Horse-mounted invaders from the Russo-Kazakh steppe or agricultural colonists from western Central Asia? A craniometric investigation of the Bronze Age settlement of Xinjiang

24 Pages·0.262 MB·English

by  Hemphill B.E., Mallory J.P.

AMERICANJOURNALOFPHYSICALANTHROPOLOGY124:199–222(2004)
Horse-Mounted Invaders From the Russo-Kazakh
Steppe or Agricultural Colonists From Western Central
Asia? A Craniometric Investigation of the Bronze Age
Settlement of Xinjiang
Brian E. Hemphill1* and J.P. Mallory2
1DepartmentofSociologyandAnthropology,CaliforniaStateUniversityatBakersfield,
Bakersfield,California93311-1099
2SchoolofArchaeologyandPalaeoecology,Queen’sUniversity,Belfast,NorthernIrelandBT71NN,UK
KEYWORDS craniometry;pheneticdistance;TarimBasin;Bactria;China
ABSTRACT Numerous Bronze Age cemeteries in the alized distance (d2), and patterns of phenetic affinity are
oases surrounding the Ta¨klamakan Desert of the Tarim assessedwithtwotypesofclusteranalysis(theweighted
Basin in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, west- pair average linkage method and the neighbor-joining
ern China, have yielded both mummified and skeletal method), multidimensional scaling, and principal coordi-
human remains. A dearth of local antecedents, coupled nates analysis. Results obtained by this analysis provide
with woolen textiles and the apparent Western physical littlesupportforeitherthesteppehypothesisortheBac-
appearanceofthepopulation,raisedquestionsastowhere trian oasis hypothesis. Rather, the pattern of phenetic
thesepeoplecamefrom.Twohypotheseshavebeenoffered affinities manifested by Bronze Age inhabitants of the
byarchaeologiststoaccountfortheoriginsofBronzeAge Tarim Basin suggests the presence of a population of
populations of the Tarim Basin. These are the “steppe unknownoriginwithintheTarimBasinduringtheearly
hypothesis” and the “Bactrian oasis hypothesis.” Eight BronzeAge.After1200B.C.,thispopulationexperienced
craniometric variables from 25 Aeneolithic and Bronze significant gene flow from highland populations of the
Age samples, comprising 1,353 adults from the Tarim PamirsandFerghanaValley.Thesehighlandpopulations
Basin,theRusso-Kazakhsteppe,southernChina,Central may include those who later became known as the Saka
Asia, Iran, and the Indus Valley, are compared to test and who may have served as “middlemen” facilitating
which,ifeither,ofthesehypothesesaresupportedbythe contacts between East (Tarim Basin, China) and West
pattern of phenetic affinities possessed by Bronze Age (Bactria, Uzbekistan) along what later became known as
inhabitants of the Tarim Basin. Craniometric differences the Great Silk Road. Am J Phys Anthropol 124:199–222,
between samples are compared with Mahalanobis gener- 2004. ©2004Wiley-Liss,Inc.
Schoolchildren in the United States are taught tacts between East and West along the Great Silk
that the peoples of western Asia and Europe re- Road (Barber, 1999, p. 19; Di Cosmo, 1996, p. 87;
mained ignorant of the populations of East Asia for Mair,1995,p.302;MalloryandMair,2000,p.56).It
many centuries, but that this changed with the in- was at this time that the Chinese explorer Zhang
crediblejourneyofMarcoPolo.Accordingtopopular Qianembarkedona13-yearmissionwestwardfrom
account, Marco Polo, a Venetian merchant, left Gansu, through Xinjiang, and across the Ferghana
VenicealongwithhisfatheranduncleinA.D.1269 Valley into Central Asia. Soon the Emperor Wudi
and traveled east across Central Asia along the gathered an army of some 60,000 soldiers to secure
route of what later came to be known as the “Great
the Great Silk Road, so that between 114 and 108
Silk Road,” arriving at the court of Kublai Khan at
B.C. no less than 10 caravans a year were making
Beijing in A.D. 1275. There they were received by
thegreatKhanandremainedforthenext16years,
onlytoreturntoVenicewithnewsofthewondersof
theEastinA.D.1295(Komroff,1930,p.vii–xx).Yet,
*Correspondence to: Brian E. Hemphill, Department of Sociology
despite popular perception, the numerous inaccura- andAnthropology,CaliforniaStateUniversityatBakersfield,Bakers-
cies, apparent plagiarisms, and profound gaps of field,CA93311-1099.E-mail:[email protected]
observation evident in The Travels of Marco Polo
raiseseriousdoubtsastowhetherPoloeverwentto Received25October2002;accepted2June2003.
China at all (Mallory and Mair, 2000, p. 71).
DOI10.1002/ajpa.10354
Those with more than a passing familiarity often
Publishedonline19September2003inWileyInterScience(www.
identify the date 132 B.C. as the beginning of con- interscience.wiley.com).
© 2004 WILEY-LISS, INC.
200 B.E. HEMPHILL AND J.P. MALLORY
the journey from China in the east to the Ferghana from the East. These lines of evidence include the
Valley in the west. textiles worn by these individuals, the evidence of
Other scholars maintain that the beginning of Indo-European languages in Xinjiang, and previous
contacts between East and West occurred even ear- biological analyses of the human remains them-
lier, for silk appears in Europe by the sixth century selves. The purpose of this paper is to compare
B.C.,throughoutthenorthernMediterraneanbasin craniometric variation among Bronze Age inhabit-
by the fifth century B.C, and perhaps as early as ants of Xinjiang, western China, with Aeneolithic
1000B.C.inNorthAfrica(Mair,1995,p.285).Inthe and Bronze Age samples from the Russo-Kazakh
fifth century B.C., Herodotus mentioned transit steppe, south Central Asia, southern China, Iran,
trade occurring across great distances in Central and the Indus Valley, in order to test which of the
AsiaalongaroutethatstretchedfromtheRiverDon hypotheses best explain the origins and subsequent
in the Urals in the west to the Altai and the Mi- interactions of the Bronze Age inhabitants of the
nusinsk Basin in the east (Chlenova, 1983). Tarim Basin.
Archaeological excavations at the site of Sapalli Mair (1995, p. 295) considered the textiles worn
tepe,locatedintheNorthBactrianoasisofsouthern and associated with the Xinjiang remains to be
Uzbekistan,duringthe1960sand1970syieldedthe “highly diagnostic, perhaps still more so than DNA
earliest evidence of silk outside of China and raised analysis, for identifying the origins and affiliations
thepossibilitythatcontactsbetweenEastandWest of the Tarim Basin Bronze Age people.” These tex-
along the Great Silk Road may be far older than tiles encompass an array of items including string
previously thought (Askarov, 1973, p. 133–134, skirts, fur-lined and fur-trimmed coats, long stock-
1974, 1977, 1981, 1988). No longer were contacts ings,andpantsthatMair(1995,1998),Malloryand
dated to 13th century A.D., nor to the second cen- Mair (2000), and Barber (1999) claim are indicative
turyB.C.,noreventothe10thcenturyB.C.Rather, ofacloserelationshipwithIndo-European-speaking
the presence of silk at Sapalli tepe raised the possi- pastoralist nomads from the Russian steppe. The
bility that contacts along the Great Silk Road may mostancientBronzeAgeremainsfoundinXinjiang
have occurred near the end of the third and the derive from the site of Qa¨wrighul (ca. 1800 B.C.),
beginning of the second millennia B.C. (Hiebert, located along the Ko¨nchi River at the southeastern
1994;Kohl,1984).Yet,asprovocativeasthisdiscov- edgeoftheTarimBasin(Fig.1).Theseremainswere
ery was, few scholars outside the former Soviet found clad in simple cloaks, mantles, and wraps in
Union knew of these discoveries (Kohl, 1981, 1992). shades of natural brown or beige that lack any evi-
Oneofthemajorarchaeologicaleventsofthepast dence of piping, sleeves, or trouser legs. Barber
decadehasbeentheproliferationofpopulararticles, (1999, p. 71) maintained that these individuals not
books, and television documentaries devoted to the only appear to have introduced weaving into the
discovery of prehistoric Bronze Age “Caucasoid” or Tarim Basin, but the mere presence of woolen tex-
“Europoid”populationsinthewesternChineseXin- tilesrevealsthatdomesticsheepfromtheWesthad
jiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (Mair, 1995, p. been introduced into the Tarim Basin by the begin-
281). Here along the oases of the Tarim Basin have ning of the second millennium B.C. (Mallory and
been recovered some 300 mummies, many of which Mair, 2000, p. 219).
have been found along with their clothes in an ex- Some500yearslater,duringtheclosingcenturies
traordinary state of preservation, dating from ca. of the second millennium B.C., mummies recovered
1800B.C.untiltheChineseconquestoftheregionin from Zaghunluq (near Cha¨rcha¨n), located along the
the first centuries B.C. A far greater assemblage of southern margin of the Ta¨klamakan Desert in the
skeletal remains has been recovered from Bronze southernTarimBasin,documenttheintroductionof
and Iron Age cemeteries of the region (an assem- an entire array of new techniques in clothing man-
blage that should be numbered in the many hun- ufacture (Barber, 1999). Textiles from the site of
dreds, if not thousands), though only a few more Qizilchoqa (near Qumul/Hami), in the easternmost
than 300 have been examined. Where it has been part of the region, are marked by weaving of im-
possibletoidentifyaphenotypicpattern,themajor- proved quality that includes twill as well as plain
ityoftheseindividualsareidentifiedaspossessinga weave.Adetailedexaminationofatextilefragment
stronger resemblance to a “Western” pattern (e.g., byGood(1995)yieldedevidenceofthesamedecora-
fair hair, high-bridged noses, heavy beard) rather tive technique as that found in Scottish tartans
than the phenotypic pattern common to the Han of which, in turn, exhibited similarities to tartans
China(Barber,1999,p.19;MalloryandMair,2000, found at Hallstatt in Austria dated to the late sec-
p. 16; Wang, 2001). Not surprisingly, such identifi- ond millennium B.C. (Mallory and Mair, 2000).
cations led many to ask (Mair, 1995, p. 289), “Who The second line of evidence is linguistic, and in-
were the[se] corpses from the Tarim Basin? Where volves the discovery of written documents in the
did they come from? And how did they get there?” TarimBasinthatattesttothepresenceofaseriesof
Three lines of evidence have been offered to dem- Indo-European languages collectively known as To-
onstratethattheBronzeAgeinhabitantsofXinjiang charian(Barber,1999,p.115;Jettmar,1998,p.216;
were neither long-term indigenous inhabitants of Mallory, 1998, p. 189; Renfrew, 1988, p. 63–66).
this region, nor ethnic Han Chinese immigrants These languages exhibit no close similarities to
INHABITANTS OF XINJIANG 201
Fig.1. Geographiclocationofcraniometricsamples.SampleabbreviationsfromTable1.Xinjiangsamples(QAW,ALW,andKRO)
and Chinese sample from Hainan (HAI) are represented by asterisks; North Bactrian samples, by stars; Iranian samples, by
pentagons;Turkmenian,Caucasus,andTajiksamples,bytriangles;IndusValleysamples,bycircles;andRusso-Kazakhsamples,by
squares.
Indo-Iranian (which is well-represented by a num- p. 380–381, 1998, p. 189; see also Parpola, 1998).
ber of languages in the Tarim Basin) or any other Wall paintings of Tocharian speakers depict these
“eastern” (satem) Indo-European languages (other individuals as possessing red or blonde hair, long
thanloanwords).WithinthephylogenyoftheIndo- noses,blueorgreeneyes,andwearingbroadswords
European languages, Tocharian languages are ei- inserted in scabbards hanging from their waists
ther placed with the “western” (centum) languages (Mair, 1995, p. 299).
of Europe (Adams, 1984; Hamp, 1998), or are re- The third line of evidence comes from analyses of
garded as languages that split from the rest of the the biological features of the human remains them-
Indo-Europeanlanguagesatsuchanearlydatethat selves. This evidence derives from the obviously
they lack many of the isoglosses found between “Western” appearance of many of the mummified
otherIndo-Europeanlanguages(Ringeetal.,1998). remains,analysesofancientDNA,andcraniometry.
MalloryandMair(2000,p.240–246)suggestedthat Francalacci (1995) obtained tissue samples from 11
the separation of Tocharian speakers from other mummies, but only two of these samples were per-
Indo-European-speakingcommunitiesmayhaveoc- mitted out of China, and the DNA from one was too
curred as early as the fourth millennium B.C., and damagedforanalysis.Hence,atpresent,thegenetic
they identified the Afanasievo culture (ca. 3500– evidence for the history of the Bronze Age inhabit-
2500 B.C.), a primarily pastoralist culture found in ants of Xinjiang rests on results obtained from a
the Altai and Minusinsk regions of the Eurasian single individual (Mallory and Mair, 2000, p. 246–
steppe,asapossiblesourceforaTocharianpresence 247). The mtDNA of this mummy was identified by
intheTarimBasin(Mallory,1989,p.62,263,1995, Francalacci (1995) as belonging to haplogroup H,
202 B.E. HEMPHILL AND J.P. MALLORY
one of nine subtypes of mitochondrial lineages liest Bronze Age sites in Xinjiang, such as Qa¨wri-
largely associated with Europeans. Yet, while hap- ghul (Kuzmina, 1994, p. 241, 1998, p. 69; Mallory,
logroup H is the most common marker of European 1995; Mallory and Mair, 2000).
populations(40%),itisalsofoundin15%ofindivid- TheAfanasievocultureitselfisbelievedintrusive
uals from the Near East. Hence, despite claims to totheeasternsteppeandisheldtosharetheclosest
the contrary (see Cavalli-Sforza, 2000), the ancient similarities to the Yamnaya culture (3500–3000
DNA evidence currently available offers little reso- B.C.; Mallory and Mair, 2000) found in the Pontic-
lution concerning the precise origins of the Bronze Caspian region of the Russian steppe (Alexeev,
Age inhabitants of Xinjiang. 1961; Anthony, 1998, p. 104; Chernykh, 1992;
Over the course of the last two decades, Han Gryaznov and Vadezkaya, 1968; Kuzmina, 1998;
(1994a,b;seealsoMair,1998)conductedcraniomet- Mallory,1989,p.62,1995,1998,p.189;Malloryand
ric analyses of some 302 adult Bronze Age inhabit- Mair, 2000; Parpola, 1998; Posrednikov, 1992; but
ants of Xinjiang. Han (1998, p. 568) concluded that see Shishlina and Hiebert, 1998, p. 222–223). As
metric variation among these individuals revealed noted by Mallory (1995) and Mallory and Mair
thatthemajority(89%)maybeattributedtoatleast (2000,p.381–382),aneastwardemigrationandsub-
three branches of the “Caucasoid type,” while a mi- sequent isolation of Yamnaya-derived Afanasievo
nority(11%)maybeascribedtotwobranchesofthe populationsintheeasternsteppeprovidesapossible
“Mongoloid type.” Han (1994a, 1998, p. 566–568) explanation for the appearance of Tocharian in the
contended that the temporal and geographic pat- Tarim Basin of Xinjiang. Hence, the apparent simi-
ternsobservedamongthesecranialtypesdocument larities between Tocharian and such western Indo-
a three-stage settlement of Xinjiang during the EuropeanlanguagesasCelticandItalianaredueto
BronzeAge.AccordingtoHan(1998),thefirstwave a common retention of proto-Indo-European archai-
of immigration involved colonization by a “proto- cisms (Mallory, 1989, p. 61), while the differences
Europoid type with Nordic characteristics” that he between Tocharian and neighboring Indo-Iranian
attributedtoAfanasievoandAndronovopopulations might be explained by the peripheral position of
whomigratedtoXinjiangandtheTarimBasinfrom proto-Tocharian populations with respect to the
thesteppelandslocatedtothenorthandnorthwest. emergence of Indo-Iranian languages. This asser-
Han(1998)maintainedthatasecondwaveofimmi- tion appeared to be supported by Han’s (1998) con-
gration, this time involving an “Eastern Mediterra- trast of cranial and facial indices which indicated
nean type” and possibly a “Pamir-Fergana type,” thattheearliestindividualsfromQa¨wrighul(typeI
enteredXinjiangandtheTarimBasinfromthewest tombs; see below) were most similar to individuals
around 500 B.C. The third wave of immigration in- from Afanasievo cultural contexts (see Mallory and
volved a westward migration of an “Eastern Mon- Mair, 2000, p. 240–243).
goloidtype”intotheeasternregionsofXinjiangand Many proponents of the steppe hypothesis con-
theTarimBasin,mostlikelyfromtheadjacentprov- tendthattheimmigrationofAfanasievopopulations
ince of Gansu and points further east (see also An, to the Tarim Basin was followed by a later influx of
1992b; Shui, 1993). populations derived from the Late Bronze Age An-
dronovo culture complex (ca. 2100–900 B.C.; Mal-
MODELS FOR XINJIANG POPULATION ORIGINS
lory and Mair, 2000) found to the west, northwest,
Contemporary researchers are divided over the and north in the Pamirs, the Ferghana Valley, Ka-
mostlikelyexplanationfortheoriginsoftheBronze zakhstan, and the Minusinsk/Altai region (Chen
Age inhabitants of Xinjiang, and this division is and Hiebert, 1995; Kuzmina, 1998; Mei and Shell,
reflected by the wide array of explicative accounts 1998; Parpola, 1998). As with earlier Afanasievo
advanced by archaeologists, biological anthropolo- populations, those accompanied by artifacts as-
gists, historical linguists, and others. Nevertheless, signedtotheAndronovoculturearebelievedtohave
these explanations can be grouped into two general originated in the western Russian steppe. In this
models.Thesemodelsmaybedesignatedthe“steppe latter case, ultimate stylistic origins of the artifacts
hypothesis” and the “Bactrian oasis hypothesis.” are traced to the Sintashta culture (ca. 2300–1900
Proponents of the steppe hypothesis maintain B.C.;MalloryandMair,2000)ofthesoutheastUrals
that the Tarim region experienced at least two pop- (Anthony, 1998; Anthony and Vinogradov, 1995, p.
ulation influxes from the Russo-Kazakh steppe re- 36; Kuzmina, 1994; Mallory, 1998). The eastward
gion (Anthony, 1998; Han, 1998; Kuzmina, 1994, expansionoftheselikelyIndo-Iranian-speakingpeo-
1998; Mallory, 1995; Mallory and Mair, 2000; Par- ples was facilitated by the development of the war
pola, 1998). They suggest that the initial wave of chariot (Anthony, 1998, p. 94; Di Cosmo, 1996, p.
immigration into Xinjiang may have originated 90–91; Mallory, 1989; Parpola, 1998) and is re-
among members of the Afanasievo culture found in flected by the rapid appearance of such regional
theAltaiandMinusinskregionsofthesteppenorth variants of the Andronovo culture designated as
of the Tarim Basin. This attribution is based on Alakul’, Federovo, Tazabag’yab, Beshkent, and Va-
numeroussimilaritiesinmaterialculture,including khsh (Gupta, 1979; Hiebert, 1994; Kohl, 1984, p.
bronze metallurgy, burial practices, and textiles, 183–184; Kuzmina, 1994; Masson, 1992b, p. 350–
foundbetweenAfanasievoculturesitesandtheear- 351;Sulimirski,1970,p.261,263;Zdanovich,1988).
INHABITANTS OF XINJIANG 203
The initial appearance of Andronovo-derived popu- idenceofthesetwoseparatewavesofimmigrationis
lations in the Tarim Basin is held to be signaled by provided not only by dramatic differences in textile
the introduction of new clothing styles, ceramic manufacture, but also by textual evidence from the
wares, and burial customs as well as objects of tin first centuries A.D. which documents that inhabit-
bronze, and objects associated with horses around antsofthesouthernTarimoasesspokeIranianlan-
1200B.C.(Barber,1999;Kuzmina,1998,p.73;Mei, guages (such as Saka and Sogdian), while those
2000, p. 72–75; Mei and Shell, 1998). inhabiting the northern oases spoke Tocharian.
ThesecondmodelfortheoriginoftheBronzeAge Measurements of the neurocranium and facial
inhabitantsofXinjiangistheBactrianoasishypoth- skeleton have been used for many years to provide
esis.Proponentsofthismodelassertthatsettlement anassessmentofthedegreeofbiologicalrelatedness
of this region of western China came not from no- among samples of past and living populations. Al-
madicpastoralistsofthesteppe,butfromsedentary, thoughitisclearthatthesemeasurementsactually
agriculturally based populations of the Oxus civili- provide assessment of an unknown combination of
zation (the Bactrian-Margiana archaeological com- environmental and hereditary factors (Cavalli-
plex (BMAC); Hiebert, 1994) found west of Xinjiang Sforza and Bodmer, 1971), and may be affected by
in Uzbekistan (north Bactria), Afghanistan (south masticatory mechanics (Carlson and Van Gerven,
Bactria), and Turkmenistan (Margiana) (Barber, 1977; Van Gerven, 1982) and environmental varia-
1999;ChenandHiebert,1995,p.287).Proponentsof tion(Beals,1972;Guglielmino-Matessietal.,1979),
this model emphasize the environmental similari- twinstudies(Clark,1956;Lundstrom,1954;Nakata
ties between the desert basins of eastern (Xinjiang) et al., 1974a; Orczykowska-Swiatkowska and Leb-
and western Central Asia (Bactria, Margiana) and ioda, 1975; Saunders et al., 1980), familial studies
maintain that the sophisticated irrigation tech- (Devor, 1987; Howells, 1966; Nakata et al., 1974b;
niquesdevelopedintheoasesofMargianaandBac- Susanne, 1975, 1977), and worldwide comparisons
tria permitted the colonization of the river deltas of craniometric variation revealed a moderate de-
andoasessurroundingthenorth,east,andsouthern gree of genetic control (Susanne, 1975, 1977), and
margins of the Ta¨klamakan Desert (Barber, 1999; demonstratedtheutilityofsuchvariablesforrecon-
Chen and Hiebert, 1995). structing patterns of biological interactions among
Barber (1999) suggested that the archaeological populations (Howells, 1973, 1989). Since all of the
record provides better evidence that the initial col- samples included in this study derive from either
onizers of the Tarim Basin were agriculturalists sedentary, agricultural communities or pastoralist
from Bactria than nomadic pastoralists from the populations who received regular supplies of agri-
Russian steppe. This evidence not only includes ir- cultural produce, and from sites that differ little in
rigationsystems,evidenceofwesterncultigenssuch latitude, a comparison of craniometric variation
as wheat, and bones of sheep and goats, but also shouldsuffernosystemicbiasesduetodifferencesin
evidenceofcarefullybundledbagscontainingEphe- masticatorystressesornaturalselectionfordramat-
dra sp. found accompanying many Bronze Age Xin- ically different environments (Hemphill, 1998,
jiangburials.Useofephedraiswell-knowninOxus 1999).
civilizationurbancenters,whereHiebert(1994)and
Sarianidi (1987, 1990, 1993a,b, 1994; see also MATERIALS AND METHODS
Kussov, 1993; Meyer-Melikyan, 1998; Meyer-Me-
Materials
likyan and Avetov, 1998) found evidence of special-
ized areas known as “white rooms” where it is be- Analyzed Bronze Age skeletal samples from Xin-
lieved a ritual drink, known as haoma in Iranian jiangarefewandareunderrepresentedintheliter-
and soma in Indic, was consumed (but see Nyberg, ature. Although many individuals included in the
1995, p. 400; Parpola, 1995, p. 371). Ephedra does current study were the subject of craniometric com-
not grow on the Russo-Kazakh steppe, nor is it as- parisonsbyHan(1990,1994b,1998,2001)andMal-
sociated with either Afanasievo or Andronovo cul- loryandMair(2000,p.236–244),thesecomparisons
tures(Barber,1999,p.165;butseeParpola,1998,p. are limited to contrasts of cranial and facial indices
126–127). that provide no assessment of covariation among
Barber (1999) suggested that the Bronze Age set- cranial indicators or of the significance of phenetic
tlement of the Tarim Basin was a two-step process separation between samples. Further, results ob-
inwhichinitialimmigrationcamefromtheoasesof tainedfromthesecontrastsareinterpretedwithina
Bactria and Margiana, and is represented by re- typologically grounded ethnogenetic paradigm that
mains found at such southeastern sites as Qa¨wri- identifies human variation, even in individual cem-
ghul. This was followed by a second wave of immi- eteries, as attributable to the presence of multiple
gration soon after 1200 B.C. This time, immigrants “physical types” and subsequent interbreeding
came from Andronovo populations located to the amongthem(Han,1994b,1998;Mair,1995,p.291–
northwest, and participants in this wave of immi- 292; Mallory and Mair, 2000, p. 235). Hence, reifi-
grationmaybeassociatedwiththeremainsfoundat cation of such fixed physical “types” encourages a
northernTarimBasinsitessuchasAlwighul,Hami, staticperspectiveofhumanpopulationsthatfailsto
Turfan, and Kucha. Barber (1999) claimed that ev- accommodate the known evolutionary forces of nat-
204 B.E. HEMPHILL AND J.P. MALLORY
uralselection,mutation,geneflow,andgeneticdrift. crania recovered from this site (11 male, 7 female)
It is these processes that result in the inherent dy- were identified by Han (1986a, 1994a, 1998) as
namisminthegeneticfoundationofallpopulations, “proto-European”andpossessingclosestaffinitiesto
as emphasized in modern population genetics (Fal- crania recovered from southern Siberia, Kazakh-
coner, 1981; Hartl and Clark, 1997; Hedrick, 2000). stan,andtheVolgaRiverregionofsouthernRussia
Through the efforts of Mallory (1995), measure- (Han,1998,p.559–560;Mair,1995,p.290;Mallory
ments made in accordance with standards estab- and Mair, 2000, p. 241). Han (2001, p. 234) sug-
lished by Martin (1928) by Han (1998) on crania gested that the earliest (type I) burials were most
recovered from three sites from the Tarim Basin of closely related to the Afanasievo type, while later
Xinjiang were made available to B.E.H. for further burials bore greater similarity to Andronovo popu-
statistical analyses and interpretation. These sites lations.
include Qa¨wrighul, Alwighul, and Krora¨n (Fig. 1). The cemetery of Alwighul is located near the Or-
Discoveredin1979andexcavatedbyWang(1987, dosgrasslandsalongthesouthernslopesoftheTian
1996), Qa¨wrighul represents the most ancient Shanmountains(Han,1998;MaandWang,1994,p.
Bronze Age cemetery in Xinjiang (Debaine- 213). Featuring a series of radiocarbon dates that
Francfort, 1988, p. 15–16; Han, 1994a; Jettmar, cluster between 800–200 B.C., the Alwighul ceme-
1992;Kuchera,1988;Wang,1987,1996).Aseriesof tery dates to the Late Bronze Age, a period that is
fiveradiocarbondatesplacesthiscemeterybetween marked by an increase in the frequency of bronze
2300–1430B.C.(An,1998;ChenandHiebert,1995). objects and, in some regions of Xinjiang, the initial
The cemetery is located on the bank of the Ko¨nchi appearance of large bronze objects (An, 1998, p. 58;
River,70kmwestofancientLakeLopnuralongthe Ma and Wang, 1994, p. 213).
eastern edge of the Ta¨klamakan Desert (Kuzmina, Three major inhumation types were observed at
1998;MalloryandMair,2000,p.137).Excavationof Alwighul. The first two feature distinctive burial
the cemetery resulted in the recovery of 42 burials, chambers in which the perimeter walls are lined
eachcontainingasingleindividual,fromtwodiffer- with pebbles. The early pebble graves (type I) fea-
ent types of tombs (Wang, 1982, 1983). ture multiple interments of at least 10–20 individ-
The first, designated as Qa¨wrighul type I tombs, uals piled atop one another in a supine position,
accountfor36oftheburials.Allareshaftpitgraves, with the head to the west and the feet to the east.
andaminorityofthesegravesfeaturewoodenpoles Late pebble graves (type II) are similar in construc-
placed at east and west ends. The actual burial tion to those of type I, but feature an additional
chamber was lined with small wooden boards, and woodenbenchsupportedbyfourpillarsandcontain
the top of the chamber was sealed with animal theremainsofonly1–2individuals.TypeIIIgraves
skins,carpets,orabasket-shapedcover.Thebodies appear as heaps of stones at ground level beneath
were placed in a supine, extended position, with which there is a large vertical pit that leads to a
their heads to the east and their feet to the west. wooden coffin-chamber.
Qa¨wrighultypeIItombsaccountforsixburials,and In total, 58 adult crania (33 males, 25 females)
they appear stratigraphically later than type I were recovered from Alwighul. All of these remains
tombs. Type II tombs are identical to type I tombs were recovered from a single type I mass interment
with respect to the use of small wooden boards to grave and were associated with a wide array of
line the burial pit and placement of the body, but burialgoods,includinghand-madegray-redceramic
differ by featuring an elaborate arrangement of vessels decorated with triangular, net, whorl and
wooden poles embedded in the ground surface. The pine-needle motifs painted in light black; a consid-
mostelaborateofthesetypeIItombsfeaturedseven erable number of bronze plates and knives; many
concentric rings of wooden stakes that radiate out- strings of beads made from bone, shell, agate, and
ward in what some (Wang, 1983, 1984) interpreted jade; and earrings of both bronze and gold (Ma and
as a solar pattern from the center of the burial Wang,1994,p.213–215).Thecraniometricanalysis
chamber, to encompass an area 50–60 m in diame- byHan(1994b,1998,p.560–561,2001,p.231–232)
ter. of these remains revealed the presence of at least
Individuals interred in the Qa¨wrighul cemetery threedifferent“racialtypes,”includingtwodifferent
worenoclothingapartfromleathershoesandcloaks forms of “Caucasoids” (“Pamir-Ferghana” type and
made of plain woven textiles fastened at the front “Eastern Mediterranean” type) and a single form of
with bone pins. Felt hats were placed on the head, “Mongoloid.” Han (1990, 1998) suggested that the
and in several instances, small bags containing apparent lack of conformity of some of the crania to
twigs of Ephedra sp. were found on their chests these “racial types” indicated some degree of mix-
(Barber, 1999; Chen and Hiebert, 1995, p. 253). No ture between the two Caucasoid types as well as
ceramicsaccompanyanyoftheburials,butonebone between “Caucasoids” and “Mongoloids.”
and five wooden anthropomorphic figurines, some The cemetery of Krora¨n is located in one of the
stillwearingfragmentsoftextiles,wererecovered.A southeasterngroupofoasesonthesouthernbankof
few jade beads and fragments of either copper or the Ko¨nchi River near the outskirts of Loulan, the
bronze represent the extent of additional burial ac- capital of the Shan-Shan state during the first cen-
coutrements (Wang, 1982, 1983, 1984). All 18 adult tury B.C. (Ma and Wang, 1994, p. 211). There is
INHABITANTS OF XINJIANG 205
TABLE1. Samplesconsideredinstudy
Maximumsample
size
Code Males Females Site/region Period Dates Reference
ADM 22 11 Andronovo/Minusinsk LateBronzeAge 2100–900B.C. Alexeev(1961)
AFA 17 7 Afanasievo/Altai EarlyBronzeAge 3500–2500B.C. Alexeev(1961)
AFM 18 11 Afanasievo/Minusinsk EarlyBronzeAge 3500–2500B.C. Alexeev(1961)
AND 25 31 Andronovo/Kazakhstan LateBronzeAge 2100–900B.C. Alekseev(1967)
ALT 40 42 Altyndepe/Turkmenistan NamazgaV 2500–2200B.C. Kiiatkina(1967);
Hemphill(1999)
ALW 33 25 Alwighul/Xinjiang,China LateBronzeAge 650–200B.C. Han(1998)
CEMH 10 18 Harappa/IndusValley LateHarappan 1900–1600B.C. Guptaetal.(1962)
DJR 17 33 Djarkutan/NorthBactria Djarkutanphase 2000–1800B.C. Hemphill(1998)
GKS 38 32 Geoksyur/Turkmenistan NamazgaIII 3500–3000B.C. Kiiatkina(1987);
Hemphill(1999)
HAI 45 38 Hainan/SouthChina Living Living Howells(1989)
HAR 23 41 Harappa/IndusValley MatureHarappan 2500–2000B.C. Guptaetal.(1962);
Hemphilletal.(1991)
KAM 133 118 Karasuk/Minusinsk LateBronzeAge Rykusina(1976)
KAR 14 13 Karadepe/Turkmenistan NamazgaIII 3500–3000B.C. GinzbergandTrofimova
(1972)
KOK 14 10 KokchaIII/Turkmenistan LateBronzeAge 1800–1500B.C. Trofimova(1961)
KRO 4 2 Kroran/Xinjiang,China Bronze/IronAge 202B.C.–A.D.150 Han(1998)
KUZ 13 14 Djarkutan/NorthBactria KuzaliPhase 1800–1650B.C. Hemphill(1998)
KUZ 13 14 Djarkutan/NorthBactria Kuzaliphase 1800–1650B.C. Hemphill(1998)
MOL 18 28 Djarkutan/NorthBactria Molaliphase 1650–1500B.C. Hemphill(1998)
QAW 11 7 Qawrighul/Xinjiang,China EarlyBronzeAge 1800B.C. Han(1998)
SAMB 14 13 Samtavro/Caucasus LateBronzeAge 1400–800B.C. Abdusˇelisˇvili(1954)
SAP 13 28 Sapallitepe/NorthBactria Sapalliphase 2200–2000B.C. Hemphill(1998)
SHS 45 43 Shahr-iSokhta/EasternIran SHSI,II,III 3000–2200B.C. PardiniandSarvari-
Negahban(1976)
Pardini(1977,1979–
1980)
TH2 9 7 TepeHissar/NorthernIran TepeHissarII 3300–2500B.C. Krogman(1940)
TH3 102 36 TepeHissar/NorthernIran TepeHissarIII 2500–1700B.C. Krogman(1940)
TMG 9 11 Timargarha/IndusValley LateBronze/Early 1400–800B.C. Bernhard(1967)
IronAge
TMM 26 21 Tigrovaja-MakoniMor/ Molaliphase 1650–1500B.C. Kiiatkina(1976)
Tajikistan
considerable controversy over the correct dates for cludebeadsmadeofbone,amber,agate,orjade,and
thehumanremainsfromthiscemetery.Accordingto were usually found encircling the neck or ankles.
some researchers, the six adult crania recovered Groups of bone tubes about 10 cm long were some-
from this cemetery derive from the Western Han timeslinkedtogetherandwornaroundthewaist.In
period (202 B.C.–A.D. 220; Han, 1998; Mair, 1995), addition to these locally produced items, many arti-
but recent Chinese excavations suggest that these facts such as brocades, rough silk, silk floss, bronze
remains are associated with artifacts that span the mirrors,lacquerware,andwuzhucoinstypicalofthe
period between the seventh to first centuries B.C.
HanDynastyofthemiddle-lowerYellowRiverwere
(MaandWang,1994,p.211).Nevertheless,apairof
also recovered.
radiocarbon dates obtained from the cemetery sug-
Of the six adult crania recovered, only one, a fe-
gest that the Western Han period is most likely
male,wasidentifiedbyHan(1986b,1994a,1998,p.
correct (Mallory and Mair, 2000, p. 335).
562–563) as “Mongoloid.” The remaining five indi-
Individuals recovered from the cemetery at Kro-
viduals were identified by Han as possessing “East-
ra¨n were interred in graves featuring a chamber of
ern Mediterranean” characteristics most similar to
wooden planks within a shallow pit. The body was
those found among sixth century B.C. Saka of the
placed in an extended position, and wrapped in a
southernPamirs(MaandWang,1994,p.212;Mair,
woolencloth.Oneextremelywell-preservedindivid-
1995, p. 292).
ual was buried wearing hide boots and a peaked
Cranialseriesusedtoprovideacomparativefoun-
brown felt hat with bird feathers. In this case, the
dation for the Xinjiang remains encompass 22 sam-
woolenclothwasgatheredintoapouchontheupper
chest and filled with fragments of Ephedra sp. (Ma ples, numbering 1271 individuals (665 males, 606
and Wang, 1994, p. 211–212). The graves also con- females) from the Russo-Kazakh steppe, southern
tained wooden and stone figurines with long, round China, Central Asia, Iran, and Indus Valley. To-
faces,butmostfuneraryobjectsrepresentarticlesof gether, all 25 skeletal samples span a timeframe
everyday use and decorative ornaments. In earlier from 3500 B.C. to the present. Abbreviations, sam-
tombs, there is no pottery, and utensils are made of ple sizes, sources, and sample locations for all cra-
woven grass, wood, bone, or horn. Ornaments in- nial samples are provided in Table 1 and Figure 1.
206 B.E. HEMPHILL AND J.P. MALLORY
TABLE2. Craniometricvariablesusedtogeneratemahalanobis not be assessed for published measurements for in-
generalizeddistancesbetweensamples dividuals recovered from Shahr-i Sokhta, Timar-
Variable1 garha, or Hainan (southern China).
Neurocranium Methods
Maximumcraniallength(GOL) 1
Maximumcranialbreadth(BEB) 8 Thecovariancematrixforeachsamplewasobtained
Facialskeleton for males and females pooled together with listwise
Upperfacialheight(NPH) 48
deletion. Although pairwise deletion permits greater
Nasalheight(NH) 55
Nasalbreadth(NB) 54 effectivesamplesizeswithineachsample,listwisede-
Orbitalheight(OH) 52 letion was used to avoid systematic biases caused by
Orbitalbreadth(OB) 51
overrepresentation and underrepresentation of indi-
Bizygomatricbreadth(BZB) 45
vidual variables (Wilkinson, 1990). A pooled covari-
1NumbersofvariablesasdefinedbyMartin(1928) ance matrix was obtained for all samples for which
individual data were available and bias-adjusted to
accommodatedifferencesinsamplesize.Hence,those
Eightcranialvariables(twofortheneurocranium, samples represented by group-level data only (An-
and six for the facial skeleton) of those defined by dronovo-Minusinsk (ADM), Afanasievo-Altai (AFA),
Martin (1928) provide the metrical basis for the Afanasievo-Minusinsk (AFM), Andonovo-Kazakhstan
current study (Table 2). While this small battery of (AND),Karasuk-Minusinsk(KAM),Karadepe(KAR),
measurements is far from representing the ideal Kokcha III (KOK), Samtavro (SAMB), and Tigrovaja
array of variables for capturing the morphological Balka-MakoniMor(TMM))werenotusedtoconstruct
complexity of the human cranium, increases in the thepooledcovariancematrix.Variableaverageswere
number of variables do not automatically result in calculated for both males and females. Sex-standard-
greater insight into the patterning of phenetic dis- ized group values for each variable were obtained by
tances(Kowalski,1972,p.121;Oxnard,1973,p.39). takingtheaverageofmaleandfemalemeanvaluesfor
In addition, when employing remains recovered each sample (Table 3). The bias-adjusted pooled co-
from archaeological contexts, the often fragmentary variance matrix and sex-standardized group values
nature of these remains leads to a concomitant de- were used to obtain Mahalanobis generalized dis-
creaseinsamplesizeforeveryincreaseinvariables tances(d2)betweeneachpairofsamples.Thediagonal
considered. Quite simply, these eight variables rep- matrix of Mahalanobis d2 values is provided in Table
resent the best combination of those measurements 4.Thesignificanceofpairwised2distancecontrastsfor
for which data were available for all of the samples thosesamplesinwhichindividualdatawereavailable
compared and those adequately represented, due to were assessed by means of F-tests, conducted accord-
differential preservation relative to other measure- ingtothemethodofKonigsbergetal.(1993).
ments, within each of these samples. ThediagonalmatrixofMahalanobisd2valueswas
When utilizing data collected by other workers, used as input for cluster analyses. Different associ-
the degree of interobserver differences in assess- ating algorithms were used to provide two perspec-
ment of these variables represents an important tives on the patterning of intersample phenetic af-
sourceofpotentialerrorthatcancompromisemean- finities. These associating algorithms include the
ingful results. In this study, the degree of interob- weighted pair average linkage method (WPGMA)
server error between the authors and describers of (Sneath and Sokol, 1973) and the neighbor-joining
comparative cranial series could be assessed for method (Felsenstein, 1989; Saitou and Nei, 1987).
Tepe Hissar (Krogman, 1940), Harappa (Cemetery The cophenetic correlation coefficient, r (Sneath
cs
R37), Cemetery H at Harappa (Gupta et al., 1962), andSokol,1973),wascomputedwiththeNTSYS-pc
Altyndepe,andGeoksyur(GinzbergandTrofimova, statistical package to measure the degree of corre-
1972;Trofimova,1961;Kiiatkina,1976,1977,1987). spondence between the obtained phenogram from
Repeated-measures analysis of variance (Hemphill, WPGMA cluster analysis and the original resem-
1998, 1999; Hemphill et al., 1991) indicated no sig- blance matrix.
nificant measurement differences between different ThediagonalmatrixofMahalanobisd2valueswas
observers. Although the degree of interobserver er- used as input for nonmetric multidimensional scal-
ror could not be directly assessed between the au- ing,toprovideathirdperspectiveonthepatterning
thors and samples obtained from Alekseev and ofintersampleaffinities.Thecoefficientofalienation
Gochman (1983), these researchers incorporated of Guttman (1968) was used to calculate distances
measurementstakenbyTrofimova(1961)andKiiat- between individual points. The goodness of fit ob-
kina (1976, 1977, 1987) with those of Alexseev tained by multidimensional scaling was assessed
(1961, 1967) and Abdusˇelisˇvili (1954, 1960, 1966) through calculation of the degree of stress through
andfoundnosignificantdifferences.Logically,then, 100iterations.Multidimensionalscalingwasaccom-
there should be no significant differences between plished with the SYSTAT statistical package
measurements taken by the author and those ob- (Wilkinson, 1990). Results obtained were ordinated
tained by Alexseev (1961, 1967) and Abdusˇelisˇvili in three-dimensional space, and a minimum span-
(1954,1960,1966)aswell.Interobservererrorcould ningtree(Hartigan,1975)wasimposedonthearray
TABLE3. Meanvaluesofcraniometricvariables1
GOL BEB NPH NH NB OH OB BZB
Malesample
ADM 186.0 145.0 67.8 50.2 25.8 31.7 44.4 140.7
AFA 191.7 142.4 71.7 53.1 27.1 32.3 43.7 141.6
AFM 192.1 144.1 71.8 52.1 26.1 32.9 44.9 138.4
ALT 189.5 135.9 70.7 51.6 25.2 32.4 40.7 129.1
ALW 184.2 141.9 68.7 52.2 25.0 33.1 39.0 130.8
AND 186.4 140.4 69.2 51.5 25.4 32.9 42.1 131.8
CEMH 188.2 141.3 67.9 50.8 26.3 32.9 41.3 134.8
DJR 186.9 134.7 69.9 50.7 24.8 30.9 37.5 131.3
GKS 190.1 134.5 71.1 52.0 25.5 33.0 40.1 127.6
HAI 176.4 138.4 69.7 52.4 27.3 33.6 38.7 134.0
HAR 187.3 134.5 69.2 51.4 26.5 33.2 41.4 131.5
KAM 183.0 147.4 73.4 51.6 25.8 33.7 44.1 139.7
KAR 194.8 134.9 72.6 51.2 26.6 31.8 42.5 129.9
KOK 186.1 138.1 68.4 51.5 23.5 30.9 43.2 133.4
KRO 187.9 139.1 74.4 53.6 24.6 34.1 38.6 131.0
KUZ 190.9 138.9 68.7 49.6 26.4 30.9 39.9 134.0
MOL 185.6 138.1 69.4 51.5 25.1 31.8 38.3 126.6
QAW 183.0 137.9 66.5 50.9 26.2 31.6 40.5 136.2
SAMB 189.3 137.1 76.7 53.8 23.8 35.0 42.0 128.3
SAP 183.5 134.9 70.2 51.3 24.2 32.7 37.7 129.1
SHS 185.8 136.4 70.2 50.6 25.7 31.8 42.1 129.4
TH2 188.8 132.0 70.3 50.4 25.1 31.6 41.0 125.3
TH3 188.4 134.1 69.8 50.6 25.4 32.1 41.2 127.3
TMG 190.2 132.0 70.3 50.0 22.9 33.3 41.5 133.0
TMM 188.4 136.9 71.8 51.6 24.7 31.2 42.4 131.8
Femalesample
ADM 175.9 140.6 67.5 48.9 23.9 33.0 42.5 127.4
AFA 182.6 138.2 64.8 47.8 25.4 31.1 46.5 129.8
AFM 180.4 135.8 67.4 49.5 25.6 33.1 44.3 131.8
ALT 181.4 135.1 67.3 49.6 24.2 32.7 38.9 121.4
ALW 173.9 135.3 64.9 49.4 24.2 32.0 37.5 124.4
AND 177.6 136.0 67.3 48.4 24.6 32.2 41.8 128.2
CEMH 179.2 132.4 62.7 46.0 24.4 33.3 39.9 119.5
DJR 184.7 134.0 69.5 50.2 25.6 33.0 38.5 123.9
GKS 185.8 132.9 69.8 50.9 25.2 32.9 39.0 123.4
HAI 170.6 135.0 65.4 49.3 26.0 32.8 37.6 125.6
HAR 180.9 132.1 66.2 48.3 24.2 34.1 40.6 123.9
KAM 173.2 143.4 68.0 48.4 24.6 32.9 42.1 131.8
KAR 183.0 132.1 67.5 47.9 24.7 32.0 41.6 123.8
KOK 177.6 136.4 66.2 49.4 23.8 31.8 41.2 128.5
KRO 181.0 133.5 69.0 50.6 24.1 33.2 36.8 129.5
KUZ 179.3 132.6 65.1 46.8 23.6 30.7 36.3 122.4
MOL 183.5 134.2 70.6 49.7 25.0 32.6 38.8 126.5
QAW 178.1 128.8 62.6 47.4 24.5 32.3 38.9 125.0
SAMB 180.1 136.5 69.5 48.4 23.4 32.1 39.3 122.5
SAP 181.5 134.1 67.5 49.2 24.8 33.0 37.2 124.4
SHS 179.1 133.3 67.6 50.0 24.5 31.9 40.7 122.7
TH2 178.3 132.1 67.6 48.3 23.7 33.6 38.7 118.7
TH3 179.4 131.8 66.1 48.3 23.9 31.7 39.6 120.2
TMG 180.2 130.9 66.6 48.1 22.9 33.1 40.0 122.3
TMM 179.8 133.2 69.2 49.2 23.7 31.9 40.9 124.5
Sex-standardizedsample
ADM 181.0 142.8 67.7 49.6 24.9 32.4 43.5 134.1
AFA 187.3 140.3 68.3 50.5 26.3 31.7 45.1 135.7
AFM 186.3 140.0 69.6 50.8 25.9 33.0 44.6 135.1
ALT 185.5 135.5 69.0 50.6 24.7 32.6 39.8 125.3
AND 182.0 138.2 68.3 50.0 25.0 32.2 42.6 132.4
ALW 179.0 138.6 66.8 50.8 24.6 32.6 38.3 127.6
CEMH 183.7 136.8 65.3 48.4 25.3 33.1 40.6 127.1
DJR 185.8 134.3 69.7 50.5 25.2 32.0 38.0 127.6
GKS 190.1 134.5 71.1 52.0 25.5 33.0 40.1 127.6
HAI 173.5 136.7 67.5 50.8 26.7 33.2 38.1 129.8
HAR 184.1 133.3 67.7 49.9 25.4 33.6 41.0 127.7
KAM 178.1 145.4 70.7 50.0 25.2 33.3 43.1 135.8
KAR 188.9 133.5 70.1 49.6 25.7 31.9 42.1 126.9
KOK 181.9 137.3 67.3 50.5 23.7 31.4 42.2 131.0
KRO 184.4 136.3 71.7 52.1 24.4 33.7 37.7 130.2
KUZ 185.1 135.7 66.9 48.2 25.0 30.8 38.1 128.2
MOL 184.5 136.1 70.0 50.6 25.1 32.2 38.6 126.5
QAW 180.5 133.3 64.5 49.1 25.3 32.0 39.7 130.6
SAMB 184.7 136.8 73.1 51.1 23.6 33.6 40.7 125.4
SAP 182.5 134.5 68.8 50.2 24.5 32.9 37.5 126.7
SHS 182.5 134.8 68.9 50.3 25.1 31.8 41.4 126.0
TH2 183.5 132.1 69.0 49.4 24.4 32.6 39.9 122.0
TH3 183.9 133.0 69.9 49.4 24.7 31.9 40.4 123.8
TMG 185.2 131.5 68.4 49.1 22.9 33.2 40.8 127.7
TMM 184.1 135.1 70.5 50.4 24.2 31.6 41.7 128.2
1AbbreviationsforcraniometricvariablesarefromTable2.AbbreviationsforsamplesarefromTable1.
208 B.E. HEMPHILL AND J.P. MALLORY
M 0 of data points to ease interpretation of the pattern-
M 0.
T ing of intersample associations.
G 3
M 086 Principalcoordinatesanalysiswasusedtoprovide
T 0.2. a fourth perspective on intersample craniometric
TH3 0.05.2760.689 vofarMiaathioanla(nHoabiirsedt2avla.,lu1e9s7w1)a.sTdhoeusbylem-cmenettreircedmpartrioixr
TH2 0.00.3842.8282.121 t2o00e0n)t.rTyhientfiorsNtTthSrYeSe-pprcinsctiaptaisltciocaorldsionfatwteaarexe(sRwoherlfe,
retained, group scores were calculated along these
HS 0427586940754 axes, and ordinated into three-dimensional space.
S 0.1.0.3.0.
As with results from multidimensional scaling, a
AP 0733016387593126 minimumspanningtreewasimposedonthearrayof
S 0.5.4.4.4.6. principal coordinate scores to ease interpretation of
B 543503 intersampleassociations.Thecopheneticcorrelation
M 957990
SA 0.04.82.81.85.93.72.4 coefficientwascomputedtoassessthegoodnessoffit
W 0499982 of the obtained eigenvectors with the matrix of Ma-
QA 0.09.443.814.576.044.664.685.78 halanobis d2 values. This latter step is especially
important, because the cophenetic correlation coef-
L 46229297
MO 0.04.542.670.962.952.012.124.453.36 ficient provides more information on the patterning
of relative phenetic distances among samples than
1ces KUZ 0.01.3423.5585.8381.8124.7004.0353.4264.6664.565 tohfetoatbaslovluarteiadtiisotnanexcepl(aaisnienddibcyattehdebfiyrtshtethpreereceenitgaegne-
n
dista KRO 0.03.4451.9545.7839.4400.5977.8516.16210.3825.7867.567 vofectthoersse)(Rreolhatlfi,v1e9d7i2s,ta2n0c0e0s),tahnadtiitsismtohsetpuastetefurnlifnogr
alized KOK 0.09.7006.4726.2804.2692.1588.1942.4395.8862.8114.3186.790 utinondes.rstanding processes of past population interac-
r As a final step in assessment of the nature of
gene KAR 0.06.0359.9225.1824.1897.0913.5357.5711.5211.5731.1524.0281.675 intersamplecraniometricvariation,spatialdistance
2 and temporal distance matrices were computed
d
nobis KAM 0.012.3676.72413.56712.47111.10510.9419.20813.1468.20412.89614.29612.3448.076 aMmaohnaglanalolbissamd2pmleaptraiixrsa.nCdotnhgersueelnactetebrettwwoeemnatthrie-
hala AR 0042187375530176979069149544893077941211880 cteels,w19a6s7a)sasnedssMedanbtyemlceoarnreslaotfitohnecMoeaffinctieelntte(sStm(Mouasne-
ma H 0.12.4.6.5.4.3.2.6.3.3.3.2.2.4. et al., 1986). These procedures provide a test to
rixof HAI 0.06.9899.9244.0580.9621.8577.8966.2184.6935.2974.9818.8190.4802.5922.5281.403 dpelytebremainperiofdduicftfeorfengceeosgrbaepthwieceanl psraompipnleqsuimtyayorsdimif--
at 111 1111
M ferencesinantiquity.Thesignificanceoftheseasso-
4. GKS 0.09.5823.4354.6012.5766.8343.8043.1541.2965.1803.3132.7312.8661.6171.6563.6963.535 ciations was obtained through 1,000 permutations
E 1 at random by rows and columns.
L
B 94778732841923528
TA DJP 0.01.426.823.724.105.057.641.590.950.424.154.430.664.432.963.044.464.60 RESULTS
1
H 750962278917053034 The bias-adjusted matrix of Mahalanobis d2 val-
CEM 0.04.363.466.802.028.524.004.726.603.743.392.585.474.242.813.162.414.034.56 ues was calculated according to the procedures out-
linedabove(Table4).F-testsforthose16samplesin
D 4071552643457857610
N 086790393356924077170304329188613104100 whichindividualdataareavailable(Table5)reveal
A 0.2.6.6.7.4.3.4.1.8.5.5.3.5.7.1.5.4.4.2. 1. that the majority of d2 values between samples are
LW 0961396169836043479040317416903537327055324963932768390898273 ble significant (98/120; 81.7%). Of the 98 pairwise con-
A 0.4.3.3.4.3.5.9.9.5.2.3.2.3.6.1.4.5.6.6.6. Ta trasts exhibiting a significant difference, 7 (7.1%)
ALT 0.02.8793.8702.0061.6710.9697.8003.1140.6082.5264.3813.8782.5190.7594.2702.0092.2981.2960.7260.6083.0442.106 from sairgensiifigcnainfitcaantttahtet0h.e010.l0e5velel.vel,while91(92.9%)are
1 e
r
AFM 0.06.2088.7870.9534.13410.4677.82311.7606.3184.3524.6772.80412.9149.4088.5676.2637.27711.3963.3267.3097.8286.7063.713 mplesa WPGMA cluster analysis
The dendrogram obtained by means of the
AFA 0.00.6518.2161.1871.9005.9422.8799.9694.8638.9216.3965.5923.1606.8500.9220.9877.5990.3784.7004.3669.4976.3999.1954.800 orsa WPGMA associating algorithm (Fig. 2) indicates
1 1 1 111 11 f that the Hainan sample (HAI) from south China
s
ADM 0.02.1461.4237.4827.2371.0945.03311.68110.84410.5548.7351.7528.1382.48113.0399.5319.2096.9148.16011.5834.7519.4558.2458.4864.901 eviation reoercpecudrer.ssTehbneettsmwtehaeejonmrsdotisevtpidpsiieovnesraagmmenpoltneogsfr(aeelxmlcseaapimntipnSlgAesMsacBomnpaslinedds-
ADMAFAAFMALTALWANDCEMHDJRGKSHAIHARKAMKARKOKKROKUZMOLQAWSAMBSAPSHSTH2TH3TMGTMM 1Abbr TseMgrMeg)aatnedd afrlolmothsaemr spalemspolbesta.iBnaecdtrfriaonmsIarmanp,leTsuarrke-