Indo-European Homelandand Migrations:

The Evidence of Craniologyand Genetics

Alexander Kozintsev

Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography,Russian Academy of Sciences

Saint-Petersburgagkozintsev@gmail.com

2

Linguistic tree based on global etymologies

(Starostin 2005)

Basque

Aleut

Burushaski

X-IX mill.BC

VI-V mill.BC

3

The phylogeny of Indo-European languages

(Starostin 2004)

Balto-Slavic

Indo-Iranian

Early V mill. BC

Early IV mill. BC

Early III mill. BC

Anatolian

4

The phylogeny of Indo-European languages(Ringe et al. 2002)

12

Indo-IranianBalto-

Slavic

Anatolian

5

The phylogeny of Indo-European languages

(Bouckaert et al. 2012, corrected version 2013)

IIIIIIIVVVI

mill. BC

6

The Anatolian hypothesis:

The spread of Indo-European languages

based on lexicostatistics (Bouckaert et al. 2012)

Impossibly

late!

7

The south Caucasian hypothesis and the spread

of Indo-European languages in the IV-II mill. BC

(Gamkrelidze, Ivanov 1984-1990)

In this part

similar to

Renfrew 1987,

Hypothesis A

8

12

3

4

The spread of Indo-European languages

paralleling the spread of farming, then of steppe pastoralism(Renfrew 1987, Hypothesis B)

“Old Steppe I.E.”= Indo-Iranian +

Tocharian

9

EARLY:Çatalhöyük

(VIII-VI mill. BC)

MIDDLE:Vinça

(VI-V mill.BC)

LATE:

Lengyel,

TRB (V-III

mill. BC)

Three Indo-European homelands (Safronov 1989)

10

The Danubian Hypothesis and Indo-European

migrations in the V-III millennia BC (Diakonov 1985)

11

Maternal affinities of Linear Pottery people (LBK, VI-V mill. BC):

mtDNA data (Haak et al. 2010).Pre-Indo-European (?) gene flow from the Mediterranean

related to spread of farming

12

Northern Europe

NearEast

Mediterranean

Genomes of Funnel

Beaker people (TRB)

of southern Sweden

(IV-III mill. BC) also

display a “southern” shift

(Skoglund et al. 2014):

Northwestern Indo-

Europeans, too, were

affected by gene flow

from the Mediterranean?

TRB

13

Kurgan Hypothesis of Gimbutas-Mallory, modern version,

showing better agreement with lexicostatistical data

(Anthony 2007, 2013)

14

Skelya/Suvorovo (proto-Anatolian?) migration from the steppe

to the Danube in late V mill. BC (Anthony 2013)

Anatolian speakers didn’t initially live in Anatolia?

15

Typology of stone ‘scepters’ (Skelya-Suvorovo,

Tripolye B1/B2, 5th-4th mill. BC) and presumed IE migrations

from the Volga

to the Danube

(Dergachev 2007)

From schematic to realistic

16

Typology of stone ‘scepters’ (Skelya-Suvorovo,

Tripolye B1/B2, 5th-4th mill. BC) and presumed IE migrations

from the Danubeto the Volga

(Rezepkin

1996;

Manzura,

2000; Klejn

2010)

From realistic to schematic

17

Ceramics with shell temper (“Cucuteni С”/

Tripolye В1/B2, Skelya ―

second half of 5th millennium BC (Manzura 2000)

18

Northern European hypothesis. Distribution area ofcultures with black-burnished ceramics

and presumed migration of Indo-Europeansin the 4th millennium BC (Rezepkin 2013)

Funnel Beaker Culture

Nizhne-

MikhailovskayaNovosvobod-

nenskaya

19

Tocharians = Afanasievo people:

descendants of Repin/Yamnaya people?

(Semenov 1993; Anthony 2013)

20

Early Indo-European migrations based on the SLRD

(Separation Level Recovery) calculation method (Holm, 2007):

Anatolian is not the earliest branch

21

Working hypothesis:

From at least the 4th millennium BC onward,

southern Russian and Ukrainian steppes were

inhabited mostly by Indo-Europeans.

General question:

Which of the hypotheses relating to

the Indo-European homeland shows

better agreement with skeletal data?

22

More specific questions:

• Affinities and origins of Chalcolithic populations

(Khvalynsk, Sredni Stog, Khlopkov Bugor)

• Affinities and origins of Bronze Age populations

23

Material:

>200 male cranial samples from W.Eurasia

(Chalcolithic and Bronze Age), including:

• >100 samples mostly from the CIS inclusive of unpublished

ones from Ukraine, measured by Svetlana Kruts--complete

trait battery (14 characters).

• 92 samples from Central and Western Europe and

the Near East, mostly after Schwidetzky & Rösing 1990--

reduced trait battery (9 characters).

24

Methods:

• No “races” or “types”, only averages

• Minimal number of observations = 4

• Canonical variate analysis with pooled

within-group correlation matrix

• Mahalanobis’ D2 corrected for sample size

25

RESULTS

26

Southern Russia

and Ukraine

27

The origin of V-IV mill. BC Chalcolithic groups (Khvalynsk,

Sredni Stog, Khlopkov Bugor) is vague. They show neither

ties with each other nor any western or southern links nor

affinities with the preceding Dnepr-Donets

Neolithic people.

Likely reasons:

- genetic drift caused by small group size

- paucity of skeletal data on the Chalcolithic

28

Pit-G

rave

Cata

co

mb

Coexisting in time and space, Pit-Grave and Catacomb groups are linked by a multitude of ties and most were evidently autochthonous.

Why they are associated withdifferent cultures and even

stages (Early vs. Middle Bronze

Age) is a mystery.

III IIIV mill. BCAfter Chernykh 2008

29

Comparison of IV-III mill. BC (Bronze Age) series from

S.Russia and Ukraine with separate series from:

(A) steppe Chalcolithic (3 series, 14 traits)

(B) Chalcolithic and Bronze Age of southern

Caucasus and Near East (7 series, 14 traits)

(С) Neolithic, Chalcolithic, & Early Bronze Age of Central

and Western Europe (54 series, 9 traits)

Results: indistinct and erratic

Comparison of separate Bronze Age steppe series with

three pooled groups (A, B, and C):

Results: much more meaningful.

30

Comparison with pooled steppe Chalcolithic group (A)

(3 series) and pooled “southern” Bronze Age group (B)

(7 series) disproves the Anatolian/S.Caucasianhomeland

Pit-Grave (21 groups)

21

0Местный

энеолит

Закавказье

и Ближний

Восток

Catacomb (22 groups)

20

2Местный

энеолит

Закавказье

и Ближний

Восток

Local

Chalcolithic

S.Caucasus

& Near East

Local

Chalcolithic

S.Caucasus

& Near East

31

Series that are closer to the pooled “southern”

group than to the pooled local Chalcolithic group

and can therefore be immigrant. Previously

such gracile people were called “Mediterraneans”:

• Maikop (archaeologically Near Eastern)

• Catacomb, Molochnaia River

• Early Catacomb, Ukraine, pooled

• Kemi-Oba, Crimea

• Babino

• Tamar-Utkul (archaeologically, possibly

Caucasian influence)

• Sintashta, SW Ural

32

Comparison with pooled steppe Chalcolithic groupand pooled V-III mill. BC group from Central and Western Europe (C), n=54 series, using reduced trait battery disproves both the Danubian and the Kurgan theory.

Most Pit-Grave and Cata-

comb people were auto-

chthonous and had migrated

neither from nor to the west.

Catacomb (22 groups)

19

3 Местный

энеолит

Зарубежн.

Европа

LocalChalcolithic

C.Europe

Pit-Grave (21 groups)

21

0Местный

энеолит

Зарубежн.

Европа

LocalChalcolithic

C.Europe

33

Series that are closer to the pooled group

from Central and Western Europe than to the

pooled steppe Chalcolithic group and can

therefore be immigrant:

• Early Catacomb, Kakhovka

• Early Catacomb, Molochnaia River

• Pooled Early Catacomb (Ukraine)

• Babino

The southern and western affinities of Early Catacomb

and Babino “Mediterraneans” coincide. Why?

34

Possible reason: gene flow from Anatolia up to Scandinavia in the Neolithic.

Depigmentation of early farmers + admixture with European

hunter-gatherers = northern branch of Caucasoids.

Source: Skoglund et al. 2012

Funnel Beaker

(likely IE)

PittedWare

(pre-IE)

35

Describing gracile Caucasoids as “Mediterraneans”

without knowing their pigmentation is misleading.

Pit-Grave groups show no southern affinities; the Pit-Grave

series from Ingulets River is especially similar to the

Funnel Beaker group from Ostorf, Germany, IV mill. BC.

Early Catacomb people from Molochnaya River are also

close to Ostorf—and to Kemi-Oba, Crimea, IV-III mill. BC.

The pooled Early Catacomb group of Ukraine is closest to

Kuro-Araxes people of Armenia, IV-III mill. BC.

36

Pit GraveIngulets

Funnel BeakerOstorf

CatacombMolochnaia

Kuro-AraxesArmenia

Kemi-Oba

Affinities of the Pit Grave series from Ingulets River

and of Catacomb series from Molochnaia River

37

SIBERIA

38

Afanasievo people, S.Siberia (IV-III mill. BC) –

only Eastern European (steppe) affinities, but:

Parallels with Catacomb people are even more evident

than with Pit-Grave people.

The pooled Afanasievo group of Altai is closest to

Catacomb people of the Don River; that from Minusinsk

Basin, to Catacomb people of Lower Dnepr.

39

Archaeological comments:

Calibrated 14C dates suggest that

Pit-Grave and Catacomb cultures

coexisted over most of III mill. BC

(Chernykh 2008)

Clay censers

Ties between Afanasievo

and Catacomb cultures

(Tsyb 1980, 1981)

Stone battle axes

40

Pre-Andronovo Bronze Age

Caucasoids of southern Siberia

(late III – early II mill. BC)

41

Sintashta, E.Ural (Sintashta of W.Ural isolated)

Catacomb Stavropol

Reduced trait battery:

Lozère, S.France, IV-III mill. BC

Denmark, IV-III mill. BC

42

?

Possible routes of Indo-Iranian migrations

from Europe to eastern Urals in the III millennium BC.

Western branch: direction uncertain, more likely eastward.

Eastern branch: direction definitely eastward

Catacomb

Stavropol

Sintashta

43

Okunevo (Chaa-Khol’), Aimyrlyg, Tuva

1. Pit Grave, Ingulets River

2. Early Catacomb, Molochnaia River

Reduced trait battery also:

Ostorf, Germany, Funnel Beaker Culture

(IV mill. BC)

Comparison with later (Early Iron Age) groups:

striking similarity with steppe Scythians,

also evidenced by other pre-Andronovo groups –

Yelunino and Samus (Upper and Middle Ob’ drainage)

44

Eurasian “Mediterraneans”and possible route of Indo-Iranian migrations

from Europe to eastern Central Asiain the III millennium BC

Funnel BeakerOstorf

?Pit GraveIngulets

CatacombMolochnaia

Okunevo(Chaa-Khol’)

Tuva

45

Incized image of a wagon on a pot from Bronocice,Poland (Funnel Beaker Culture, 3500 BC) and signs on oracle bones from Anyang,

China, XIII-XI cent. BC (Wan 2011)

46

In sum:

All known pre-Andronovo groups had migrated from Europe.

Some, in turn, might be ancestral to steppe Scythians,

who spoke an Iranian language.

Archaeologically, Okunev (Chaa-Khol’) people of Tuva

show affinities with Chemurchek people of

Dzungaria and Mongolian Altai, who

might be ancestors of steppe Scythians

(Kovalev 2007).

Two Aryan/Iranian migrations?• from Europe to E.Central Asia (Early Bronze Age)

• from E.Central Asia back to Europe (Early Iron Age)

47

Andronovo (Alakul & Fedorovka)

people

(Kazakhstan & S. Siberia,

early & mid-II mill. BC)

48

Alakul people of western Kazakhstanlook quite “European” (not just “Caucasoid”):

A separate Indo-Iranian migration?

1. Early Catacomb, Molochnaia River

2. Pit Grave, Ingulets River

3. Early Catacomb, Lower Dnepr

Reduced trait battery also:

1. Tiszapolgár, Hungary, V-IV mill. BC

2. Rössen, France, V mill. BC

3. Globular Amphorae, Germany, IV-III mill. BC

4. Lengyel, Hungary, V-IV mill. BC

5. Mecklenburg, Germany, IV-III mill. BC

All these groups precede Alakul and can

theoretically be ancestral in keeping with

the Danubian hypothesis.

49

IVтыс.IV mill.

III mill.III-II

mill.II mill.

Possible direction of gene flow

from Central Europe

to western Kazakhstan, with dates

50

Alakul, Omsk: Late Catacomb, Kalmykia

Fedorovka, NE Kazakhstan; Upper Ob’;

Minusinsk Basin:

robust Pit-Grave and Catacomb people

of northern Caucasus and Kalmykia

Fedorovka, Firsovo XIV (Upper Ob’)

and Rudny (SW) Altai:

gracile Afanasievo people of Altai

Therefore only two latter Andronovo groups

may be autochthonous in S. Siberia; others are

likely migrants from N. Caucasus and Kalmykia.

51

?

West. Alakul

Robust Pit-Grave& Catacomb

Fedorovka

Alakul

Gracile Pit-Grave& Catacomb

Possible Aryan/Iranian migration routes from Europe

to Kazakhstan and S.Siberia in the III-II millennia BC

52

Tarim Mummies

(early II mill. BC)

53

Who were the fair-haired early Caucasoids

of Tarim?

• Tokharians? (Mallory, Mair 2000; Kuzmina 2010)

• Iranians? (Mair 2005)

• Extinct branch of Indo-Europeans?

• Non-Indo-Europeans?

54

Xiaohe, early II mill. BC: mtDNA and Y chromosome

haplogroups (Li e.a., 2010) SiberianWestern Eurasian or Indian

55

Distribution of R1a1a haplogroup

in modern populations (Underhill e.a., 2010)

Originated in India(Pleistocene) andspread to Europe?Rare in the NearEast.

56

But migrating to Taklamakan from the Indus Valley acrossKarakorum was hardly possible at that time; migration from SW Central Asiа disagrees with the Siberian genetics of Xiaohe females. The only remaining route is from the north via Dzungaria.

Xiaohe,

Gumugou

T i b e t

57

Gumugou―the earliest cranial series

from Tarim Basin―and its parallels

NE Kazakhstan

RudnyAltai

Dashti-Kozy

XIII-XI cent. BC

Gumugou

XIX-XVIII cent. BC

58

Catac. S.BugIII mill.

Catac.L.DneprIII mill. Catac.

DonIII mill.

Pit-Gr. Stavr.III mill. Pit-Gr.

Kalm.III mill.

Pit-Gr.-Poltav.III mill.

Groups closest to Andronovo (Fedorovka)

of NE Kazakhstan & Rudny Altai and possible migrations

of ancestral and filial Indo-European groups

Petrovkaearly II m.

Pit-Gr.Orenb.III mill.

Dashti-Kozy

XIII-XI cent.

Fedor.NE Kaz.mid-II m.

Fedorov.Rudny Alt.mid-II mill.

Afanas. Altai

IV-III mill.

Tocharian?

Tocharian?Indo-Iranian?

Gumu-gou

early II mill.

Potapovkaearly II mill.

Indo-Iranian

59

Buddha, Hotan Oasis,

III-IV cent. AD,Saka (Iranian)

Andronovo male,

reconstruction

(language definitely

Indo-Iranian)

Resemblance between Gumugou and Andronovo

people suggests Indo-Iranian attribution?

60

Timber Grave

LuzanovkaTimber Grave

Saratov

Timber Grave

Krivaia Luka

Affinities of Timber Grave people with the pooled II mill. BCgroup from southwestern Central Asia

and possible routes of Iranian migrations from the Volga steppes to Iran

61

Indo-Aryan migrations (Klejn 2010)

Mitanni

62

Early Catacomb,

Kakhovka

Pre-Sumbar,

Parkhai II

D2с = –0,08

Early Catacomb – (pre)-Sumbar cranial parallel

63

Light pigmentation of ancient eastern

Central Asians

indicates European, not Near Eastern origin

In addition, 9 of 10 Andronovo males had

the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a1a (ibid.).

DNA from bones of Andronovo people:

some if not most of them were blond

and fair-haired (Keyser et al. 2009).

64

Light pigmentation of migrants from the west

to eastern Central Asia is supported by

• descriptions of Aryans in the Avesta

• descriptions of Di, Yuechi, and Wusun in Chinese

chronicles

• Pliny the Elder’s descriptions of “Seres” of NW China

65

Light pigmentation of migrants from the west

to eastern Central Asia is documented by portraits

Tocharian (?) monk

IX cent. AD

Bezeklik

Tarim Basin

66

Depigmentation in modern populations of eastern

Central Asia cannot be ascribed to recent Slavic

admixture

Mongols

67

MAIN CONCLUSIONS

68

European steppes: None of the theories relating to

Indo-European homeland is upheld by cranial data.

• No major migrations either from the south (Anatolian/

S.Caucasian theory) or from the west (Danubian theory)

or to the west (Kurgan theory).

• Either linguistic diffusion or migration of small elites.

• Source—Europe (not Near East, contra Anatolian/

S.Caucasian theory).

• The return of one of those groups from Central Asia

to Europe = historical Scythians.

• Who were the Tocharians (Afanasievo, Okunevo of Tuva,

or Tarim)—?

Asian steppes: Multiple eastward migrations, mostly

of Indo-Iranian descendants, along the steppes.

69

Thanks for the permission to use unpublished

data: Svetlana Kruts

Sculptural and graphic reconstructions:

Mikhail Gerasimov

Thanks for your attention!

My publications on Indo-Europeans including this

presentation can be found at Academia.edu(https://kunstkamera.academia.edu/AlexanderKozintsev)