater than0.980)

learly shows the lose relationship with the Cau asus Palaeolithi sample (Fig.

(29)

asewith omparisonswith Voloshskoe,VasilyevkaI, andtheVasilyevkaIII exed

burial subsample, the Near East Neolithi sample is the least like the Vasilyevka

extendedburialsubsample.

Comparison between Vasilyevka III extended burials and thosefrom Upper

Palaeolithi and Mesolithi Russia showsnumerous similar features, espe ially in

theMesolithi samples (Table 1).As hasbeendis ussedabove,theRussianUpper

Palaeolithi site of Kostenki la ks a burial ground, whereas Vasilyevka III was a

emetery.Mesolithi Russian similarities withVasilyevkaIII are thepresen e ofa

emetery,extendedburials,single andmultipleburials,andredo her.Ashasbeen

the aseinthepreviousthree omparisons,theRussian emeterieshadartisti grave

goods.Yet,VasilyevkaIIIextendedburials hadonlymi rolithi tools.

ANearEastPalaeolithi and/orNeolithi ulturalrelationshipinmaterial

ul-ture eviden e is less evident than a European aÆnity. As has been pointed out

above,theNearEastPalaeolithi samplela ks eviden e ofpurposefulburials.The

single ultural ommonalitybetween Vasilyevka III extended burials andthoseat

'Ain Ghazal was presen e of single burials. Near East Neolithi burials diered

fromtheVasilyevkaIII extendedburialsbe ause ofthela kof a emetery, exed

bodyposition, intermentunderhouse oors,andanthropomorphi gures at'Ain

Ghazal(Table1).

8.3. CONCLUSIONSABOUTVASILYEVKAIIIEXTENDEDBURIALS

Dental morphologi al trait analysis shows European, as well as a Near East

aÆnities, for Vasilyevka III extended burials. Ar haeologi ally, the Vasilyevka III

extendedburialshadmorefeaturesthatparallelthoseasso iatedwithRussian

Me-solithi emeteries thanothergravesexamined forthisstudy,in ludingNear East

Neolithi burials.

9. CRIMEAANDTHECAUCASUS

Untilre ently[Haeussler1995b,n.d.a℄thetwosamplesthathavepla edatthe

(31)

as they are, annotbe overlooked here be ause of their geographi proximity to

Ukraine.

Inspiteofthesimilarityindentalmorphologi altraitfrequen ies,however,no

ulturalparallels exist (Table 1). For example, theCau asus Palaeolithi materials

la keviden eofpurposefulburials.The unstablepositionoftheCau asus

Mesoli-thi sampleonFigures6,8,10,and12 anbe interpretedbysmallsamplesizeand

few trait sites: two individuals represented only bythe mandibles. Ar haeologi al

analogies annotbe made,be ause noeviden eforpurposefulburialhas been

fo-undat either Kva hara orany otherCau asus Mesolithi site [Tsereteli, personal

ommuni ation℄.

InCrimea theFatmaKobaandtwo MurzakKobaindividualshadlikelybeen

purposefullyburied,aseviden edbythepositionsoftheskeletons.However, they

diered from the Dnieper River burials by the la k of a emetery and personal

grave goods(Table 1).

10. DISCUS SION

Theosteologi al,dentalanthropologi al,andar haeologi al informationgiven

above indi ate that theMesolithi population of the Dnieper Rapids region was

indeed omplex.This omplexityrequiredmorethanasinglelinearpeoplingevent,

beitofashortorlongduration.Forexample, thedentalanthropologi al

ompari-sonsparalleltheosteologi alanalyses intwooutofthefour samples,VasilyevkaI

andtheVasilyevkaIII exedburial subsample. VasilyevkaIhas an alternating

se-quen e (Cau asus Palaeolithi , NearEast Palaeolithi , Russia Upper Palaeolithi ,

Russia Mesolithi , and Near East Neolithi ) of dental trait frequen y similarities

and similarities to Near East and European skeletal traits [Konduktorova 1957℄.

The Vasilyevka III exed burial subsample has dental traits more similar to the

European(Cau asusPalaeolithi ,RussiaUpperPalaeolithi ) thantotheNearEast

Palaeolithi and Neolithi samples ompared here and skeletal [Gokhman 1966℄

traitssimilar toEuropeans.

Twoofthesamples,VoloshskoeandtheVasilyevkaIIIextendedburial

subsam-ple,haveamixtureofdentalandskeletalaÆnities.Voloshskoehasdental

morpho-logi altraitfrequen iesmoresimilartotheEuropeansamplesthantotheNearEast

samples omparedherein,butisskeletallylikeNearEasterners[Debets1955a℄.The

VasilyevkaIIIextendedsubsamplehasanalternatingsequen e(Cau asus

Palaeoli-thi , Near East Palaeolithi , Russia Upper Palaeolithi and Mesolithi , and Near

EastNeolithi ) ofdentalrelatednessto bothNearEasternandEuropeansamples

omparedhere,buthasMediterranean skeletalfeatures [Gokhman1966℄.

Ar haeologi ally, in spite of thepresen e of numerousparallels in individual

(32)

paredhere. Thedierentiatingfeatureisthepresen e of emeteries inthese sites

andtheirabsen eintheNearEastPalaeolithi andNeolithi ,Cau asusPalaeolithi

andMesolithi ,andRussianandSi ilian UpperPalaeolithi sites.Thepresen e of

a emeteryhasmoreweightthananyotherburialfeaturebe auseitsveryexisten e

re e ts aso iety, whereas elementspertaining to theskeletonandpersonalgrave

goodsre e tmembershipinasub-unitofthepopulation,su hasa lan,family,or

ohort.

Yetthe Ukraineburialshave relatively lessgrave goodsthanthosein Russia

andtheCze hRepubli .Whethertheexisten eof on i twithintheUkraine

Me-solithi Era ontributedto this relative pau ity of grave goods requires a areful

examinationoftheOleneostrovskiyMogilnikmaterials.Unfortunately,nearlyallof

thePredmost

iskeletonshavebeendestroyed.

Interpretation of these seemingly ontradi tory physi al anthropologi al and

ar haeologi al data relies on the Dnieper river and its paleoe ology during the

Boreal Era. The Dnieper River is presently the fourth longest river in Europe,

ex eededonlybytheDanube,UralandVolgarivers.Itoriginatesnorthwestof

Mo-s owintheValdaiHills, whosehighestsummitsform thedrainage dividebetween

theVolga,WesternDvina,Msta,andDnieperrivers.TheDnieperriver ows

south-ward,traversingthePolesyelowlandsofRussia,Belorussia,andNorthernUkraine.

FromKievsouthward,theDnieperRiver owsalongtheUkrainianShield,thereby

delineatingtheDnieperUplandsonthewestfromtheDnieper-DonetskL owlands

extending totheeast [Soer1985; Howe1994℄.Approximately 2,255km fromits

sour e, theDnieper River empties into theBla k Sea east of themouths of the

DanubeandDniester,andwest ofthemouthoftheDonRivers.

DuringtheValdaiGla ial Era(W urminWesternEurope,Wis onsinin North

Ameri a), the northern part of the Dnieper River was less attra tive to humans

lookingforpermanenthabitationthanitwasduringtheBorealEra.Itwassituated

inazoneof ontinuouspermafrostthatrea hedfromtheS andinavianI eShieldin

thewesttotheSeaofJapanintheeast.ThesouthernportionoftheDnieperRiver

owed through a region of dis ontinuous permafrostthat extended from Poland

toChina.Themouthoftheriverwasin anazone thatexperien ed deepseasonal

freezing[Baulin,Danilova1984℄.Duringthegla ialmaximum,thelastpartofwhi h

saw o upation of Upper Palaeolithi sites su h as Mezhiri h, southof Kiev, the

landwas a perigla ial steppe-forest,a ombination ofsteppeona watershed with

raried forestsalongriver oors[Dolukhanov,personal ommuni ation℄.

BytheBoreal Era, whi h oin ided withtheMesolithi era, forestsextended

southwardfrom the zone of tundrathatbordered theAr ti O ean. Mostof the

zoneofdis ontinuouspermafrostanddeepseasonalfreezing hadbe ome amixed

grassandxerophyti steppe.Duringtheyearswhi hen ompassedthedevelopment

of the ultures represented by the Mesolithi Dnieper Rapids emetery samples,

theforest zone moved southto the region of Kiev. From Kiev to theBla k Sea,

thelandremainedasteppe[Baulin,Danilova1984;Dolukhanov,Khotinskiy1984℄,

whi hgraduallytransformedintoasteppi orridor[Dolukhanov,personal

(33)

Zones, su has theland around theDnieper Rapids were e ologi ally

abun-dant, attra ting the animals and sh on whi h the Mesolithi peoples depended

for their subsisten e [Nuzhnyi, personal ommuni ation℄. By 9,000 BP the

mega-fauna,whi htheUpperPalaeolithi peoplesutilized,hadbe omeextin t.E ologi al

onditionspermitteddomesti ationofanimalsandlater,albeit sporadi ally,plants

[Dolukhanov,Khotinskiy1984℄.

Demographi ally, theBorealEraDnieperRapidsregionwasa essiblebythe

DnieperRiverfromthenorthandfromthesouth.Thearea ouldalsoberea hed

fromthewestviathetributariesoftheDnieperRiverandfromtheeastviaeastern

tributariesandtheplains,astheopensouthernDnieperRiverregionlandsupported

in reasingnumbers ofpeoples.

Aftertheretreat of theS andinavian I e Shield, manyof theforestdwelling

Mesolithi people in northern Russia, may have retained their forest-adaptation

and remained in thenorth.As theBoreal Era forestsexpanded southward,some

northernpeopleandtheir ultures,su hasrelativesofthoseburied atPopovaand

Oleneostrovskiy Mogilnik, ould have moved southwardwith theforests. Peoples

from Crimea, the Cau asus, and the Near East to the south ould have moved

northward at dierent times and with varying degrees of su essful o upation.

However,anymovementofpeoplefromtheNearEastandtheMediterraneanSea

regionhadtoinvolve ir umventing partoftheMediterranean andarrivingatthe

Bla kSeabysomeroutethatinvolvedeithertheCau asusMountainsandpossibly

thewesternCaspianregionorTurkeyandBulgaria.

Therefore,thevariationsindentaltraitfrequen ies,osteologi alaÆnities,and

ar haeologi al remains dis ussed above indi ate that we may be looking at the

result of mi roevolutionaryevents aused by omplex movements of peoples and

their ultures,assuggestedbyI.I.Gokhman [1966℄andT.S.Konduktorova[1973℄.

Thiswouldhaveo urredwhentheBoreal Erasteppelands apeofUkraine ould

supportlarger numbers ofpeoples than itdidduring theUpperPalaeolithi Era,

whenthelandwasa zoneofdeep seasonalfreezing.

Su h mi roevolutionary events may notbe unique to the Dnieper River. As

an example, Kievan monuments to histori ally important intera tions of peoples

duringthepastmillenniumillustratethetypesofmi roevlutionary eventsthatmay

o urredduringthe2,000 arbondatedyearsrepresentedintheMesolithi samples.

ThesearethememorialtoKi,Shek,Khorib,andL ebid;theSophiaCathedral;Babi

Yar; andthe monumentto theGreat Patrioti War (World War II). Inspite of a

great amountofdo umentation,donotknowtheextentto whi htheskeletal and

dentaltraitsof ontemporaryUkrainiansre e t anyofthese histori alevents.

Forexample, Ki,forwhomKievisnamed,alongwithShek,Khorib,andtheir

sister L ebid were Rus who ame fromthenorthbyboat in the9th entury. They

settledthehillsof ontemporaryKiev,butwedonotknowwhethertheymixedwith

orrepla edthegenepooloftheaboriginalpeople.

TheSophiaCathedralwasbuiltbyYaroslavtheWisein1037to ommemorate

hisvi toryoverthePe henegs,aTurki peoplewhoaggressivelyo upiedthe

(34)

lo altribesthrougha ommonreligionandlanguage. Itwasdesignedbyandbuilt

by Greeks and modeled after theHagia Sophia in Istanbul. Writing onthewalls

is eviden e of the rst Russian writing, whi h utilized the Greek alphabet. Both

thereligion andthelanguage havepersisted byrepla ement of thosethatexisted

previously.Apparently,thePe henegswereunsu essfulinmakingageneti impa t

onthegenepool.Yet,we donotknowtheextenttowhi htheskeletalanddental

traitsofYaroslavandhis ontemporariesrepla ed ormixed withthelo alpeople.

Threehundredyearslater,theMongolhordesa kedKiev.However,the

Mon-golsleftlittleimpa t onthephysi alappearan e ofthepeople.S.P.Segeda

sugge-sted thattheeventwas tooswiftfor their physi alfeatures tobe apparentin the

ontemporarypeople. Yablonskiy[1986℄proposedthatonlythehighoÆ ials were

trulyMongolsandtoofewtohavemadealasting geneti impa t.

BabiYaristhesiteoffratri ideandgeno ideofthousandsofindividualsduring

the1940's.Althoughafewdes endantsofBabiYarpeoples,theirreligion,andtheir

ulturepersisttoday,we donotknowtheextent towhi htheir skeletalanddental

traitswill remaininthepopulation.

The most visible landmark in Kiev is an immense eastward looking female

gure, a monument tothe defendersagainst themostre ent invaders,whomore

than40yearsagofailed to olonizetheDnieper. The invaderswere defeated and

theirskeletalanddentaltraitsfailedtorepla e thoseofthethousandsofmembers

ofthelo alpopulationburiedsinglyandinthelarge emeterytothenorth.De iding

fa torsin thevi torywere e ology,whi h mayleave itsmarkinthear haeologi al

andgeologi alre ord, andthetena ityoftheUkrainiandefenders,whi hwilllive

onlyinthememoriesoftheirdes endants.

11. SUMMARYANDCONCLUSIONS

Examinationofmorphologi alandpathologi altraitsandmaterial ulture

evi-den efromburialsinthree emeteriessuggestsagreementwithI.I.Gokhman[1966℄

andT.S. Konduktorova[1973℄thatthephysi alfeatures oftheUkraineMesolithi

people were the result of a omplex intera tion of peoples during or pre eding

the2,000 arbon-datedyears spanned bythese samples. Voloshskoe,VasilyevkaI,

andVasilyevka III exedand extended burial subsamples are dentallyand

ar ha-eologi ally heterogeneousonaregionals ale. Inter-regionally,theVoloshskoeand

VasilyevkaIII exedburial samples are dentallymore like theRussian Upper

Pa-laeolithi and Mesolithi samples than thosefrom the Near East studied herein.

However,VoloshskoeskeletonsaresimilartothoseinfromtheNearEast[Debets

1955a℄,while VasilyevkaIII exedburials areskeletallylike Europeans[Gokhman

(35)

ringthisstudy.However, theVasilyevkaIskeletonsresemble EuropeansandNear

Easterners[Konduktorova1957℄andtheVasilyevkaIIIextendedburials,

Mediter-raneanpeople [Gokhman1966℄.

Ar haeologi ally, Voloshskoe, Vasilyevka I, and Vasilyevka III have features

thatvaryonthelevelofintra-regional ulturalvariation.Inter-regionally,thethree

emeteries aremore likeEuropeanburialgroundsthantheNearEastgraves.

Interpolationofgeographi al, e ologi al,andhistori alinformationintothese

resultssuggests thattheMesolithi peopling oftheDnieper River o urredwhen

theBorealErasteppelandofUkrainewas apableofsupportinglargernumbersof

peoplesthanitdidduringtheUpperPalaeolithi Era,whenthelandwasazoneof

deepseasonalfreezing. Thedentalandskeletal traitsinthese samplesmay bethe

resultofnumerousmi roevolutionaryeventsaspeoplemovedwithvaryingdegrees

of su essandpermanen y intothe DnieperRapids region fromthe south(Near

East,Cau asus,Crimea),west(Cze hRepubli ), north(NorthernRussia),andeast

(EasternRussia)

∗

IamgratefultoKennethJa obsandLu ynaDoma«skafortheinvitationtoparti ipateinthesymposium\The

FutureofthePastofCentralEurope"andto ontributethisworktothesymposiumpro eedings.

Ifurthera knowledgewithgratitudethepersonalandprofessionalhospitalityandassistan eofS.P.Segeda,I.

Potekhina,T.A.Fugi h,S.Kruts,andN.MikhaylovnaoftheInstituteofPaleontologyoftheInstituteofAr haeology

oftheUkraineA ademyofS ien es,Kiev;I.I.Gokhman,A.G.Kozintsev,Y.D.Benevolenskaya,V.I.Bogdanova,A.I.

Buraev,Y.K.Chistov,A.Gromov,V.I.Khartinovi h,A.B.Radzyum,S.S.Sankana,O.Sukhanova,andO.Vorobyeva

oftheMuseumofAnthropologyandEthnology,St.Petersburg;V.P. Chtetsov,T.A.Alekseeva,S.Emova,V.M.

Kharitonov,T.S.Konduktorova,N.N.Miklashevskaya,andI.V.Perevoz hikovoftheInstituteofAnthropology,Mos ow

StateUniversity,Mos ow;G.V.L ebedinskaya,T.S.Balueva,M.Butovskaya,andA.P. PestryakovoftheInsituteof

Plasti Re onstru tion,Mos ow;M.G.AbdushelishviliandV.F.KashibadzeoftheSe torofAnthropology,Instituteof

History,Ar haeology,andEthnographyoftheGeorgianA ademyofS ien es,Tbilisi;O.L ordkipanidze,L.Nebierdze,

M.Nioradze,M.Puteridze,andM.L.TseritellioftheCenterforAr haeologi alInvestigationsoftheGeorgianA ademy

ofS ien es,Tbilisi;A.VekuaoftheInstituteofPaleobiologyoftheCenterforAr haeologi alInvestigationsofthe

GeorgianA ademyofS ien es,Tbilisi;L.A.Chelashvili,T.Davlinadze,Z.Kikodze,andD.Tushabramishviliofthe

StateMuseumofGeorgia,Tbilisi;J.ZiasoftheRo kefellerMuseum,Jerusalem;E.BurgiooftheMuseodiGeologia,

Palermo;M.DokladalofMasarykovyUniversity,Brno;andM.OlivaandM.Do kalovaoftheAnthroposInstituteof

theMoravianMuseum,Brno.

Someoftheliteratureandba kgroundmaterialforthisarti lewasprovidedthroughgenerous giftsfrom

T.I.Alekseeva,E.Burgio,M.M.Gerasimova,I.I.Gokhman,K.Ja obs,V.M.Kharitonov,T.D.Konduktorova,A.G.

Kozintsev,G.V.L ebedinskaya,O.L ordkipanidze,N.N.Miklashevskaya,N.N.Mamonova,L.Nebuerdze,M.Nioradze,

I.Potekhina,M.Puteridze,S.P.Segeda,M.L.Tseritelli,D.Tushabramishvili,andA.A.Zubov.Gratitudeforinvaluable

assistan eandinformationaboutthespe imensandtheinstitutesinwhi htheyare uratedareduetoS.A.Arutiunov,

InstituteofAnthropologyandEthnography,Mos ow;M.J.Be ker,WestChesterUniversity;G.Falsone,Ar haeologi al

Institute,Palermo;D.Frayer,UniversityofKansas;andC.G.Turner,ArizonaStateUniversity.

Resear hforthisworkwassupportedinpartbyagrantfromtheInternationalResear handEx hangesBoard

(IREX).AdditionalsupporthasbeenprovidedbytheArizonaStateUniversity haptersofPhiKappaPhiandSigma

(36)

AppendixI. Samples,site lo ations,instituteswhereexamined, and ar haeologi al

andpubli ationhistory.

Site L o ation Numberof Institute

Spe imens

UKRAINE

UkraineMesolithi

Voloshskoe NearDniepropetrovsk 15 IA

EastBankDnieperRiver

VasilyevkaI NearDniepropetrovsk 15 IA

EastbankDnieperRiver

VasilyevkaIII( exed) NearDniepropetrovsk 11(Burials12,16,18, MAE

EastBankDnieperRiver 22,24,25,26,27,

37,38,42)

ekasilyevkaIII(extended) NearDniepropetrovsk 9(Burials10,14,19, MAE

EastBankDnieperRiver 23,31,33,34,35,36)

CrimeaMesolithi

FatmaKoba BadarskayaValley 1 MAE

MurzakKoba BadarskayaValley 2 MAE

EUROPE

Cze hRepubli Palaeolithi

Brno Brno1from

CervenyKope south 2(Brno1and2) MM

ofBrno,Brno2fromFran ouzska

StreetinBrno,Moravia

Predmost

i NearPrerov,northeastofBrno, 4(2 asts:IVK319andMM

Moravia unlabeled;2mandibles:

A17088) 1

RussianUpperPalaeolithi

Kostenki DonRivernear ityofVoronezh 5(Kostenki2,14,15, MAE

17,18)

Sungir VladimirDistri t,near ityof 3(Sungir1,2,3) LAR

Vladimir

RussianMesolithi

OleneostrovskiyMogilnik KarelianRepubli ,onYuzhny 38 MAE

OleniyOstrovinL akeOnega,

300kmnortheastofSt.Petersburg

Popova KargapolskiyDistri t,Ar hangelsk 3 MAE

region,leftbankKinemRiver,

whi h owsintoL akeL a ha

CAUCASUS

Cau asusPalaeolithi

Akhshtyr Russia,So hi-AdlerPonti Area 1 MAE

BarakaevskayaCave Russia,KubanRiverBasin 2(Barakaevskayav,g) MAE

Dzhru hulaCave Georgia,TkibulskiyDistri t 1 GMG

OrtvalaCave Georgia,TerdzhoiskiDistri t 2(2420,3117) IPTsIANG

SakazhiaCave Georgia,TerdzhoiskiDistri t 5(486,606,607,1125, IPTsIANG

1133)

Cau asusUpperPalaeolithi

(37)

Spe imens

Cau asusMesolithi

Kv hara Georgia,neartheBla kSea 2 Photo

L.Tsereteli

NEAREAST

NearEastUpper

Palaeolithi

QafzehDK-H2 Israel,2.5kmfromNazareth, 1 RM

southwest ankofMountQafzeh

NearEastPalaeolithi

Amud Israel,WadiAmud,50kmeast- 1 RM

north-eastofHaifa

Qafzeh9,11 Israel,2.5kmfromNazareth, 2 RM

southwest ankofMountQafzeh

SkuhlIandIV Israel,Wadi-el-Mughara,Mount 2 RM

Carmel,southeastofHaifa

TabunII Israel,Wadi-el-Mughara,Mount 1 RM

Carmel,southeastofHaifa

NearEastNeolithi

'AinGhazal Jordan,northeastedgeofAman 16 Datafrom

Roller

(1992)

MEDITERRANEAN

Si ilyUpperPalaeolithi

SanTeodoro NearMessina,Italy 2 MGP

(SanTeodoro1and2)

1

Oneof themandibles is\possibly"Predmost

ia ordingtoM. Do kalova,physi alanthropologistat the

MoravianMuseum.Provenan enumbersofalloftheRussianandUkrainianspe imensaregiveninHaeussler[1996℄.

Ar haeologi al andPubli ation History

Voloshskoe:Ex avated byE.F. L agodovskayain 1946,A.V. Bodyanskiy andV.N.

Danilovain1952,V.N.Danilenkoin1953,andA.V.Bodyanskiyin1954.

Oste-ologi aldes riptionbyDebets[1955a℄andGokhman[1966℄.Skeletaland

den-talmetri sinJa obs[1993a;1994℄.DentitioninHaeussler [1995a;1996;1998,

n.d.b.℄.Cataloguedin GokhmanandKozintsev[1980℄.

Vasilyevka I: Ex avated by A.D. Stolyar in 1953 and des ribed by Stolyar [1957,

1959℄.Osteologi aldes riptionbyKonduktorova[1957℄andGokhman[1966℄.

Skeletal and dental metri s in Ja obs [1993a; 1994℄. Dentition in Haeussler

[1995a,1996,1998,n.d.b.℄.CataloguedinGokhman andKozintsev[1980℄.

VasilyevkaIII:Ex avated byD.YaTelegin, A.D.Stolyar,andI.I.Gokhmanin1953,

1955. Site dis ussed in Telegin [1957℄.Osteologi al des ription by Gokhman

(38)

Ha-Fatma Koba:Ex avated byBon h-Osmolovskiyin 1927.Site des ribed by

Bon h--Osmolovskiy[1934℄.Osteologi al des ription by Debets [1936℄. Dentitionin

Haeussler [1996℄.Cataloguedin Klein,etal.[1971℄.

MurzakKoba:Ex avatedbyS.BibikovandE.V.Zhirovin1936.Sitedes ribedby

Bibikov[1940℄.Osteologi aldes riptionbyZhirov[1940℄.Dentitionin

Haeus-sler[1996℄.

Brno: Brno 1 ex avated by A. Makowsky in 1888. Site and fauna des ribed by

Makowskyin1888,1890,and1899.Brno2ex avatedbyA.Makowskyin1891.

Publi ationssummarized inVl ek[1971℄,Svoboda,etal.,[1996℄.

Predmost

i:ex avatedbyR.J. Maskain1894 [Predmost

i1-21,26℄,M.Kr

iz in1895

[Predmost22-24,28,29℄,andK.Absolomin1928[Predmost27℄.Publi ations

summarizedinVl ek[1971℄,Adovasio,etal.[1996℄,andSvoboda,etal.[1996℄.

Kostenki2(Zamyatnin) Ex avated byP.M. Emenkoin 1923,S.N. Zamyatninin

1927,andP.O.Boriskovskiyin1953,1955,and1956.Des ribedbyBoriskovskiy

andDimetrieva [1982a℄.Osteologi aldes riptionbyGerasimova[1982℄.

Den-titioninHaeussler[1992b;1995 ;1996℄.Catalogued asKostenki1inKlein,et

al.[1971℄.

Kostenki14 (Markina Gora) Ex avated byA.N. Roga hev in 1954.Des ribed by

Roga hevandSinitsyn[1982a℄.Osteologi aldes riptionbyDebets[1955b℄and

Gerasimova[1982,1987℄.DentitioninHaeussler[1992b;1995 ;1996℄.

Catalo-gued as Kostenki2in Klein, etal. [1971℄and as KostenkiXIV in Gokhman

andKozintesv[1980℄.

Kostenki15 (Gorodtsov)Ex avated by A.N. Roga hev in 1952.Des ribed by

Ro-ga hev and Sinitsyn [1982b℄. Osteology in Yakimov [1957℄ and Gerasimova

[1982℄.DentitioninHaeussler[1992b;1995 ;1996℄.Catalogued asKostenki3

inKlein, etal.[1971℄andasKostenkiXVinGokhmanandKozintsev[1980℄.

Kostenki17 (Spitsyn)Ex avated byP.O. Boriskovskiy,[1955℄.Des ribed by

Bori-skovskiy,etal.[1982℄.ToothmentionedinKlein[1969℄.DentitioninHaeussler

[1992b;1995 ; 1996℄.Catalogued as Kostenki5 in Klein, et al.[1971℄ and as

KostenkiXVIIin GokhmanandKozintsev[1980℄.

Kostenki18(PokrovskiyL og)Ex avated by A.N.Roga hev in 1953.Des ribed by

Roga hevandBelyaeva[1982℄.Osteologi aldes riptionbyDebets[1955 ℄and

Gerasimova [1982℄.Dentition in Haeussler [1992b; 1995 ; 1996℄.Catalogued

as Kostenki4in Klein, etal. [1971℄and asKostenkiXVIIIin Gokhman and

Kozintsev[1980℄.

Sungir:Ex avated by O.N. Baderin 1950'sto 1970's.Des ription in Bader[1978,

1984℄. Osteologi al and dental des ription by Bukhman [1984℄, Gerasimova

[1984℄, L ebedinskaya and Surnina [1984℄, Khrisanfova [1984℄, Nikityuk and

Kharitonov[1984℄,Tromova[1984℄,Zubov[1984℄,andHaeussler [1996℄.

OleneostrovskiyMogilnik:Ex avatedbyV.I.Ravdonikasin1936-1938.Des ription

by Gurina [1956℄.Osteologi al des ription by Yakimov [1960a℄.Dentition in

Haeussler[1992a;1995b;1996℄.CataloguedinGokhmanandKozintsev[1980℄.

Popova:Colle tedbyS.V.Oshibkinain1979.Des ribedinOshibkina[1982℄.

(39)

Akhshtyr:Ex avated byE.A. Velikova in 1961. Dis ussed by Velikova and Zubov

[1972℄,Zubov [1968℄,and Zubov[1978; ited in Lyubin 1989℄.Dentition

de-s ribed in Haeussler [1992 ; 1994; 1996, n.d.a.℄. Catalogued in Klein, et al.

[1971℄.

Barakaevskaya:Ex avatedbyV.P.LyubinandP.U.Autlaev1976-1982.Des ribedby

Lyubin,etal.[1977;1986℄.Skeletalmaterialsdes ribedbyLyubin,etal.[1986℄

and mentionedin Lyubin [1984 and 1989℄. Dentition des ribed in Haeussler

[1992 ;1994;1996,n.d.a.℄.Cataloguedin Ullri h[1992℄.

OrtvalaCave:Ex avated byM.Nioradzein1980and1987.Dentitiondes ribedin

Haeussler [1992 ;1994;1996,n.d.a.℄.

SakazhiaCave: Ex avated byM. Nioradzein 1975and 1979.Dis ussed by

Niora-dze[1976℄,Gabunia,etal.[1978:157-161℄,L ordkipanidze[1989:49℄,Kharitonov

[1990:89℄,NioradzeandSh helinskiy[1990℄.Dentitiondes ribedinHaeussler

[1992 ;1994;1996,n.d.a.℄.Cataloguedin Ullri h,1992.

Devis Khvreli: Ex avated by G.K. Nioradze in 1926-1927and des ribed by G.K.

Nioradze[1933℄.Dentitiondes ribedin Haeussler [1992 ;1994;1996,n.d.a.℄.

Cataloguedin Klein,etal.[1971℄.

Kv hara: Ex avated by L. Tsereteli. Dis ussed in Bader and Tsereteli [1989:96℄.

DentitioninHaeussler [1996℄.

Amud: Found in 1961 by Tokyo University S ienti Expedition to Western Asia

dire ted byH. Suzuki. Major publi ation by Suzuki and Takai (eds.) [1970℄.

DentalmorphologyinHaeussler [1998℄.

Qafzeh: 9 and 11 found by B. Vandermeers h in 1966. Des riptions in V

ander-meers h [1981℄ and Tillier [1984℄. Dental morphology in Haeussler [1998℄.

QuafzehDk-H2isUpperPaleolithi a ordingtoJosephZias[Personal

om-muni ation,1992℄.

Skuhl:Foundbetween 1929and1934byJointExpeditionoftheBritishS hoolof

Ar haeology in Jerusalem and theAmeri an S hoolof Prehistori Resear h,

dire ted byD.A.E. Garrod. Early publi ations: Garrod and Bate [1937℄ and

M GowanandKeith[1939℄.DentalMorphologyin Haeussler[1998℄.

Tabun:Historyand major publi ations same as Skuhl. Dental morphologyin

Ha-eussler[1998℄.

'Ain Ghazal: Dentitiondes ribed in Roler [1992℄.Burials dis ussed in

S hmandt--Besserat[1997℄.

SanTeodoro:Found byC. Maviglia priorto 1938.Skeletalmaterials des ribedby

Maviglia [1941℄.Fauna andphotographof San Teodoro 1skeletonin Burgio

andDiPatti [1990℄.Catalogued inSergei, etal.[1971℄.Dental morphologyin

(40)

Abbreviations

GMG StateMuseumofGeorgia,Tbilisi, Georgia

IA InstituteofAnthropology,Mos owStateUniversity,Mos owRussia

MM MoravianMuseum,Brno,Cze hRepubli

IPTsIANG Institute of Paleobiology, Center for Ar haeologi al Investigations,

GeorgianA ademy ofS ien es, Tbilisi,Georgia

LAR L aboratoryofPlasti Re onstru tion,Mos ow,Russia

MAE MuseumofAnthropologyandEthnography,St.Petersburg,Russia

MGP MuseodiGeologia,Palermo, Italy

(41)

AppendixII

The oeÆ ientofsimilarity(

C

S

)isasimple numeri alindi ationofthe

simi-larityoftwo smallsamplesbeing ompared.The

C

S

isbasedontheper entage of

paralleltraitexpressions.Paralleltraitexpressionisdenedasafrequen yofatrait

inonesamplethatiswithin5.0%ofthatinthesamplebeing ompared, the5.0%

being allottedto han e. This type of simple al ulation wasdevised be ause the

goalof the

C

S

isto quantifysimilarities betweensamples, whi h are toosmall to

)are:

when

X

ni

=

K

N

isthefrequen yofasingle trait,

when

K

isthenumberofpositiveobservationsoftrait

i

,

theCoeÆ ient ofSimilarity is:

C

S

=

t

P

Sin e the

C

S

based isonly onfrequenydata, theIndi ator ofSimilarity (

I

S

)

T D2

.

(42)

AR { Ar heologi kerozhledy,Praha.

AP { Ar heologia Polski,Wro ªaw.

AJPA { Ameri anJournalofPhysi al Anthropology,NewYork.

CA { CurrentAnthropology,Chi ago.

KSIA { Kratkiye Soobsh heniya Instituta Arkheologii Akademii

NaukUSSR,Moskva.

KSIA(Ukraine) { Kratkiye Soobsh heniya Instituta Arkheologii Akademii

NaukUSSR,Kiev.

KSOGAM { KratkieSoobs heniyaOdesskogoGosudarstvennego

Arkhe-ologi heskogoMuzeya,Odessa.

MASP { Materialy po Arkheologii Severnogo Pri hernomorya,

Kiev.

MIA { Materialy iIssledovaniyapoArkheologii,Moskva.

SA { SovetskayaArkheologiya,Moskva.

SAA { SovetAnthropologyandAr haeology,Moskva.

SE { SovetskayaEtnograya, Moskva.

REFERENCES

AdovasioJ.M., SoerO., Kl

imaB.

1996 UpperPalaeolithi brete hnology:interla edwovenndsfromPavlovI,

Cze hRepubli , .26,000yearsago. Antiquity70(269):526-534.

AlekseevV.P.

1969 ProiskhozhdeniyenarodovVosto hnoyEvropy.Moskva.

1974 ProiskhozhdeniyenarodovKavkaza.Moskva.

AlekseevV.P.,Mkrt hanR.

1989 Paleoantropologi heskiymaterializpogrebeniyvArmeniiivoprosy

gene-zisa kuro-arakskoykultury.SE1:127-134.

AlekseevaT.I.

1990 Antropologiya irkumbaltiyskogoekonomi heskogoregiona. In: R.J.

De-nisova(ed),Balty,slavyane,pribaltiyskiyenny,124-144.Riga.

AlekseevaT.I., EmovaS.V.,ErenburgR.B.

1986 Kraniologi heskiyei osteologi heskiyekollektsiiInstituta i Muzeya

Antropo-logiiMGU.Moskva.

AlekshinB.A.

(43)

AlexanderJ.

1978 Frontierstudiesandtheearliest farmersin Europe.In:D. Green,C.

Ha-selgrove,M.Spriggs(eds),So ialOrganisationandsettlements.British

Ar- haeologi al Reports,International Series47:13-29.

AlsupeA.

1982 AudejiVidzeme19.gs. otrajapuseun20.gs. sakuma.Riga.

AmmermanA.J.,Cavalli-SforzaL.L.

1973 Apopulationmodel for thediusion ofearly farming in Europe. In:C.

Renfrew(ed.), Theexplanationof ulture hange, 343-357.L ondon.

AndersenS.H.

1981 Ringkloster, en jysk inlands Boplandsmed. Ertebllekunst: Nyestjyske

fundaf mnsteredeErteblleoldsager.Kuml7-50.

AndersenS.Th.

1993 Earlyagri ulture.In:Diggingintothepast:25yearsofar haeologyin

Den-mark,88-95.Aarhus.

AndersonB.

1991 Imagined ommunities,revisededition.L ondon.

AnthonyD.W.

1994 Onsubsistan e hangeattheMesolithi -Neolithi Transition.CA35:49-50.

ArtsikhovskiyA.V.

1954 OsnovyArkheologii.Moskva.

ArutiunovS.A.

1983 Pro esses and regularities of the in orporation of innovations into the

ultureofanethnos.SAA21(4):3-28.

AulJ.

1935 Etude anthropologique des ossements humains neolithiques de Sope et

d'Ardu. In: Sitzungsberi hte der Gelehrten Estnis hen Gesells haft 1933,

224-282.Tartu.

1936 Anthropologis heFors hungeninEesti. Fenno-ugri a5:162-177.

1964 AntropologiyaEston ev.TR

UToimetised158:387.Tallinn.

BaderO.N.

1940 Izu heniyeepipaleolitakrymskoyyaily. SA5:93-110.

1961 OsootnosheniikulturverkhnegopaleolitaimezolitaKrimaiKavkaza.SA

4:9-25.

1965 Varianty kulturyKavkaza kontsa verkhnego paleolita i mezolita. SA

4:3-28.

1978 Sungir,paleoliti heskayastoyanka.Moskva.

1984 Paleoliti heskiyepogrebeniyaipaleoantropologi heskiyenakhodkina

Sun-gire. In: A.A. Zubov, V.M. Kharitonov (eds), Sungir, antropologi heskoe

issledowaniye,6-13.Moskva.

(44)

Bagge A.

1951 Fagervik. Ein Ru kgrat fur die Periodeneinteilung der Ostswedis hen

Wohnplatz-undBootaxtkulturenausdemMittelneolithikum.A ta

Ar ha-eologi a22:57-134.

BagniewskiZ.

1993 Omezoli iePojezierzaDrawskiego.StudiaAr heologi zne(A ta

Universi-tatisWratislaviensis) 24:33-55.

BalakanS., NuzhnyiD.

1995 The origins of graveyards: thein uen e of lands ape elements onso ial

andideologi al hanges inprehistori ommunities. PrehistoireEuropenne

7:191-202.

BanksM.

1996 Ethni ity:anthropologi al onstru tions.L ondon.

BareldL.

1994 TheI eman reviewed.Antiquity68(258):10-26.

Bateman R.,GoddardI.,O'GradyR.,etal.

1990 Speakingofforkedtongues:thefeasibilityofre on ilinghumanphylogeny

andthehistoryoflanguage. CA31(1):1-24.

BaulinV.V.,DanilovaN.S.

1984 Dynami s of late Quaternary permafrost. In: A.A. Veli hko (ed.), Late

QuaternaryEnvironmentsoftheSovietUnion,69-86.Minneapolis.

Be kerC.J.

1950 Den grubekeramis heKulturiDenmark. Aarbger.

Be kman L.

1959 A ontributionto thePhysi al AnthropologyandPopulationGeneti s of

Sweden.Hereditas45:189.

BelanovskayaT.D.

1983 Rakushe hnoyarskayakulturavremenineolitaieneolitanaNizhnemDonu.

In: Problemykhronologiiarkheologi heskikhpamyatnikov stepnoy zony

Se-vernogoKavkaza,10-15.Rostovna Donu.

1995 IzdrevneyshegoproshlogoNizhnegoPodonya.Sankt-Petersburg.

BellwoodP.

1996 Phylogenyvsreti ulationinprehistory.Antiquity70:881-890.

BenevolenskayaY.D.

1990 Rasovyimikroevolyutsionnyeaspektykraniologiidrevnegonaseleniya

Severo--vosto hnoyEvropy.Balty,Slavyane,PribaltiyskiyeFinny.Riga.

Ben-Yehuda N.

1995 TheMasadaMyth:Colle tiveMemoryand MythmakinginIsrael. Madison.

BesuskoL.G.,Didu hJ.P., Yanevi hA.A.

(45)

BibikovS.N.

1940 GrotMurzak-Koba- Novayapozdnepaleoliti heskayastoyankavKrymu.

SA5:159-178.

1959 Nekotoryevoprosyzaseleniya vosto hnoyEvropy vepokhu paleolita.SA

4:2-28.

1966 Raskopkyvnavese Fatma-Koba inekotoriyevoprosyizu heniyamezolita

Krima.MIA126:138-143.

1977 Epokhamezolitu.In:IstoriyaUkrainskoyRSR,41-50.Kiev.

BibikovS.N.,StankoV.N.,KoenV.Y.

1994 Finalniy paleolitimezolitgornogoKrima. Odessa.

BibikovaV.I.

1975 O smene nekotorykhkomponentovfaunykopytnykhna Ukraine v

golo- ene.BuletenMoskovskogoObs hestvaIspitateleyPrirody80(6):67-72.

BinfordL.R.

1971 Mortuarypra ti es: theirstudyandtheirpotential.MemoirsoftheSo iety

forAmeri anAr haeology24:139-149.

1972 Anar haeologi alperspe tive.NewYork.

BodyanskiyO.V.

1959 Neoliti hnymogilnikbilyaNenasytetskogoporogu.Arkheologiya5:163-172.

Bon h-OsmolovskiyG.A.

1934 Itogiizu heniya Krymskogo paleolita.In: TrudyII Mezhdunarodnoy

Kon-ferentsiiAssotsiyapoIzu heniyuChetverti hnogoPeriodaEvropy,vol.5,

114--183.Moskva.

BoriskovskiyP.

1975 Mezoliti heskayastoyankaKazankablizKrivogoRoga.In:Pamyatniky

dre-vneysheyistoriiEvrazii, 55-62.Moskva.

BoriskovskiyP.I.,DmitrievaT.N.

1982a Kostenki2(Zamyatninastoyanka).In:N.D.Praslov,A.N.Roga hev(eds),

Paleolit Kostenkovsko-Borsh hevskogo rayona na Donu 1879-1979, 67-71.

Sankt-Petersburg.

Bromlei Y.V.

1973 Etnosietnograya.Moskva.

1974 EthnosandEndogamy.SAA13(1):55-69.

1983 O herkiteoriietnosa.Moskva.

BudjaM.

1997 L ands ape hangesintheNeolithi andCopperAgeinSlovenia.Case

stu-dies:theLjubljanskoBarje region. In:J.Chapman,P.Dolukhanov(eds),

Lands apesinFlux.CentralandEasternEuropeinAntiquity.Colloquia

Pon-ti a3.Oxford.

BukhmanA.I.

1984 Rentgeneologi heskoeissledovaniyeskeletovdeteys