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
•
1998w.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
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
•
1998CoverDesign: EugeniuszSkorwider
Lingvisti onsultation:MonikaWoj ieszek
PrintedinPoland
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
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
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
PLISSN1231-0344
Ri hardW. Lindstrom
HISTORYAND POLITICS IN THE DEVELOPMENT
ETHNOGENETIC MODELSIN SOVIET ANTHROPOLOGY
Anthropologyplaysanimportantroleinde ningandpromotingnational
ha-ra ter, andethni ity isoften riti al in the reation of nationalism [Banks 1996℄.
The past,asrevealed throughanthropology,isusedto legitimize modernpoliti al
authority,asseen inIraqwhereSaddam Hussein'sname isins ribedinthebri ks
of restored walls in Babylon, linking his name to the glorious past of
Mesopota-mian power [Jehl 1997℄.It is also used to establish (ordeny) territorial rights of
ethni /national units,asseen intheongoing on i tsin Armenia,Azerbaijan, and
Georgia (asreferred to byP.L. Kohlin this volume). Control ofthepast onfers
politi alpowerinthepresent,andisa tivelysought,asexempli edbyNative
Ame-ri angroupsseeking ontroloftheex avation,studyandreburialofremainsinthe
United States. Anthropologists, as re overers and interpreters of the past, are in
theun omfortable positionof providingammunition forethni and politi al
on- i t, while at the same time disagreeing in most ases with popular andpoliti al
interpretationsofethni ityandprehistory.
Therole ofanthropologistsin themanipulationand ontrolofthepast isnot
alwayspassive.Anthropologistsare membersoftheir ontemporaryethni and
na-tionalstru tures,andtheirresear handinterpretationsareshapedbythem.Thisis
notasituationthatisnewtoanthropology,thoughithasre eived onsiderable
at-tentioninre entyears.Thefo usofthissession,thereadingofpoliti sintothepast,
isjustoneexampleofthisinterest.Ihave hosentolooknotatamodernexample
ofhowpoliti sareshapinganthropology(andvi eversa),butratheronahistori al
ase in whi h politi al ontrol of anthropologi al resear h and interpretation has
in uen edanentire s ien ein one ountry.
While preparingfor a symposiumat the1996meetings of theAmeri an
An-thropologi alAsso iationon\L anguage, Ar haeologyandCultureHistory"
[Lind-strom1996℄, Ibe ame familiar with a onsiderable and growingbody of Western
literature onethnogeneti theory.J.H. Moore[1994a℄andothers des ribe
ethno-geneti theoryasviewingtheethnosas \fragile,permeable, orillusory"(p.12), as
ontrastedtoa ulture-histori almodelwherelanguage, ulture,and biologyhave
thropologywhi hhasembra edethnogeneti theory.Thenatureofethni ityandits
roleinprehistoryasdes ribedbyJ.H.Moore'sethnogeneti theory,however,were
ompletelyatoddswithwhatIunderstoodofethnogeneti theoryasappliedinthe
Former SovietUnion. As M. Banks [1996℄has noted,theSoviet ethnostheorists
are perhapsthemoststrongly`primordialist'ofanyintheworld,beingamongthe
few that\ onsistentlyseem to think thatethni ity really doesexist andreally isa
fundamentalaspe tofthehuman ondition"(p.186).InSovietethnostheory\there
hastobeanobservable oreofstable ultural`stu 'thatpersistsovergenerations"
(p.79).Ibe ame intriguedwithunderstandingwhySovietethnogeneti theory
dif-feredsoradi allyfromthatenvisionedbyMoore.WhatIfoundisthatethnogeneti
theoryin the SovietUnionwas shaped bythepoliti al milieu ofthe 30sand 40s,
givingit averydi erentformthantheethnogeneti theorydeveloping intheWest
today.
InAmeri ananthropologyethnogeneti theoryhasre entlybeenexploredasan
alternative tostandardbran hing models of ulturehistory.The ulture-histori al
model has a tenden y to unite biology, language and material ulture within a
relativelyimmutableethnos[Bateman,Goddard,etal.1990;Moore1994b;Bellwood
1996℄. The stability of the ethnos allows anthropologists to use material ulture,
physi alanthropologyandlinguisti stotra espe i ethni groupstimeandspa e
[asin Cavalli-Sforza, Min h,etal.1992;Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, etal.1994℄.This
leads totheproje tionofmodernethni distin tionsintoprehistory.Ethnogeneti
theoryhasbeen o eredasan alternativewayofunderstandingtheasso iationsof
these variableswithinan ethnos.Ethnogeneti theoryproposesalooseasso iation
of language, biology and material ulture, and views ethni groups as temporary
units, onstantlyevolving,mergingandsplittingthroughouthistory[Moore1994a℄.
A uidde nitionof ethni ityisalso favoredbyothertheorists[Banks 1996℄.The
tenuous natureof ethni ity makes thetra ing of ethni ity intothepast un ertain
(indeed, ethni ity may be a relatively modern reation [Banks 1996:42℄), andthe
loose asso iation of material ulture, language and biology makes it diÆ ult to
supporthypothesizedethni histories.
A loser lookatSovietanthropology,however, suggeststhatitsinterpretation
ofethnogeneti theoryisverydi erent fromthatproposedbyMoore. Soviet,and
nowFormer Soviet, anthropology,though developedin a framework of
ethnoge-neti theory, is de idedly ulture-histori al in its interpretations of the past, and
oftenasso iates ethnoswithlanguage, material ultureandbiology.Many Russian
prehistorians onsideranar haeologi al ulturethere e tionofoneethnoswhi h
shouldbe hara terizedbyasinglelanguage[Artsikhovskiy1954:14-15;Olkhovskiy
1992:31;Kuzmina1994:59℄.Whileexpli itlyre ognizingthatar haeologi al ultures
andethnosesarenotalwaysidenti al[Tretyakov1963℄, ertainindi atorsor
assem-blages are onsideredto be\quite reliable ethno ulturalindi ators,allowing usto
tra ethemovementsofgroupsof peoples"[Olkhovskiy1992:31℄.Theequation of
ar haeologi al ulture,ormorepre isely,spe i traitsofanar haeologi al ulture,
anthropologistswhoexpe tthegroupingofra es, ulturesandlanguageswithinan
ethni unit[Gerasimov,Rud, etal.1987:3℄.
InSovietanthropology,the loseasso iationoflanguage, biologyandmaterial
ulturewithin theethnosallows modernethni groupstobe tra ed intothepast.
Criteriaforlinkingmodernethni groupsandar haeologi al ultures(su hasthose
developedbyE.E.Kuzmina[1981;1994℄)invariably onfoundthesethreevariables.
Bytra ingmodernethni groupsintothepast,ar haeologi al ulturesareassigned
to spe i (often modern) ethni groups. As an example, in Bronze Age
Eura-sian steppe studies, Andronovo ultural groupshavebeen des ribed as ethni ally
Indo-European,Indo-Iranian,Finno-Ugri andIndo-Aryan,with ultural,linguisti
and biologi al identities to mat h [see for example Kosarev 1965; Stokolos1972;
Gening 1977;Smirnov,Kuzmina 1977;Kuzmina 1994;Kovaleva1995℄.Theextent
to whi h su h attributionsof ethni ity an be arried is seen in re ent studies of
theSintashta and Petrov ultures. Though thedi erentiatingmaterial features of
these two Andronovo ultureshas yetto be made lear, ar haeologistshave gone
sofarastohypothesizethattheSintashta ulturewasIndo-Aryan,whilethePetrov
was Indo-Iranian [Zdanovi h 1990℄. Ar haeologists studying Andronovoare now
virtually required to assign ar haeologi al ultures (and even regional or
tempo-ral variants) to attested ethnolinguisti groups(e.g. manyof the papers from the
1995 onferen e \Russia andtheEast" [Zdanovi h,Ivanova,etal.1995℄).Russian
ar haeologi al studiesofAndronovoshould learly be lassi ed as
ulture-histori- al.Modernethni andlinguisti groupsareproje tedintothepast,ar haeologi al
ultures are interpreted as ethni units, speaking a parti ular language, and the
members of these ethni units are expe ted to di er geneti ally from one
ano-ther. Ar haeologi al ulture hange is interpreted in terms of the movement of
peoples arrying with them their ulture, biology and language. The ulture
hi-storyof the steppezone, as re onstru ted by Soviet s holars, was not developed
as ulture history per se, but rather is the result of an ethnogeneti theoreti al
framework.
Itshouldbepointedoutthatthisproje tionofethni ityintothepast,andthe
onfoundingoflanguage,material ultureandbiologywithintheethnosisbyno
me-ans on nedtoSovietanthropology.Indo-Europeanstudiesinall areas frequently
makethisequation,thoughwithina ulture-histori alrather thanan ethnogeneti
framework.Similarinterpretationshavealsoa ompaniedstudiesofothermodern
linguisti groups, su h as Polynesian [Rouse 1986℄ and Numi [Madsen, Rhode
1994℄speakingpeoples.Russianstudiesare ondu tedwithinanethnogeneti
fra-mework,buttheresultsare stri tly ulture-histori al.These interpretationsarethe
results of expli itly ethnogeneti theory, but onethat was shaped by thepoliti al
andideologi al on i tsofthe1930sand40s.
Prior to and immediately following the `Great O tober Revolution', Russian
anthropologywas ona ourse verysimilar to its ounterparts in theWest,with a
primary fo uson ulture history and typology [Trigger 1989; Shnirelman 1993b℄.
tionsanda ademi leaders wentun hanged[Bulkin,Klejn,etal.1982℄.Inthemid
1920s,however,there was amajor reorganizationofs ienti resear hin thenew
SovietUnion[Mongait1959℄.Anewgenerationofyoung,idealisti Marxists ame
qui klyintopositionsofin uen einall bran hesofthes ien es[Trigger1989℄.In
anthropology,N.Ya. Marr, as thedire torof thenewly established Russian (later
State)A ademy for the Historyof Material ulture, qui kly be ame a leading
-gureinSovietanthropology[Mongait1959;Bulkin,Klejn,etal.1982;Trigger1989;
Shnirelman 1993b℄.N.Ya.Marr, a Near-Eastern philologistbytraining, developed
a `Theory of Stages' for des ribing ultural development in whi h language,
eth-ni ityandsometimesra e were all seen as`superstru tural' phenomenathatwere
determinedmorebythestageofe onomi developmentofa ulturethanbyits
hi-story[Bulkin,Klejn,etal.1982℄.A ordingtothestadialtheory,as ulturesmoved
throughinevitableso io-e onomi stages(asde nedin thewritings ofEngelsand
Marx), superstru tural hara teristi s would hangeaswell.Marr's theorywas
qu-i kly`blessed'bytheSovietleadership[Trigger1989:212;Malina,Vasi ek1990:93℄.
It was seen as a true `Marxist' theory that served as a ne essary break from the
bourgeoiss ien e of theWest.Byemphasizing theprima yofso io-e onomi
de-velopment, it t well with Marx and Engels `histories' of human so iety, passing
throughdistin tstagesdetermined bytheprodu tivefor esat ea hstage.
N.Ya. Marr's theory had reper ussions throughout Soviet anthropology. For
linguists, it denied that stru tural similarities in language were rooted in history
[Riasanovsky1984:583℄.Marr's theory essentially denied any realm for
ethnogra-phy,whi h was tofo usspe i ally onethni ity [Gellner1977℄.Underthestadial
theory,thestudyof ethni itywas almost ompletely dismissedin theyearsbefore
the`CulturalRevolution'of1934-39.Be auseethni itywasessentiallyan`e e t' of
e onomi development,therewasnopointintryingtoestablishthehistori alpath
and relationshipsof an ethni group [Slezkin 1993℄.Though N.Ya. Marr's theory
was de idedly non- ladisti , in that it denied any ne essary an estral relationship
betweenlinguisti or ulturalgroups,it ertainlyreinfor ednotionsofstabilityand
ontinuity,en ouragingar haeologists tointerpretar haeologi al sequen esas
sta-gesinthehistoryofasinglepeople[Bulkin,Klejn,etal.1982:275;Trigger1989:225℄.
HadN.Ya.Marrandhisfollowersremained inpower,anthropologyintheFormer
SovietUnionwouldbeverydi erenttoday.However, inthemidtolate 1930sthe
situation in the Soviet Union hanged dramati ally. The Soviet Union was fa ed
withan in reasinglybelligerentneighborintheformoffas istGermany
[Riasano-vsky 1984℄.Inresponding tothis threat, theSoviets relied notonly ondiploma y
andarms,butalso onideologyandhistorytodefendtheirstate.
In Germany, the ourse of anthropologi al development in the beginning of
this enturywas notinterruptedby revolution, but by theFirst World War.Both
before andafter the war,ar haeologi al ultureswere thought to bethe material
expressions of distin t ethni groups, but ethni ity was not tra ed into the past
[Veit1989℄.Physi alanthropologyinGermanyfo usedwasonthe lassi ationof
ofGermany beforeWorldWar Iwasverymu h likethatfoundin Russia priorto
therevolution.
AfterVersailles,anthropologyinGermany hanged.Beforethewar,
bioanthro-pologyhadbeenthestudyof`otherness,'distinguishingbetweenthe`kinds'ofman.
Afterthewar,Germanywasstrippedofits olonialassets.Withnoexternal`other'
tostudy,thefo usofanthropologygenerallyshiftedtothe`internal'other(Gypsies
and Jews), andtheunique qualities ofthe Germanpeople [Pro tor1988:139℄.In
the 1920s the redis overy of mendelian geneti s brought the distin tion between
bioanthropologyand ethnology intoquestion. Geneti s seemed to bridge thegap
between biology and ulture that had been relatively unexplored before the war.
By the1930s,behaviors anddispositionswere seen as geneti , and linkedto ra e
[Pro tor1988℄(though this wasby nomeans the rst time thiswas done[Gould
1981;Sto king1988℄).
The link between ar haeologi al ulture and ethnos, always quietly assumed,
had be ome tighter under the in uen e of nationalists like G. Kossinna before
WorldWarI.Inthe1930s,thegrowingnationalisminGermanyen ouragedethni
interpretations of the past, and was re e ted in ar haeologi al and
bioanthropo-logi al resear h[Trigger1989:163℄.German ar haeologists,nowstudying`peoples'
rather than material ulture, were tra ing the history of Germani peoples (as a
linguisti andethni group)asfar ba kastheMesolithi , anddemonstratinghow
Germani expansions had in uen ed the development of `lesser' peoples
(espe- ially theSlavs) [Trigger 1989:166℄.German ar haeologists be ame everbolder in
their ethni interpretations of ar haeologi al materials, andtheGerman state
in- reasinglyusedar haeologi alresear htosupportitspoli ies. Atthesametimean
ethno entri xationdevelopedin bioanthropology,oftenfo usedonres uingthe
Germani ra efrom`threats' ofmixing withbiologi allylessdevelopedra es.Nazi
programsoffor edsterilization,denialofjobstoJewsandotherpeoplesof`mixed
blood',and,ultimately,thein ar erationandexterminationofmillions,allrestedto
some degreeonafoundationofbioanthropologi al/ra ial resear h[Pro tor1988℄.
InNazi anthropology,theethnosbe ame losely asso iatedwith language, ulture
andbiology,andwasseen asimmutable throughtime.
TheSovietUnion, rmlyunderthe ontrolofY. Stalinbythe1930s,wasnot
blind to thein reasing nationalisti fervor in Germany, or thevalue of
anthropo-logi al resear hin their propaganda.The Sovietsneeded to mountan intelle tual
ountero ensiveagainstthegrowingthreatofGermannationalism.Theroleof
hi-storyisvitaltoSovietideology,anditwasimperativethatthe ontrolofhistorybe
wrestedfromGermananthropologists.Oneimmediategoalwastoinstillasenseof
nationalismamongthepeoplesoftheSovietrepubli s. Nationalismisoften losely
linkedwithprimordialnotionsofethni ity,andfolk on eptionsofbiology [Banks
1996℄. This patternis lear in Nazi Germany, and followed qui kly in theSoviet
Union.Stillreelingfromtherapid onsolidationofpower,painfullyfast
industria-lization andfor ed olle tivization, a sense of Sovietnationalism had to be built
esta-pride[Trigger1989:229℄.V.A.Bulkin,etal.notethat\Soviets holarshipresponded
vigorouslyto theresulting growthofnationalself- ons iousness, theexpression of
national pride and thefosteringof thebest indigenoustraditions" [Bulkin, Klejn,
etal. 1982:276).InRussia,itlegitimized histori al laims toterritory,andfostered
nationalismbyemphasizingtheSlavi roleinthedevelopmentofEuropean ulture.
Of ourse,thisgoalwouldnothavebeenmetwithoutappropriatemanipulationby
theStateandParty.
Stalin'spurges in thelate thirties ertainly ontributedto the ontrolof
rese-ar hresults.Bysele tively eliminatingintelle tualopposition,thepoliti algoals of
resear h ould be met. Those thatwere noteliminated were far more areful to
produ etheresultsrequired bytheState.ThoughN.Ya.Marr's stadial theorywas
notoÆ iallyrenoun eduntilStalin's`MarksizmandVoprosyIazykoznaniya'in1953,
itlostmu h ofthein uen e ithad. The keytoinstilling a senseof nationalpride
wasseentobeethni history,requiringaturntoethnogeneti resear h,andMarr's
theory was ondemned for its reje tion of studies of ethni ity. Ethnography, left
in a shamblesbythestadial theory, againbegan tohavea role in anthropologi al
resear h. The primary fo us was now the studyof ethnogenesis and dispersal of
ethni andnationalgroups.Thisarea,whilebeingvaluablepra ti allyfromthe
po-liti alstandpoint,wasalsorelativelysafe,inthatitdidnotdire tlyimpingeonthe
territoryof Marxist historians [Humphrey1984:311℄.In addition to ethnogenesis,
ethnographerswere also harged with studying theforms of transition of
pre- a-pitalist so iety dire tly to so ialism, bypassing apitalism, and the onstru tion of
ultures, \national inform andso ialist in ontent"[Slezkin 1993:120℄.
Interestin-gly,theseareas loselymat htheareasinwhi htheformationoftheSovietUnion
dire tly ontradi tedthepredi tionsofMarxandEngels.Thestudyofthesetopi s
was thus ofimmense politi al and ideologi al importan e totheSoviets, and was
under lose s rutinyandState ontrol.
Allbran hesofanthropologywerereshapedinthestruggleagainstfas ist
Ger-many. Ethnogenesisbe ame importantforall elds, andresear h resultsusedfor
politi al purposes.Inbioanthropology,`ethni anthropology' ame toprominen e,
fo usingonhistori alquestions,parti ularly ethnogeneti [Debets 1961;Dragadze
1980℄. Ethni anthropology and ra ial analysis were adopted in the ` ght against
ra ism',aresponsetothebiologi aland ulturalimperialismofGerman
anthropo-logists.However, thisappli ation ofbioanthropologi alresear hrequired
onside-rablereorientationwithinSovietbioanthropology.AsI.I.RoginskiyandM.G.L evin
[1978℄optimisti allyportrayit,
Thetheoreti al reworking ofquestionsofthe orrespon den eofanthropolog i a l types
withethni andlinguisti groupsofmankindallowedtheuseof on reteanthropolo gi al
material asa histori al sour efor the studyofproblems oforigins ofvarious people
(p.36).
Inthis`reworking',bioanthropologyoÆ iallyadoptedethnogeneti theory,
ad-dingbiologytothede nitionoftheethnos,andatthesametimebe oming
histori al anthropology"[Gerasimov, Rud, et al. 1987:3℄. Ra e be ame linked to
language and ulturewithinan ethnosin a way thatmirrored its role in German
bioanthropology.To ght`ra ism',Sovietbioanthropologistsessentiallyadoptedthe
same interpretiveframework astheGermanstheyopposed.
ThoughSovietar haeologistss orned`bourgeoisar haeology'asexplainingall
hangesin ultureintermsofra e, asso iatedwithmigrationandintera tion
[Art-sikhovskiy1954℄,Sovietar haeologybeganto dojustthis.Ethni ar haeologyhad
been rippled by Marrists, unable to link ar haeologi al ultures with ethnos. As
thepoliti altide hanged,favoringandevenrequiringethno-histori studies,
ar ha-eologistsqui kly putoutmanyhistoriestra ingoriginsofpeoples,workingrapidly
tosupporttheSovietpoliti alagenda [Shnirelman1993b℄.Thepoliti alagenda
be-hindtheemphasisonethnogenesiswas lear,asL.MalinaandZ.Vasi ek[1990:114℄
note, \attemptsto proje tan ethni division intothepast [
. . .
℄ were area tion to thepressuresofGermansettlementar haeology.".Ar haeologistswere wellawareofthepoliti aldimensionoftheirwork.AsBykovskiybluntlystated\If
ar haeolo-gi almaterialallows severalvariousinterpretations,theniffollowsto hoosefrom
them that whi h is more patrioti " [Shnirelman 1993b:56℄. From the end of the
1930s Marrist methods were used to study ethnogeneti problems, tra ing dire t
linesofdes entfrommodernpeoplesba ktoar haeologi al ulturesbased on
e-rami de orationorhousedesign riteria.Ar haeologi al ultureswereinterpreted
in ex lusivelyethni terms,with an emphasisonidentifyingethno-spe i ultural
traitsthat ouldbeusedtotra eandisolateethni groups[Trigger1989:237;
Shni-relman1993b:60℄.StimulatedbySovietnationalism,thisleadtotra ingtheorigins
oftheRussianpeopleba ktovariousandwidespreadar haeologi al ultures(even
tothePaleolithi [Derzhavin1944; itedinShnirelman1993b:61℄).EventuallySlavs
inSovietar haeology ametodominatethehistoryofhumanity,withGermani
pe-oples marginalized, presentingamirrorimage ofthehistorypresentedbyGerman
anthropologists[Shnirelman1993b:63℄.
Theshifttoethnogeneti studiesinSovietanthropologydidnothappenslowly.
It was a tively promoted and supported by theSoviet government. Ethnogeneti
studiesservedtheSovietStateasmorethanaresponsetoFas istanthropology.They
were also usedto providesupportfor various internal poli ies, from thealigning
of internal politi aland ethni boundaries tojustifying thepreeminen e ofGreat
Russians in the Sovietgovernment [Humphrey 1984℄.Ethnogeneti resear h was
very ulture-histori alin itsfo us, de ning an ethni groupand tra ingitshistory
basedonmaterial ultureremainsandthedistributionof`ra ial'types.
AfterWorld WarII, ethnogeneti studiesremained thefo usof Soviet
anth-ropology. Teams of ethnographers,linguists,ar haeologists andbioanthropologists
were dispat hedthroughouttheUSSRtostudytheethni historiesandorigins of
the various ethni groups within the Union. In part, this was a response to the
needtoestablishadministrativeboundariesovernewlyannexedterritories,andthe
resear hwasoften ompromisedbypoliti alneeds[Humphrey1984:311℄.
a major role in de ning Sovietethnographyas thestudy ofethni ity, fo usingon
de ning the ulturaldistin tivenessofvarious groups[Gellner1977℄.The primary
unit of anthropologi al inquiry was the ethnos. The various Soviet de nitions of
ethnos almost universally in luded territory, material ulture, often some degree
ofbiologi al homogeneity[Bromlei1974℄,andmostimportantlylanguage
[Arutiu-nov 1983℄.As already noted,Sovietethnostheory was `primordial', in thatit saw
ethni ityaseternalandenduring.
Ethnogeneti studies are onsidered an integral part of Soviet physi al
anth-ropologyas well.Ethnogenesisis ountedasoneofthethree bran hesofphysi al
anthropology(along with studies of human origins and human morphology),
de- ning its main tasksas \the study of the historyof nationsand the ght against
ra ism"[Debets1961:3℄,butatthesametime,itisalsointerestedin\the
determi-nationofthekinshipofra esandanthropologi altypes,andinwaysforemploying
anthropologi almaterialasasour eofhistori alinformation"(p.15).Toapply
phy-si alanthropologi almethodstohistori alre onstru tions,physi alanthropologists
relied ontheroughequation ofan ethnos withan anthropologi al type.V.V.
Po-kshishevskiy[1974:97℄assertsthatunderstandingthetime required the reation of
an ethnos \wouldbring us lose to thesolution of the questions involved in the
formationofra es".
Ethnogenesisthus ametoen ompassra ial lassi ationandtypology,aswell
astheestablishingtheoriginsofmodernra ialgroups.G.F.Debets[1961:17℄notes
thatsu hstudies frequently\did notsu eed inavoiding thebias toward
identify-ing thedes ribed anthropologi altypeswith the ontemporarylinguisti families".
WhileG.F.Debetsintendsthistobeare e tionofthein uen eofN.Ya.Marr,he
doesnotmeanthatlanguageandbiology are not onne ted,believing ratherthat
\anymigrationofpopulationsdeterminedonthebasisofanthropologi aldataand
any mingling of ra es is a produ tof de nite histori al auses and is ne essarily
re e tedinthedisseminationandintera tionoflanguages"[Debets1961:18℄.Thus
the patterns of linguisti relationship (in the form of a language phylogeny)will
re e torbeare e tionofgeneti events.Morefor efullyputbyG.F.Debetsetal.
[1952℄\anthropologi al typesare never distributed without ultureand language"
andtherefore\whereanthropologi aldataindi atesthedistributionofoneor
ano-thertype,thetaskfallstohistorians,ar haeologists,ethnographersandlinguiststo
explain thehistori al onditionswhi hbroughtaboutthatdistribution".
In Sovietar haeology, thetrend towardethnogeneti resear h thatbegan in
the1930s ontinuedandwasfurtherelaborated,be omingoneoftheprimaryaims
ofar haeology [Malina, Vasi ek1990:114℄.While thefo uswas initially onethni
histories for groups within theSoviet Union, it ame to in uen e ar haeologi al
studiesinotherareas.
TheSovietemphasisonethnogenesishastendedtoleadtothe onglomeration
oflanguage, biology andmaterial ulture in theethnos.Byde ning theethnosin
termsofendogamy[Bromlei1974℄,material ulture[Arutiunov1983℄andlanguage,
bioanth-ofmaterial ulture,biologyandlanguage, inSovietstudiestheseareabsorbedasa
unitintothe on eptofethnos.
WhereN.Ya.Moorefo usesontheinstabilityofethni boundaries,there isa
realtenden yinSovietanthropologytoassumethatethni unitsarelonglivedand
tra eable inthepast [Banks1996℄.Though theparti ular traitsusedto de nethe
boundariesoftheethnosshiftthroughtime(andinterpretation),theideathatsu h
boundariespersistisnever lost.Theethnositselfisnearlypermanent,allowingthe
an estorsofhistori ethni groupstobetra edintothepast.Ethnogeneti studies
ofthepastbe ome re ipesfortheformationofmodernethni groups, ombining
various ultural, linguisti and biologi al elements from ar haeologi ally `known'
ethni groups into modern ethnoses [Litvinskiy 1981℄. While today ethnogeneti
theoryisseenasavaluablealternativeto ulture-histori alinterpretationsofhuman
history,Sovietethnogeneti studiesprovideextreme examplesoftheuni ationof
language, ulture,andbiologyin theethnos,anditsproje tionintothepast.
ThisoutlineoftheoriginsofSovietethnogeneti resear hgivesonlythebarest
glimpse ofthe way in whi hpoliti s andhistoryhave shapedethnogeneti theory
in the Soviet Union. The lose asso iation of ethni ity with language, ra e and
material ulture isa keypoint. Anotheristhepoliti al motivationthatdrove
eth-nogeneti theory towardspe i ally ulture-histori alinterpretations. The various
Soviet de nitions of ethnos almost universally in lude territory, material ulture,
oftensomedegreeofbiologi alhomogeneity,andmostimportantlylanguage.Su h
ade nitionoftheethnoseasilyleadto ulture-histori alinterpretationsofthepast.
It issomewhat ironi that in an attempt to develop an anthropologi al theory to
ounterthe ulture-histori alanthropologyoftheGermans, Sovietanthropologists
were led tothe same interpretationsof thepast. Ina hain rea tionGerman
na-tionalism and histori alexpansionism in anthropologygave birth to a responding
Sovietnationalism.
It serves to bear in mind that ethnogeneti theory is not the only one that
guides Former Soviet anthropologists. There are various de nitions of ethni ity,
and on i tings hoolsof thoughtontheasso iationoflanguage, material ulture
andbiology.Ethnogeneti theory,intheformthatIhavetra edhere,remainsvery
in uentialinallbran hesofanthropologyintheFormerSovietUnion.Evenwhen
ethnogenesisisnotthedire tsubje tofinquiry,alarge proportionof
ar haeologi- aland physi alanthropologi al worksin lude adis ussionof theethni ityofthe
pastpeoplesbeingstudied(thoughthispra ti ehasbeenquestionedbysomeSoviet
s holars[e.g.Korenevskiy1992℄.WhilemyreadingsoftheSovietand(largely)
Rus-siananthropologi alliteraturehavefo usedontheBronzeage,itisnotun ommon
tohaveethni itydis ussedinpapersdealingwiththeNeolithi andMesolithi
(lin-guisti aÆliationsaresometimesevenassignedtoar haeologi al ulturesasearlyas
thePalaeolithi [e.g.Dolukhanov1989℄).InBronzeAgeAndronovostudies,ethni
attributions(pra ti allyonasitespe i level)arevirtuallyrequired.Thisisperhaps
anex eptional situation,asAndronovoisthe enterof ontroversyforamigration
ethni ityandlanguagetopastpeoples,asituationseeninother asesaswell[Rouse
1986;Mallory1989;Madsen,Rhode1994℄.Ethni attributionofar haeologi al
ul-tures,andthegroupingoflanguage, material ultureandbiologywithintheethnos
are,however,widespread inSovietandFormer Sovietanthropologi al literature.
Thefo usofthis onferen esession,thereadingofethni andnationalpoliti s
intothepast,isbothtimely andne essary. However,thepoliti almanipulation of
thepast isby nomeansa re ent innovation.Foras longas antiquitieshave been
re ognized as material remains of past peoples, they have been used as politi al
tools.Politi almanipulationofthepasttakesmanyforms,fromthere onstru tion
ofBabylontothesuprema istrhetori ofgroupslike`Pamiat'.Anthropologistsmust
bevigilantthatthestudyofthepastisnot ontrolledbythepoliti softhepresent.
Whileapost-modern,re exiveanthropologyhasmu htoo er,thepastshouldbe
amore thanmere re e tionofpresentpoliti al urrents.Whilewe annotdivor e
ourselves from our own ethni and national experien e, we an be aware of the
biases that these impose onus, and make the ons iousde ision to be s ientists
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 { SovetskayaEtnogra ya, Moskva.
REFERENCES
AdovasioJ.M., So erO., Kl
imaB.
1996 UpperPalaeolithi brete hnology:interla edwoven ndsfromPavlovI,
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,pribaltiyskiye nny,124-144.Riga.
AlekseevaT.I., E movaS.V.,ErenburgR.B.
1986 Kraniologi heskiyei osteologi heskiyekollektsiiInstituta i Muzeya
Antropo-logiiMGU.Moskva.
AlekshinB.A.
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 thedi usion ofearly farming in Europe. In:C.
Renfrew(ed.), Theexplanationof ulture hange, 343-357.L ondon.
AndersenS.H.
1981 Ringkloster, en jysk inlands Boplandsmed. Erteb llekunst: Nye stjyske
fundaf m nsteredeErteb lleoldsager.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.
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.
Bar eldL.
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. Aarb ger.
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.
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 Etnosietnogra ya.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
an-Bulkin V.A.,KlejnL.S.,L ebedevG.S.
1982 Attainments and problems of SovietAr haeology. World Ar haeology 13
(3):272-295.
BunakV.V.
1956 Chelove heskiyerasyiputii hobrazovaniya.SE 1.
1980 RodHomo,egovozniknoveniyeiposleduyush hayaevolyutsiya.Moskva.
BurgioE.,Di PattiC.
1990 Ivertebratifossilidellagrottade SanTeodoro(A quedol i-Si ilia).
Natu-ralistasi il4,14(1-2):1-19.
ButrimasA.
1989 Mesolithi gravesfromSpiginas,Lithuenia.Mesolithi Mis ellany10:10-11.
CappieriM.
1973 TheIraniansoftheCopperand BronzeAges.Florida.
Cavalli-SforzaL.L.,EdwardsA.W.F.
1967 Phylogeneti analysis:Modelsandestimationpro edures.Evolution
32:550--570.
Cavalli-SforzaL.L.,MenozziP., Piazza A.
1994 Thehistoryandgeographyofhumangenes. Prin eton-NewJersey.
Cavalli-SforzaL.L.,Min hE.,MountainJ.L.
1992 Coevolutionof genesandlanguages revisited.Pro eedingsoftheNational
A ademyofS ien es oftheUnitedStatesofAmeri a89(12):5620-5624.
ChapmanJ.
1994 Theoriginsoffarminginsouth-eastEurope.PrehistoireEuropeenne
6:133--156.
ChernykhE.N.
1995 Posts ript: Russian Ar haeology after theCollapse of theUSSR -
infra-stru tural risisand theresurgen eofoldandnewnationalisms.In: P.L.
Kohl& C. Faw ett (eds),Nationalism,Politi s,and thePra ti e of
Ar ha-eology,139-148.Cambridge.
ChernyshA.P.
1975 StarodavnyenaselennyaPodnistrovyav dobumezolitu.Kiev.
ChildG.V.
1958 ThedawnofEuropean ivilization,sixthedition.NewYork.
ChmykhovN.A.
1990 Istokiyazy hestva Rusi.Kiev.
ClarkJ.G.D.
1958 Blade andtrapeze Industries ofEuropean StoneAge.Pro eedings of the
Prehistori So iety24(2):24-42.
Clarke D.L.
Clarke N.G.,Carey S.E.,SirikandiW.,Hirs hR.S.,L epperdP.I.
1986 Periodontaldisease inan ient populations.AJPA71:173-183.
Dahlberg A.A.
1956 Materials for the establishmentof standards for lassi ation of tooth
ha-ra ters,attributes, and te hniques in morphologi alstudies of the dentition.
Chi ago.
DanilenkoV.N.
1955a NeolitterritoriiUkrainskoySSR.Nau hniyArkhivInstitutaArkheologii
Na-tsionalnoyAkademiiNaukUkrainy 12:317.
1955b Voloshskiyepipaleolithi heskiymogilnik. SE3:56-61.
1969 NeolitUkrainy.Kiev.
1971 Sursko-dneprovskayakultura.In:ArkheologiyaUkrainskoyRSR1,104-112.
Kiev.
1974 EneolitUkrainy.Kiev.
1986 Kamennaya Mogila.Kiev.
DanilovaE.J.
1971 Gematologi heskaya tipologiya i voprosy etnogeneza ukrainskogo naroda.
Kiev.
DavydovaG.M.
1974 Populyatsionno-geneti heskiye issledovaniya mansi. In: J.M. Zolotareva
(ed), Etnogenez nno-ugorskih narodov po dannym antropologii, 96-107.
Moskva.
DayM.
1986 GuidetoFossilMan. Chi ago.
DebetsG.F.
1936 Tardenuaski kostyak iz navesa Fatma-Koba v Krymu. Antropologi heskiy
Zhurnal 2:132-169.
1948 PaleoantropologiyaSSSR.TrudyInstitutaEtnographii(nov.ser.) 4:43-45.
1955a Cherepa izepipaleoliti heskogomogilnikaus. Voloshkoe.SE9:62-73.
1955b Paleoantropologi heskiyenakhodkivKostenkakh.SE1:43-53.
1955 Cherep iz pozdnepaleoliti heskogopogrebeniyav PokrovskimL oge
(Ko-stenkiXVIII).KratkieSoobsh heniyaInstitutaAntropologii82:120-127.
1961 Forty years ofSoviet Anthropology,IsraelProgram for S ienti
Transla-tions.PSTCat.No228[Originallypublished1957as:Sorokletsovetskoy
antropologii.SA1:7-30℄.
DebetsG.F., L evinM.G.,Tro movaT.A.
1952 Antropologi heskiy material kak isto hnik izu heniya voprosov
etnoge-neza.SE1:22-35.
Denisova R.Y.
1975 AntropologiyadrevnikhBaltov.Riga.
1986 Kultura shnurovoykeramiki Vosto hnoyPribaltiki i problema baltskogo
DennellR.
1985 Europeane onomi prehistory:anewapproa h.L ondon.
DerzhavinN.S.
1944 Proiskhozhdeniyerusskogonaroda.Moskva.
DobzhanskyT.
1962 Mankindevolving.Theevolutionofthehumanspe ies.NewHaven-L ondon.
DolukhanovP.
1989 Culturalandethni pro esses inprehistory asseen throughtheeviden e
ofar haeologyandrelateddis iplines.In:S.Shennan(ed.),Ar haeologi al
Approa hestoCulturalIdentity,267-277.L ondon.
1995 Ar haeologyinRussiaanditsimpa tonar haeologi altheory.In:P.U ko
(ed.),Theoryinar haeology:aworldperspe tive,342-372.L ondon.
1997 Cave versus open-air settlement in European Upper Palaeolithi . In: C.
Bonsall, C. Tolan-Smith(eds), TheHuman Useof Caves, Britis h
Ar ha-eologi alReports,InternationalSeries 667:9-13.Oxford.
DolukhanovP.,FonyakovD.I.
1984 Modelirovaniyekulturno-istori heskikhpro essov.In:Kompleksnyemetody
izu heniyaistoriis drevneyshikh vremyondonashikh dney,33-35.Moskva.
DolukhanovP.,GeyN.A.,Miklyaev A.M.,Mazurkevi h A.N.
1989 Rudnya-Serteya,a strati ed sitein the UpperDuna basin.Fennos andia
ar haeologi a6:23-26
DolukhanovP.,KhotinskiyN.A.
1984 Human ulturesandnaturalenvironmentsintheUSSRduringthe
Meso-lithi andNeolithi .In:A.A.Veli hko(ed.),LateQuaternaryEnvironments
oftheSoviet Union,319-327.Minneapolis.
DolukhanovP.,L evkovskayaG.M.
1971 IstoriyarrazvitiyaprirodnoysredyipervobytnikhkulturnavostokeL atvii
vgolotsene.In:Palinologiyagolotsena,53-62.Moskva.
DolukhanovP.,MiklyaevA.M.
1986 Prehistori pile dwellingsin thenorth-westernpart oftheUSSR.
Fenno-s andiaar haeologi a3:81-9.
Doma«skaL.
1990a Kaukasko-nad zarnomorskiewzor ekulturowewrozwoju
pó¹nomezoli-ty zny hspoªe ze«stwNi»u strefypograni za EuropyWs hodnieji
rod-kowej.In:A.Cofta-Broniewska(ed.),StudiaimateriaªydodziejówKujaw,
vol.5:6-70.Inowro ªaw.
1990b TheroleoftheNearEastfa torinthedevelopmentofthelateMesolithi
ommunitiesof theCentraland Easternpart oftheEuropean Plain. In:
P.M. Vermeers h & P. Van Peer (eds), Contributions tothe Mesolithi in
Europe,323-333.
1991 Obozowiskokultury janisªawi kiej w Dba h, woj. wªo ªawskie, stanowisko
1998 Theinitialstageoffood-produ tioninthePolishL owlands-TheDby29
Site.In:M. Zvelebil, R.Dennell, L.Doma«ska(eds), HarvestingtheSea,
FarmingtheForest,129-133.SheÆeld.
Dragadze T.
1980 Thepla e of'ethnos' theoryinSovietanthropology.In:E.Gellner(ed.),
SovietandWesternAnthropology,161-170.NewYork.
DubovA.I.
1990 Finno-ugorskayaodontologi heskayaobshtshnost.In:CongressusSeptimus
Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum. Sessiones se tionum, dissertationes
histo-ri a,ar haeologi aetanthropologi a,221-225.Debre en.
DvoryaninovS.A.
1978 ODneprovskih mogilnikahkamennogoveka. In:Arkheologi heskiye
issle-dovaniyaSevero-ZapadnogoPri hernomorya.Kiev.
EberhardsG.Y.
1969 O nekotorykhosobennostyakh morfologiistroeniya i razvitiya relefa
Lu-banskoy ravniny v pozdnelednekovoe vremya. In: Voprosy hetverti hnoy
geologii,vol.4:59-63.Riga.
1981 KolebaniyaurovnyadrevnegoozeraLubanasizaseleniyeegoberegov
he-lovekom.In:Izotopnyeigeokhimi heskiyemetodyvbiologii,geologiii
arkhe-ologii.Tezesydokladovregionalnogosovesh haniya,182-186.Tartu.
1989 Novye dannye po geomorfologii poseleniy kamennogo veka Lubanskoy
niziny(mezolit,ranniyisredniyneolit).LatviyasZinatnuAkademijasVestis
2(499):74-85.
E menkoP.P.
1924 Melkiyekremneviyeorudiygeometri heskikhiini hsvoeobraznikh
o her-taniy w russkikhstoinka h ranneneoliti heskogo vosrasta. Russkiy
Antro-pologi heskiyZhurnal 3/4:211-228.
EriksonT.H.
1993 Ethni ityandnationalism:anthropologi alperspe tives.L ondon.
ErikssonA.V.,FrantsP.P.
1982 Issledovaniyagrupp kroviu komi-zyryanv SSSR.In:A.A. Zoubov,N.V.
Shlygina(eds),Finno-ugorskiysbornik(antropologiya,arkheologiya,
etnogra- ya),191-206.Moskva.
Eriksson A.V., Zolotareva I.M., Kozintsev A.G., Shev henko A.V., Eskola M.R.,
KirjarintaM., Partanen K.,FellmannJ.
1979 Geneti heskiye issledovaniya mariy ev ( heremisov). In: A.A. Zoubov
(ed.),Noviyeissledovaniyapoantropologiimariy ev,7-39.Moskva.
Europeus-
AyrapaaA.
1930 Die relative Chronologie der steinzeitli heKeramik in Finland.A ta
Ar- haeologi a1(2).
Feremba hD.
1973 L es Hommes du Bassin Mediterranean a l'epipaleolithique. In: Die
An-fangedesNeolithikums vomOrientbis Nordeuropa,t.VIIIa. Anthropologie,
t.1. K oln-Wien.
FlorinS.
1958 Vrakulturen. Stenalderboplatserna vid Mogetorp,
Ostra Vra o h Brokvarn.
Sto kholm.
FormozovA.A.
1954 Periodizatsiya mezoliti heskikh stoyanok Evropeyskoy hasti SSSR. SA
21:38-51.
1959 Etnokulturniye oblasti na territorii Evropeyskoy hasti S S SR v kamennom
veke.Moskva.
1962 NeolitKrymaiChernomorskogopoberezhyaKavkaza.MIA102.
1965 KamenniyvekieneolitPrikubanya.Moskva.
1969 Ofaunepaleoliti heskikhpamyatnikovEvropeyskoy hastiSSSR.In:
Pri-rodairazvitiepervobytnogo heloveka,70-73.Moskva.
GabuniaL.K.,NioradzeM.G.,VekuaA.K.
1978 O musterskom heloveke iz Sakazhia (Zapadnaya Gruziya). Voprosy
An-tropologii59:154-164.
GaerteW.
1929 Urges hi hteOstpreussens. K onigsberg.
GalibinV.A.,TimofeevV.I.
1993 Thenewapproa htothere ognitionof thesour esof intraw material
forthestoneage ulturesoftheEasternBalti region.Ar haeologi alNews
2:13-17.Sankt-Petersburg(inRussian).
Gamkrelidze T.,IvanovV.
1984 IndoeuropeiskyyazikiIndoeuropeytsy,vol.2.Tbilisi.
GammermanA.F.
1934 Rezultaty izu heniya hetverti hnoy ory po uglyam In: Trudy
mezhdu-narodnoy konferentsii po izu heniyu hetverti hnogo perioda Evropy, vol.5,
68-73.Moskva-L eningrad.
GarrodG.A.E.,BateD.M.A.
1937 TheStoneAgeofMountCarmel.Vol.I:Ex avationsattheWadyel-Mughara.
Oxford.
GellnerE.
1977 Ethni ityandanthropologyintheSovietUnion.Ar hives Europeennesde
So iologie18(2):201-220.
GeningV.F.
1977 MogilnikSintashtaiproblemarannikhindoiranskikhplemen.SA3:53-73.
Gerasimov M.M.,RudN.M., YablonskiyL.T.
1987 Antropologiya anti hnogo i srednevekovogo naseleniya vosto hnoy Evropy.
Moskva.
GerasimovaM.M.
1982 Paleoantropologi heskiyenakhodki.In:N.D.Praslov,A.N.Roga hev(eds),
PaleolitKostenkovsko-Borsh hevskogorayonana Donu1879-1979,245-256.
Sankt-Petersburg.
1984 Kratkoeopisaniye herepaSungir5.In:A.A.ZubovandV.M.Kharitonov
(eds),Sungir,antropologi heskiyeissledovaniye,140-144.Moskva.
1987 Metri heskiye dannye o postkranialnom skelete helevekom iz
pogrebe-niya no verkhnepaleoliti heskoy stoyankeMarkina Gora. Voprosy
Antro-pologii78:21-29.
GeyA.N.
1983 Samsonovskoeposeleniye.In:DrevnostiDona,7-34.Moskva.
GinsburgV.V.,Tro movaT.A.
1972 PaleoantropologiyaSredneyAzii.Moskva.
GinterB.
1973 Remarksontheoriginofsomemesolithi ulturesinPoland.In:Mesolithi
inEurope,177-186.Warsaw.
GokhmanI.I.
1966 NaseleniyeUkrainyvepokhu mezolitaineolita.Moskva.
1984 Novye paleoantropologi heskiye nakhodki mezolita v Kargopole. In: I.I.
Gokhman(ed.),Problemyantropologiidrevnegoisovremennogonaseleniya
severaEvrazii, 6-26.Sankt-Petersburg.
1986 Antropologi heskiyeosobennostidrevnegonaseleniyaseveraEvropeyskoy
hastiSSSRiputii hformirovaniya.In:Antropologiyadrevnegoi
sovremen-nogonaseleniyaEvropeyskoy hastiS S SR.L eningrad.
GokhmanI.I.,KozintsevA.G.
1980 Sistemi heskoeopisaniyekollektsiiotdelaantropologiiMAE.Sbornik
Mu-seyaAntropologiiiEtnogra i35:182-222.
GokhmanI.I.,Lukian henkoT.V.,Khartanovi hV.I.
1976 Opogrebalnomobryadei kranologiiloparey.In: PoleviyeissledovaniyaIE
ANS S SR.Moskva.
GorelikA.
1984 Issledovaniyemezoliti heski hkompleksovstoyankiZimovniki1v
Severo-Vosto hnomPriazovye. SA2:117-132.
1987 Novye mezoliti heskiye pamyatniki s yanislavitskimy vkladishevimy
ele-mentamynaSeverskom Dontse.SA3:146-160.
GoretskiyG.I.
1955 O vozmozhnosti primeneniya ar heologi heskogo metoda pri izu henii
molodykhantropogenovykh oisadkov(v usloviyakh Nizhnego Pridonya i
21:58-GouldS.J.
1981 Themismeasureof man.NewYork.
GraudonisJ.
1967 Latviyavepokhupozdneybronzy irannegozheleza.Riga.
1989 No ietinatasapmetnesDaugavas leyte e.Riga.
GravereR.U.
1987 Etni heskayaodontologiyaLatyshey.Riga.
GreenS.,PerlmanS.
1985 Thear haeologyof frontiersandboundaries. NewYork.
GrigorievG.V.
1983 Pozdnepaleolit heskiyepamyatnikisgeometri heskimimikrolitamina
Rus-skoyravnine.KSIA173:55-61.
Gumi«skiW., Fiedor zukJ.
1988 Badania wDud e,woj.suwalskie,a niektóreproblemyepokikamienia w
Pols ePóªno no-Ws hodniej.AP33(1):113-150.
1990 DudkaI.AStoneAgepeat-bogsiteinNorth-EasternPoland.A ta
Ar ha-eologi a60:51-70.
GurinaN.N.
1956 OleneostrovskiyMogilnik. MIA47.
1989 MezolitKarelii.In:L.V. Koltsov(ed.), MezolitS S SR,27-30.Moskva.
Haeussler A.M.
1992a Thepla eoftheskeletonsfromSouthOleniyOstrovintheMesolithi and
earlyNeolithi worldoftheUSSR.AJPASupplement14:86 (abstra t).
1992b UpperPaleolithi teethfromtheKostenkisitesontheDonRiver,Russia.
Abstra tsNinth International Symposium on Dental Morphology, Floren e,
Italy,September1992(abstra t).Floren e.
1992 Middle and L ower Paleolithi teeth from the Cau asus Mountains.
Pro-gramand Bookof Abstra ts.3rdInternationalCongressonHuman
Paleon-tology,Journal oftheIsraelPrehistori So ietySupplementI:51(abstra t).
1994 Morphometri analysis of MousterianEra teethfrom theCau asus
Mo-untains,AJPASupplement18:99(abstra t).
1995a Origins and relationships of people buried in large Ukrainian
Mesoli-thi emeteries.Theeviden efromdentalmorphology.AJPASupplement
20:103(abstra t).
1995b DentalanthropologyoftheRussian Mesolithi Era:Oleneostrovskiy
Mo-gilnik.In:R.J.Radlanski,H.Renz(eds),Pro edingsofthe10th
Internatio-nalSymposiumonDentalMorphology,314-319.Berlin.
1995 UpperPaleolithi teethfromtheKostenkisitesontheDonRiver,Russia.
In:J.Moggi-Ce hi(ed.), Aspe tsofDentalBiology:Paleontology,
Anthro-pologyandEvolution, 315-332.Washington.
1996 Dental Anthropologyof Russia, Ukraine,Georgia, CentralAsia: Evaluation
Mi ro-1998 Originsandrelationships ofpeople buried in large Ukrainian Mesolithi
emeteries, theeviden e from dental morphology.In: J.R. Luka s (ed.),
HumanDentalDevelopment,Morphology,andPathology,ATributetoAlbert
A.Dahlberg.UniversityofOregonAnthropologi alPapers,54:79-117.
n.d.a. Middle andL ower Paleolithi teeth from theCau asus Mountains.
Sub-mittedtoH.DeLumley(ed.),Pro eedingsofthe3rdInternationalCongress
onHumanPaleontology(inprint).
n.d.b. Mesolithi CemeteriesofEasternCentralEurope:DentalMorphometri
Ana-lysis.Manus riptin progress(inprint).
Hanihara K.
1976 Statisti alandComparativeStudiesoftheAustralianAboriginalDentition.
Universityof TokyoMuseum Bulletin11.
HansenP.V., MadsenB.
1983 Flintaxemanufa ture intheNeolithi (Anexperimental investigation of
the intaxemanufa turesiteatHastrupUoenget,EastZealand).Journal
ofDanishAr haeology2:43-59.
HardingR.,SokalR.R.
1988 Classi ationoftheEuropeanlanguagefamiliesbygeneti distan e.Pro .
Natl.A ad.S i. USA85:9370-9372.
HarrisD.
1972 Swiddensystemsandsettlement.In:P.J.U ko,R.Thringham,G.W.
Dim-bleby(eds)Man, settlementand urbanism, 245-262.L ondon.
HarveyR.G.,TillsD.,WarlowA.,Kope A.C.,Domaniewska-Sob zakK.,SuterD.,
L ordJ.M.
1983 Geneti aÆnitiesoftheBalts.Astudyofbloodgroups,serumproteinsand
enzymesofLithuaniansin theUnitedKingdom.Man (N.S.)18:535-552.
HeapostL.
1993a A population-geneti hara terization of the Estonians. In: E. Iregren,
R.Liljekvist (eds),Populationsof theNordi ountries. Humanpopulation
biologyfromthepresent to theMesolithi ,Universityof Lund,Institute of
Ar haeology,ReportSeries No.46:216-225.
1993b Makita kalmistu antropoloogiline aines.In: V. L ang(ed.), Muinasaya
te-adus2,VadjaparasedkalmedEestis9-16sayandil,EestiTAAyalooInstituut,
233-248.Tallinn.
1994 Populatsioonigeneetilisedtunnusedeestlastel.In:K.Mark,L.Heapost,G.
Sarap(eds),Eestlasteantropoloogiaseosesetnogeneesik usimustega,110-196.
Tallinn.
1995 On raniology of South-EastEstonian populationin XI-XVII . Papers
onAnthropology6:57-69.Tartu.
HeetH.L.,DolinovaN.A.
1997 Dermatoglyphi diversity of the Finno-Ugrians. Papers on Anthropology
7:119-129.Tartu.
HillsonS.
1986 Teeth.Cambridge.
HobsbawmE.J.
1992 Nationsandnationalismsin e1780:programme,myth,reality,(2ndedition).
Cambridge.
HodderI.
1978 Simple orrelationsbetween material ulture andso iety:a review.In:I.
Hodder(ed.), Thespatialorganisationof ulture,3-24.L ondon.
1982 SymbolsinA tion.Cambridge.
1990 Thedomesti ationofEurope.Cambridge.
HornA.
1974 S ~ormemustritep ~ohit u upideesinemissagedusesteestlastel.TR
UToimetised
330,67-90.Tartu.
HoweG.M.
1994 Thephysi alenvironment.Thenaturallands ape.In:A.Brown,M.Kaser,
G.S. Smith(eds), The CambridgeEn y lopedia of Russia and theFormer
SovietUnion,2-5.Cambridge.
HumphreyC.
1984 Somere entdevelopmentsinethnographyintheUSSR.Man19:310-320.
Hur ombeL.
1995 Ourownengenderedspe ies. Antiquity69(262):87-100.
Ilkiewi zI.
1989 From studies on ultures otthe 4thmillenium BC in the entral part of
thePolish oastalarea.Przegl¡dAr heologi zny36:17-55.
Illi h-Sviti hV.
1964 Drevneishiye indoeuropeisko-semitskiyeyazikovyekontakty.Problemy
in-doeuropeiskogoyazikoznania3:12.
IrishJ.D.
1993 Biologi alaÆnities of Late Pleisto ene through modernAfri an Aboriginal
populations. The dental eviden e. Ph.D. Dissertation. Arizona State
Uni-versity,Tempe,AZ.
Istoriko-etnogra heskiyatlas
1985 Istoriko-etnogra heskiyatlasPribaltiki:Zemledelie.Vilnius.
JaanitsL.
1985 Hat Estland im Neolithikum Verbindungen zu S hweden gehabt?. A ta
UniversitatisSto kholmiensis, StudiaBalti aSto kholmiensia1.
Ja obsK.
1993a Culturalandbiogeographi aspe tsofhuman post ranialvariationinthe
Mesolithi -Neolithi oftheUkraine. CA34:311-324.
1993b Human post ranial variation in the Ukrainian Mesolithi -Neolithi . CA
34:11-24.
1994a Human dento-gnathi metri variation in Mesolithi /Neolithi Ukraine:
Possible eviden e of demi infusionin theDnieper Rapids region. AJPA
95:1-26.
1994b Humanpopulationdi erentiationintheperi-Balti Mesolithi :the
odon-tometri sofOleneostrovskiyMogilnik.Human Evolution7(4):33-48.
1994 Reply.CA35:52-58.
Ja obsK., Pri e T.D.
1998 First radio arbon dates for two Ukrainian Mesolithi and Neolithi
e-meteries:Impli ation ofearlyHolo enehumanbiogeography.In:Eastern
Europe(inpress).
JanzonG.O.
1974 GotlandsMellanneolitiskagravar.Sto kholm.
JehlD.
1997 L ookwho'sstealingNabu hadnezar's thunder.NewYorkTimes2(June):
A4.
JonesS.
1997 TheAr haeologyofEthni ity:Constru tingIdentitiesinthePastandPresent.
L ondon:Routledge.
JonssonA.B.
1958 StenaldersboplatsenvidMartsbo.Tor4.
JorgensenS.
1985 TreefellingwithoriginalNeolithi intaxesinDravedWood(Reporton
theexperimentsin1952-54).In:G.L er he(ed.),IssueofNationalMuseum
ofDenmark,1-63.Copenhagen.
KariksJ.,BradleyM., WalshR.J.
1966 ThebloodgroupsofL atviansresidentinAustralia.VoxSanguinis
11:699--704.
KarklinsA.
1995 Starptautiskasaugsnuklasi ka ijas sistemas(FAOlegenda,Pasaulesaugsnu
klasi kators,SoilTaxonomy).Jelgava.
KaskA.
1956 Eesti murrete kujunemisest ja r uhmitumisest. In: H. Moora (ed.), Eesti
rahvaetnilisest ajaloost,24-40.Tallinn.
KempistyE.
Malinow-KharitonovV.M.
1990 Progress v issledovanii paleontropov otkrytykh na territorii Sovetskogo
Soyuza.In:Povedenniyeprimatovproblemyantropogeneza,88-100.Moskva.
Khartanovi hV.I.
1980 Noviyematerialy kkraniologiisaamovKolskogopolustrova.Sbornik
Mu-zeyaAntropologiiiEtnogra i36.
1986 Kraniologiya Karel. In:Antropologiya sovremennogoi drevnegonaseleniya
Evropeyskoy hastiS S SR.L eningrad.
1991 Ovzaimootnosheniiantropologi heskikhtipovsaamovikarel podannim
kraniologii. In:Proiskhozhdeniye saamov.Moskva.
1992 Kraniologiyakomi-ziryan.SbornikMuzeyaAntropologiiiEtnogra i44.
1993 Origin of the Balti -Finns on the bases of the raniologi al series. In:
Physi alanthropologyandpopulationgeneti sofVologdaRussians.Helsinki.
KhotinskyN.A., AlekshinskayaZ.V., KlimanovV.A.
1991 Novayaskhemaperyodizatsiilandshaftno-klimati heskikhizmeneniiv
go-lo ene.Izvestiya ANS S SR,Ser.Geograf.,3:30-42
KhrisanfovaE.N.
1984 Postkranialnyyskeletvzroslogomuzh hinySungir1.Bedrennayakost
Sun-gir4. In:A.A. Zubov,V.M.Kharitonov(eds), Sungir,antropologi heskiye
issledovaniye,140-144.Moskva.
KernerV.F.
1991 PoseleniyeIsetskoe pravoberezhnoe.In:Neoliti heskiyepamyatnikiUrala,
46-67.Sverdlovsk.
KiyashkoV.Y.
1987 MnogosloynoeposeleniyeRazdorskoe1naNizhnemDonu.KSIA
192:73--80.
KiyatkinaT.P.
1987 Paleoantropologiyazapadnykhrayonov TsentralnoyAzii epokhi bronzy.
Du-shanbe.
KlejnR.G.,Ivanova I.K.,Debets G.F.
1971 U.S.S.R.In:K.P. Oakley,B.G.Campbell, T.I.Molleson(eds), Catalogof
FossilHominidsPartII:Europe,313-335.L ondon.
KohlP.L.
1992 Ethni strife:Ane essaryamendmenttoa onsiderationof lassstruggles
inantiquity.In:C.W.Gailey(ed.),Civilizationin risis:Anthropologi al
per-spe tives(EssaysinhonorofStanleyDiamond),vol.1,167-179.Gainesville.
1996 L'Armenieavantle hristianisme:sonemergen eetsonevolutionjusqu'au
d ebut duIVe sie le apres J.-C. In: J. Santrot (ed), Armenie:Tresors de
l'ArmenieAn ienne,18-25.Paris.
KohlP.L.,TsetskhladzeG.R.
1995 Nationalism,politi s, andthepra ti e ofar haeologyin the au asus. In:
KolosovY.
1960 Raskopkypesh hery Kara-KobavKrymu.KSIA(Ukraine)10:17-22.
1971 NeolitKrymu.In:ArkheologiyaUkrainskoyS SR,vol.1:129-137.
KoltsovL.
1977 Finalny paleolitimezolityuzhnoyivosto hnoyPribaltiky.Moskva.
KonduktorovaT.S.
1957 Paleoantropologi heskiyematerialy iz mezoliti heskogomogilnika V
asily-evkaI.SA2:189-210.
1973 AntropologiyanaseleniyaUkrainymezolita,neolita,iepokhibronzy.Moskva.
1974 TheAn ientPopulationof theUkraine.Anthropologie12(1-2):5-204.
KorenevskiyS.N.
1992 Onthedis ussionoftheethni interpretationoftheMaikopCulture.SAA
30(3):39-47.
KorobkovaG.F.
1987 Khozyaystvennyekompleksyrannikhzemledel hesko-skotovod heskikh
obsh- hestvyugaS S SR.L eningrad.
KosarevM.F.
1965 OkulturakhandronovskogovremenivzapadnoySibiri.SA2:242-246.
KossinnaG.
1911 DieHerkunft derGermanen.W urzburg.
KotovaN.S.
1990 PokhovalniyobryadMaryupolskogomogilnika.Ar heologiya3:48-56.
1994 Mariupolskayakulturno-istori heskayaoblast(Dnepro-Donskoe
Mezhdu-re hiye). In: Arkheologi hni pamyatki ta istoriya starodavnogo naselennya
Ukrainy,Vip.1, 1-143.Lutsk.
KotovaN.S.,TuboltsevO.V.
1996 NewsettlementsoftheNeolithi -Eneolithi periodat Melitopol.Eurasia
Antiqua2:29-58.
KovalevaV.T.
1995 Problema etni heskoy identi katsii naseleniya tashkovakoy kultury. In:
G.B. Zdanovi h, N.O. Ivanova, A.D. Tairov (eds), Kultury drevnikh
na-rodovstepnoyEvraziiifenomen protogorodskoytsivilizatsiiyuzhnogoUrala,
69-72.Chelyabinsk.
1963 Orasprostranennostikremnyana territoriiEvropeyskoy hastiSSSR.In:
S.I. Rudenko (ed.), Novye Metody v Arkheologi heskikh Issledovaniyakh,
234-240.Moskva.
KozªowskiS.K.
1965 Zproblematykipolskiegomezolitu. AP10(1):151-177.
1988 ThePre-neolithi baseoftheEarlyNeolithi StoneinEurope.
Ar haeolo-giaInterregionalis9:9-18.
KraynovD.A.
1938 O het o raskopka h Zamil - Koba II. Arkhiv Leningradskogo Otdeleniya
InstitutaMateryalnoyKultury,5-24.L eningrad.
1960 Pe hernayastoyankaTash-AirIkakosnovaperiodisatsii
poslepaleoliti he-ski hkulturKrima.MIA91:1-187.
1972 DrevneyshayaistoriyaVolgo-OkskogoMezhdere hiya.Fatyanovskayakultura.
IItisya heletiyedon.e.Moskva.
KremenetskyK.
1991 Paleologiyadrevneishikhzemledelt eviskotovodovRusskoyravniny.Moskva.
KrizhevskayaL.Y.
1974 K voprosu o formakhkhozyaystvaneoliti heskogo naseleniya v
severno--vosto hnomPriazovye.In:Pervobytniy helovekiprirodnayasreda,263-68.
Moskva.
KroeberA.L.
1925 HandbookofIndiansofCalifornia.In: BureauofAmeri anEthnology78,
601.WashingtonD.C.
KrotovaA.A.
1985 PozdniypaleolitSeverskogoDontsaiPriasovya.Avtoreferatkand.diss.Kiev
KrutsS.I.
1972 Dopaleoantropologiikemi-obynskoykultury.MaterialysAntropologii
Ukra-iny6:28-36.
KukawkaS.
1987 Elementypóªno no-ws hodniewrozwojuspoªe ze«stw kulturypu harów
lejkowaty hnaziemi heªmi«skiej.In:T. Wi±la«ski(ed.),Neolitipo z¡tki
epokibr¡zuna ziemi heªmi«skiej,141-166.Toru«.
1991 Kulturapu harówlejkowaty hnaziemi heªmi«skiej.Toru«.
KuzminaE.E.
1981 Proiskhozhdeniye Indoirantsev v svete noveyshikh arkheologi heskikh
otkrytiy. In: M.S. Asomov, B.A. Litvinsky, L.I. Miroshnikov, D.S.
Ray-evsky(eds),Ethni problemsofthehistoryofCentralAsiaintheearlyperiod
(se ondmillenniumB.C.),101-125.Moskva.
1994 OtkudaprishliIndoarii?Moskva.
K uhnH.
1952 DieFelsbilderEuropa.Stuttgart.
L arssonM.
1985 TheEarlyNeolithi Funnel-BeakerCultureinsouth-westS ania,Sweden.
So- ialande onomi hange3000-2500B C,BritishAr haeologi alReports,
InternationalSeries264.Oxford.
L aulS.
Ema-L eakeyL.S.B.
1935 Thestoneagera esofKenya.L ondon.
L ebedinskayaG.B.,SurninaT.S.
1984 Portrety detey pogrebennykh na stoyanke Sungir (plasti heskaya
rekon-struktsiya).In:A.A. ZubovandV.M.Kharitonov(eds),Sungir,
antropolo-gi heskiyeissledovaniye,156-162.Moskva.
L evitskiyI.F.
1949 Roskopkipaleoliti hnoistoyankinaBaltsiOsokoroviyv1946r.
Arkheolo-gi hnyPamyatky2:289-291
LigersZ.
1952 Latviesuetnogra ya,vol.1.Bayrux.
LigiP.
1993 National romanti ism inar haeology: theparadigmof Siavoni
olonisa-tioninNorth-WestRussia.Fennos andiaar haeologi a10:31-39.
1994 A tiveSlavsandpassiveFinns:areply.Fennos andiaar haeologi a
11:104--112.
1995 So ialsystemsinEstoniaduringtheL ateBronzeandIronAges.Muinasaja
teadus3:262-270.
LiivaA.,L oze,I.
1988 Radiouglerodnoe datirovaniye rannego neolita v Vosto hnoy Pribaltike.
In:Izotopno-geokhimi heskiyeissledovaniyavPribaltikeiBelorussii,106-116.
Tallinn.
LinJaoChua,CheboksarovN.N.
1961 Khozyaistvenno-kulturnyetipyKitaya.TrudyInstitutaEtnogra i73:5-161.
LindstromR.W.
1994 Ar haeologyof theIndo-Iranianmigration hypothesis:Population
move-ment and ulture hange in the southern Zaural. Paper presented at the
93rdannualmeetingof theAmeri anAnthropologi alAsso iation.Atlanta.
1996 Linguisti expansion,ethnogeneti modelsand ulture hangeinthe
Bron-zeAgeoftheSouthernZaural.Paperpresentedatthe95thannualmeeting
oftheAmeri an Anthropologi alAsso iation.SanFran is o.
LitvinskiyB.A.
1981 Problemyetni heskoyistoriiSredneyAziivIItysia hiletiidon.e.In:M.S.
Asomov, B.A. Litvinskiy, L.I. Miroshnikov, D.S. Rayevsky (eds), Ethni
problemsofthehistoryofCentralAsiaintheearlyperiod(se ondmillennium
B.C.),154-166.Mos ow.
L ordkipanidzeO.D.
1989 NasledieDrevneyGruzii. Tbilisi.
L ozeI.
1974 1973.GadapetiyumiSmaudzuarkheologiskayakompleksa.In:Zinatniskas
