Ethnic Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia No. 3 9781487589486

Citation preview

ARCTIC INSTITUTE OF NORTH AMERICA ANTHROPOLOGY OF THE NORTH: TRANSLATIONS FROM RUSSIAN SOURCES/NO. 3

Ethnic Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia M. G. LEVIN / Edited by Henry N. Michael

PUBLISHED FOR THE ARCTIC INSTITUTE OF NORTH AMERICA BY UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS

Copyright, Canada, 1963, by University of Toronto Press

ANTHROPOLOGY OF THE NORTH: TRANSLATIONS FROM RUSSIAN SOURCES

is supported by National Science Foundation grants 18865 and GN–212

EDITOR'S PREFACE THE ORIGINAL WORK, of which this is a full translation, was published by the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R. in 1958. It represents one of the major works of M. G. Levin, a well-known and prolific writer. In view of the fact that this work of Levin is not "pure" or straightforward physical anthropology (the results of pertinent archaeological, ethnographic, and linguistic investigations are also used), his educational background is of interest. Maksim Grigoryevich Levin was born in 1904 in a small town in Belorussia. His father was a physician. At 16 he entered the University of Moscow and graduated therefrom in 1925, with a "major" in physical anthropology. As he, himself, expressed it, he had "the good fortune of being able to attend the lectures of D. N. Anuchin, one of the founders of scientific physical anthropology in Russia." Anuchin had great interest in the peoples, history, and geography of Siberia, and published many articles on these subjects, among them treatises on the physical anthropology of the Ainus, Japanese, and Lamuts. Thus the young Levin had received a thorough introduction to the peoples and the land that were to become his major interests. Upon graduating from Moscow University, Levin became a candidate for a higher degree there, and at the same time became associated with the division of folkloristics of the Moscow Central Ethnographic Museum. From 1935 to 1944 he was Associate and Scientific Secretary of the Institute of Physical Anthropology and Reader in Physical Anthropology at Moscow University. Since 1944, Levin has been associated with the Institute of Ethnography of the Academy of Sciences. He is Deputy Director of the Institute and Head of its Section for Physical Anthropology. Levin's first scientific journey to Siberia took place in 1926. Over the subsequent twenty years, he conducted investigations in physical anthropology and ethnography in Tannu-Tuva, the Altay, and among the Tungus of northern Cis-Baykal. Accompanied by his wife, he spent three years with the Lamuts of Okhotsk coast. In recent years he has spent months at a time working among the Yakuts of eastern Siberia, the tribes of the Lower Amur and Sakhalin in the Soviet Far East, in the Buryat Autonomous Republic, again in Tannu-Tuva, as well as in other regions of Siberia. An expedition to the Chukchi peninsula in 1957, under Levin's leadership, yielded considerable archaeological and skeletal materials of the Old Bering Sea and Okvik periods of Eskimo culture. During this period of 35 years of field investigations, Levin published some 150 articles and books. Together with Ya. Ya. Roginskiy he authored the Principles of Physical Anthropology (1955) and was one of the editors and principal authors of the Peoples of Siberia (1956). Less than two years ago, in 1961, the monumental Historical and Ethnographic Atlas of Siberia was published. Levin and L. P. Potapov were the editors who co-ordinated—over a period of many years—the assembling and selection of the materials of many authors (the editors were also contributors), as well as the several hundred illustrations that accompany the text. The present work, published in 1958 as the second volume of the Transactions of the Northeastern Expedition under the title The Physical Anthropology and

iv Editors Preface Ethnogenetic Problems of the Peoples of the Far East,* received the Prize of N. N. Miklukho-Maklay. It deals with the origins of the small nations and peoples of central Siberia and the Siberian Northeast, principally the latter. Over the centuries many guesses and projections have been made about these peoples. Most of them have been unsubstantiated because no field work had been done or because the materials that had been collected had not been analyzed and published. Levin has reviewed the old materials, has gathered and analyzed hitherto unpublished ones, has personally surveyed many of the peoples about whom he writes, and drawing from the data and publications of other members of the Northeastern Expedition, has assembled a formidable base for the present work. The principal peoples described are the Nivkhs (also known as Gilyaks), the Negidals of the Amgun and Amur rivers, the Ulchs (Olchs, Ulchans, Mungans), the Nanays (Golds), the Oroks of Sakhalin (the Oroncho of the Chinese and, incorrectly, the Orochs, Orochens, or Orochons of 19th century Russian literature), the Orochs of Khabarovsk kray (formerly incorrectly called the Orochens), the Buryats, the Evens (Lamuts), the Chukchis, the Itelmens (Kamchadals), and the Koryaks (also called the Chavchuvens and, incorrectly, the Nymylans). There are also comparisons with small groups of Evenks (Tungus), Yukagirs, Selkups, and other peoples of Siberia, as well as with the Indians of the Northwest of North America. A separate chapter deals with the thorny problem of the Ainu, another with the origins of the Eskimos. Most of these peoples are small in numbers, a fact which made it difficult to obtain valid samples. Thus, according to the 1926–27 census, there were 405 Orochs, 426 Negidals, 462 Oroks, 758 Ulchs, 814 Itelmens, 1292 Eskimos, 1500 Northern Selkups, about 4000 Nivkhs, 5800 Nanays, 7400 Koryaks, and 12,300 Chukchis. The 1959 census lists only the Koryaks and Chukchis, giving their numbers as 6,300 and 11,700 respectively. A few points about the usage of terms, transliterations, and spellings should be made. Transliterations of most names and place names were rendered according to the system recommended by the United States Board on Geographic Names with the exception that the transliteration of the Russian "soft sign" by an apostrophe was omitted. However, in the relatively rare cases of well-established spellings of names in English, they were preferentially retained. Thus, Moscow, not Moskva; Chukchi, not Chukot; and so on. The names of those authors who originally published in Russian or whose works were later translated and published in Russian are transliterated according to the system mentioned above. Thus, Shrenk, not Schrenk; Bogoraz, not Bogoras; Kopernitskiy, not Kopernicki. The term Europoid as used in this work is, we believe, equivalent to the older Caucasoid. At present, Siberia is divided into three major administrative parts: Western Siberia—longitudinally between the Ural mountains and the Yenisey river, latitudinally between Kazakhstan (the northern part of former Russian Turkestan) and the Arctic coast; Eastern Siberia—east of the Yenisey to the watershed between the Pacific and Arctic oceans, and from the Mongolian Peoples Republic to the Arctic coast; the Soviet Far East (often expressed as just "the Far East")— the entire Pacific littoral of the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic, limited to the west by the Stanovoy, Dzhungzhur, Kolyma, and associated ranges. This administrative terminology is reflected in the writings of Soviet *The initial chapter of this work was translated by Mrs. A. Scheinen, the others by Dr. L. Kassianoff.

Editors Preface

v

authors. It was thought advisable to retain some of the general names for the various administrative districts in their transliterated forms since no ordered or accepted translation of them exists. Thus, a kray is a very large areal administrative unit, usually applied to "pioneer," that is, not fully developed, regions. There are seven such krays in the Soviet Union, six of them within the boundaries of the R.S.F.S.R., the seventh in Kazakhstan. Each kray and each Union Republic contains a number of oblasts of various sizes and within them, or as separate units, there may be national (ethnic) okrugs. Autonomous oblasts contain an ethnic group. Oblasts are further divided into rayons, and each rayon has its soviet (council). Some of the statistical information is based on areal divisions no longer in existence, such as guberniya, uyezd, ulus, uprava, volost, sloboda, and others. Whenever these occurred in the text, they were also transliterated rather than translated. To the several individuals who have helped with this task go my profound thanks. Dr. Lawrence Oschinsky of the National Museum of Canada has examined the translation for the correctness of terms specific to physical anthropology. Dr. Henry B. Collins of the Smithsonian Institution has applied his special knowledge to a critical examination of Chapter IV. Mrs. Natalie Frenkley of the Arctic Bibliography staff has edited the multilingual bibliography attached to the work. Professor Levin has loaned us the original photographs, drawings, and maps. However, some of the maps have been redrawn since transliterations of clan and tribal names had to be fitted onto them. Mr. Edward Schumacher of the Smithsonian Institution has done this cartographic work with his usual skill. HENRY N. MICHAEL

March 1963

This page intentionally left blank

A C A D E M Y O F S C I E N C E S O F T H E U.S.S.R. Trudy Instituta etnografii im. N. N. Miklukho-Maklaya, n.s., vol. XXXVI

TRANSACTIONS OF THE NORTHEASTERN EXPEDITION

II

M. G. LEVIN

Physical Anthropology and Ethnogenetic Problems of the Peoples of the Far East

P U B L I C A T I O N S OF T H E A C A D E M Y O F S C I E N C E S O F T H E U.S.S.R. M O S C O W 1958

Editor-in-chief [of Russian series] : G. F. D E B E T S

AUTHOR'S PREFACE THE PRESENT WORK is based on materials of ethnic anthropology. Although data of physical anthropology are an important source for solving ethnogenetic problems, they are altogether inadequate for this purpose when dissociated from ethnography, archaeology, and linguistics. The thesis of an interdisciplinary approach to the study of ethnogenetic problems has received firm support in Soviet literature, and ethnographic, archaeological, and linguistic materials have been used in this work in the extent they were needed and were available to the author. Although we are confining ourselves to the study of ethnic physical anthropology and the problems of ethnogenesis of the peoples of the [Soviet] Far East, in the course of the investigations we inevitably had to step far out of the boundaries of this territory, and thus we have considered it necessary to preface the account of the basic material on the different peoples by a detailed, critical review of the classifications of physical types of northern Asia set forth in the published literature. We shall begin our study of the definitive materials with the Amur and Sakhalin areas. It is here, in this region of contact of northern Asiatic and Pacific Mongoloid types, that some important questions of racial genesis may be resolved. It is here, where the ethnic relationships between Paleo-Asiatic and TungusManchurian groups are very complex, where for many centuries both northern and southern cultures left their imprints, that many questions on the ethnogenesis of the peoples of the Far East as a whole can be answered. The study of the peoples of the Amur region and Sakhalin led the author to investigate the physical anthropology and problems of ethnogenesis of the Tungus peoples of Siberia. A special chapter deals with this topic. Another chapter contains data on the peoples of northeastern Asia. The last chapter is devoted to the physical anthropology of the Ainu and to questions of their origin, i.e., to "The Ainu Problem," which is inseparably linked to an understanding of the ethnic history of the peoples of the Amur region as well as to that of the peoples of northeastern Siberia. An analysis of the physical types of the peoples of the Soviet Far East required the inclusion of comparative materials on the Koreans and Japanese; these were assembled during special field investigations, and will be found in the Appendix, The present work utilizes the findings of personal field observations in different regions of Siberia and the Far East, the results of our investigations of craniological series of the physical anthropological literature, as well as some unpublished findings of physical anthropology kept in the archives of the Scientific Research Institute of Physical Anthropology of Moscow State University (collected by A. N. Pokrovskiy and A. M. Zolotarev) and in the Institute of Ethnography of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R. (somatological and craniological materials of G. F. Débets and N. N. Cheboksarov). The author had the opportunity to study some of the unpublished materials of A. P. Okladnikov kept partly in the archives of the Institute of the History of Material Culture of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R. and partly in his possession, as well as ethnographic materials on the peoples of the Amur region from the archives of the Institutes of Ethnography in Moscow and Leningrad.

This page intentionally left blank

CONTENTS EDITOR'S PREFACE

iii

AUTHOR'S PREFACE

ix

INTRODUCTION

I

I. THE PRINCIPAL STAGES OF RESEARCH IN THE PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY OF NORTHERN ASIATIC PEOPLES

1. The history of research in physical anthropology 2. A historical survey of racial classifications 3. Basic principles of classification Notes and references

II. PHYSICAL TYPES AND PROBLEMS OF ORIGIN OF THE PEOPLES IN THE LOWER AMUR REGION AND SAKHALIN

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

The history of investigations Ethno-geographic differentiations of the various traits Comparison of traits Differentiation of types Origin of the Nivkh physical type and basic questions relating to their ethnogenesis 6. The problem of the origin of the Tungus-Manchu peoples of the Amur region and Sakhalin Notes and references

III.

9 20 39 47

52 57 88 89 103 119 123

PROBLEMS CONCERNING THE ORIGIN OF THE TUNGUS

1. 2. 3. 4.

Physical types of the Tungus TheYukagirs The physical type of the ancient population of Cis-Baykalia The problem of ethnic origins Notes and references

IV. ETHNOGENETIC PROBLEMS IN NORTHEASTERN ANTHROPOLOGICAL DATA

127 140 144 162 186

ASIA IN THE LIGHT OF

1. Physical types of the northeastern Paleo-Asiatics and the Asiatic Eskimos 2. The theory of the "Eskimo Wedge" 3. The ethnogeny of the northeastern Paleo-Asiatics 4. Certain problems of Eskimo physical anthropology Notes and references

192 198 204 212 228

V. THE AINU QUESTION

1. The Ainu physical type 2. The early cultures and paleo-anthropological types in the Japanese islands

234 243

xii Contents 3. The origin of the Ainus: A survey of theories Notes and references

265 273

CONCLUSIONS

278

APPENDIX. THE PHYSICAL TYPES OF THE KOREANS AND JAPANESE The physical type of the Koreans The physical type of the Japanese Notes and references

288 304 323

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

325

BIBLIOGRAPHY

326

PLATES BETWEEN PAGES 132 AND 133

I-III. Neolithic skulls from Cis-Baykalia and Trans-Baykalia IV. Skulls from ancient burials in Japan BETWEEN PAGES 260 AND 261

V-VIII. Characteristic representatives of Siberian physical types

xii Contents 3. The origin of the Ainus: A survey of theories Notes and references

265 273

CONCLUSIONS

278

APPENDIX. THE PHYSICAL TYPES OF THE KOREANS AND JAPANESE The physical type of the Koreans The physical type of the Japanese Notes and references

288 304 323

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

325

BIBLIOGRAPHY

326

PLATES BETWEEN PAGES 132 AND 133

I-III. Neolithic skulls from Cis-Baykalia and Trans-Baykalia IV. Skulls from ancient burials in Japan BETWEEN PAGES 260 AND 261

V-VIII. Characteristic representatives of Siberian physical types

INTRODUCTION IN WHAT ERA and from what elements did this or that people arise? To which ethnic group does a particular complex of archaeological remains belong? In what ethnic surroundings and on what territory did a given language evolve? What was the physical type of the population where these ethnogonic and glottogonic processes developed? All these questions—which are studied by historians, ethnographers, archaeologists, linguists, and physical anthropologists—are actually only different facets of a single problem: the problem of ethnogenesis. This is a complex problem presenting diverse aspects. Its study requires a precise formulation of methodological bases for ethnogenetic investigations and the employment of extensive factual materials from the different scientific disciplines in each specific case. Soviet science has achieved considerable success in this difficult field, through a protracted struggle among different trends, and as a result of a complicated process to overcome errors in the study of ethnogenesis. Nevertheless, as great as the achievements might have been, many questions involving ethnogenetic investigations, even of a general character, remain insufficiently treated at present. The formation of any people, of any ethnic group, is the result of a lengthy historical process in which both the general, internal developmental pattern of individual communities and the various mutual effects, mixings, and movements of different ethnic groups are reflected. The task of ethnogenetic studies can be reduced neither to a pin-pointing of the appearance of a certain ethnic group in a given historic period, nor to the determination of a common linguistic origin or an original ethnographic complex; such studies are always, to a degree, conditional. The study of the ethnogenesis of a people must embrace the different stages of its ethnic history, the stages that contributed to the gradual process of formation of its present-day ethnographic, linguistic, and physical characteristics. The difficulties of such a task are obvious; yet the means of individual investigators are limited. The majority of works on ethnogenesis deal, therefore, with the study of individual questions confined in a chronological frame; the general picture of the ethnogenesis of a given people emerges through an integrated study of separate, partial investigations. An equal mastery of all aspects of the source material is beyond the abilities of a single specialist in any field and, naturally, in dealing with the problems of ethnogenesis, each one uses primarily materials of his own specialized field of study. However, even though he deals with particular questions and limits his studies to well-defined stages of ethnic history and uses in his deductions data of but a single discipline? every student of ethnogenetic problems should start out with a broad understanding of all the related fields and consider, as far as possible, all materials from these fields. The meaning attached to specific source material in the study of a stage in the formation of a people is different in each case. The correct solution to any question of ethnogenesis requires, as stated above, a manysided approach, a comparison of different materials. In the study of physical anthropological material as a historic source for the study of ethnogenetic problems, the question of methodology was treated in a

2 Ethnie Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia number of works by Soviet anthropologists. As for related disciplines, the path to be followed in surmounting foreign concepts and righting the serious errors and misconceptions that existed was difficult. In the field of ethnogenetic investigations, a field where ethnic anthropology is closely tied to linguistics, archaeology, and ethnography, in the past there prevailed a thesis that there was no relation between language and culture and language and physical type. This, in fact, made it impossible to use data of physical anthropology for the solution of any historical questions. This is a profoundly erroneous thesis. We proceed from the undeniable thesis that racial characteristics do not in the least determine the trend of a historical process, that physical type is not directly connected to the structure and aspect of a people's culture. The entire history of mankind is witness to the validity of this thesis. However, this does not mean that the formation of a physical type in a people does not reflect events of its history, that it is not tied to its historical destiny. The diffusion and mixture of physical types is a consequence of the historical process. Even though language and culture may spread independently of the spread of physical types, the latter can never spread without culture and language. A real change in the distribution of a given physical type and changes in the physical composition of a population— both phenomena studied by the anthropologist—always reflect movements and minglings of specific tribes and peoples, i.e., the processes of their ethnic history. Although we are proceeding from the thesis that the physical characteristics of different human groups do not determine their global distribution, their migrations and mixings in the course of their histories, we must keep in mind that definite physical types formed within definite territories. Not only can the areas of the original formation of such major divisions of physical anthropological systems as the Mongoloid, Europoid [Caucasoid], and Negroid races be established, but also those for the more fractional units, i.e., physical types, which formed during definite periods and in definite areas. Moreover, ethnic, linguistic, and cultural communities are also bound to specific territories. But the territories of formation of physical types and the areas of linguistic, ethnic, and cultural communities do not necessarily overlap; the processes of their formation are governed by different natural laws, although, to a degree, the territorial unit did form a link which tied together the ethnographic and physical anthropological communities. If we disregard the factors instrumental in the formation of human races during the early stages of their occupation of the oikoumene and consider only the processes of formation of modern physical types, which enter into the composition of the basic great races, it is often difficult or even impossible to uncover their dependence on conditions of a geographic environment. In any case, geographic conditions alone are insufficient for a causal explanation of the formation of physical types. The formation of any type presumes the existence of a separate, historical community and is possible only as a result of intermarriage over a protracted period of time, within particular groups of people who for a number of reasons were less in contact with other groups in which a different [physical] type was formed. While cultural and linguistic unity contributed in this way to the formation of particular physical types, contrarily, the linguistic and cultural affinity of different groups resulted in an ever increasing mingling of physical types, the obliteration of their former boundaries, and the formation of new types and new boundaries. To be sure, these opposite forces in the formation of physical types complicate the utilization of anthropological data as historical sources, but in no way do they eliminate it.

Introduction 3 In tracing the distribution of physical types in the composition of different modern ethnic groups, in comparing them, if paleo-anthropological materials are present, with the physical types of past eras, in taking into account the natural variability of physical traits over a period of time, the anthropologist often resolves with adequate accuracy questions of prime importance, such as the question of the autochthonous development or extra-territorial origin of particular groups, or that pertaining to the direction taken by a migration or to the nature of the mixture of different types. As physical characteristics are of no importance to economic growth and cultural development, the physical type of the population of a given territory may. remain stable over protracted periods of time while during that time the level of development and aspects of culture change beyond recognition. In such cases, only the materials of physical anthropology can determine the presence or absence of past migrations. We have touched briefly on the methodological aspects of using anthropological findings in ethnogenetic investigations. We do not aim here for an analysis of the entire gamut of complicated questions on the methodology and systematics of this subject. (For this, see Débets, Levin, and Trofimova, 1952.) We shall consider only some of these questions, and then mainly those related to Siberian materials. One of the cardinal questions concerns the relation between physical types and linguistic and cultural communities. Whereas the languages of Siberian peoples have been adequately classified, their classification on the basis of cultural traits remains almost untouched by our literature. In general, one may consider two principles of ethnographic or historical-cultural classification: (1) on the basis of economic-cultural types (or groups), (2) on the basis of historical-ethnographic or historical-cultural regions (Levin and Cheboksarov, 1955). By "economic-cultural types" we understand historically formed complexes characteristic of a given economy and culture, typical for peoples living under certain natural geographic conditions, at a certain level of socio-economic development. We purposely use the term economic-cultural and not simply economic, since the orientations of both the economic and geographic conditions determine, to a very considerable extent, the characteristics of the material culture of peoples: the type of their settlements and dwellings, their means of transportation, food and utensils, clothing, and so on. We are dealing here with the historical formation of economic and cultural traits, for only those peoples with productive forces on a similar level of development can be assigned to the same economic-cultural type. Thus, when considering trends in economic activity, we stress at the same time the necessity of taking into account the exact level of development. Until recent times, the peoples of northern Siberia and the [Soviet] Far East represented six fundamental economic-cultural types which could be traced to different eras and which were related to various developmental stages or socioeconomic conditions. These were the taiga hunters and fishermen, the arctic sea-mammal hunters, the fishermen in large river basins, the hunters and reindeer herders of the taiga, the reindeer herders of the tundra, and the cattle herders of the steppes. The first type was characteristic of the Yukagirs, who formerly occupied vast reaches in eastern Siberia, of the Udege, and partially of the Orochs. Some reindeer-less groups of the Mansi, Khanty, and Kets also belonged to this type. The hunting of fur-bearing animals played an important role in the economy of these peoples. It required constant moving during the hunting

4 Ethnie Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia season and thus was [naturally] associated with a nomadic way of life. Furhunting appeared relatively late in the history of the peoples of the North. It arose from the development of barter to satisfy the demand for northern furs in the markets of China and Central Asia and, during recent centuries, in the Russian market. The development of fur-hunting marked the decline of the ancient natural economy of the taiga hunters and fishermen, the most important feature of which was the hunt for meat-providing animals. Archaeological materials from the taiga zone of central Siberia enable a reconstruction of this economic-cultural type to roots that go back to the Paleolithic, and which can be easily traced in the Neolithic of the Cis-Baykal region, Yakutia, and further to the east (Okladnikov, 1950a, 1955a). This type is characterized by the absence of outstanding economic specialization: the hunt for game animals goes hand in hand with fishing, which plays a prime role, and ice fishing is apparently of great importance. Harness-dog breeding and reindeer breeding are still absent. Many elements of this ancient type of economy were preserved by the taiga hunters of later times: the sod house or semisubterranean house for winter dwelling, a light hut often shaped like the conical chum [tent] for a summer house, the hunting, hand-pulled narta [sled] as the basic means of land transportation, the birch-bark boats and dugouts, the open fur garment—all characteristic of the material culture of the taiga hunters and fishermen. The specific conditions on the arctic coast, which was rich in sea mammals, led to a different economic-cultural type, that of arctic hunters and fishermen. The abundance of basic hunting resources—the different sea mammals—permitted a prolonged residence in one place, i.e., a sedentary way of life. Hence, the development of a characteristic dwelling: the sod house. The absence of timber on the woodless arctic coast brought about a special type of heating and lighting: the oil lamp. In place of wood and birch bark, sea mammal skins served as the principal material from which boats, the kayak, bay dará [skin-boat, umiak], house furnishings, and other things were constructed. The certainty of finding feed for a large number of dogs led to the development of harness-dog breeding for the principal means of land transportation. Also characteristic of the arctic hunters is the closed parka-like (not open) garment, which preserves warmth, though it restricts movement. In the nomadic conditions of the taiga hunters this deficiency makes the closed garment completely unserviceable; but in the sedentary life of the arctic hunters using dogs for lengthy travel, the advantages of such clothes are obvious and their deficiencies are secondary. This economiccultural type was characteristic of the Eskimos, Coastal Chukchis, and in part, of the Koryaks. Judging by archaeological data, this type was widespread far westward along the coast of the Arctic Ocean. It is clearly apparent in the archaeological material of the so-called Bering Sea culture, which dates to the beginning of our era, but probably reaches back to a considerably earlier period. In the basins of large Siberian rivers, teeming with fish (the Amur, Ob, and some others ), there sprang up and developed long ago an economic-cultural type based on fishing. The main year-round food was fish. During the fishing season, it was preserved in various ways, but mainly dry-cured (yukola). This type of economy was also characterized by a comparatively sedentary way of life; the permanent dwelling was often the sod house or a semisubterranean one. Here too, harness-dog breeding developed independently in different areas. Widely used as material for clothing were fishskins, the processing of which attained a high

Introduction 5 degree of excellence. Characteristic representatives of this type were the Nivkhs (Gilyaks) of the lower reaches of the Amur river, and some groups of Khanty and Mansi living along the Ob river and its tributaries; some features of this type of economy were also found among the Itelmens of Kamchatka, as was beautifully described by S. P. Krasheninnikov in the 18th century. The spread of reindeer breeding, which originated among the peoples of northern Asia through the influence of horse breeding, brought a new economiccultural type based on the ancient taiga hunter type—the reindeer-breeding taiga hunters (Vasilevich and Levin, 1951). Because of the conditions existing in the taiga, reindeer herding became of prime importance in transportation. The appearance of this new means of transportation made the taiga hunter even more mobile, permitting him to enlarge considerably his area of nomadizing. With the spread of reindeer herding, the basic features of material culture still remained as formerly: the same chum, birch-bark boat, open clothing, and so on. In this economic-cultural type, reindeer are used as pack and riding animals. The reasons for this are: first, that sledge travel is unsuited to taiga conditions, and second, the small size of the herd. The most characteristic representatives of this type were the Evenks spread over a vast territory from the Yenisey river to the Okhotsk Sea. Here also belong the Evens (Lamuts) and several other groups of the Siberian taiga zone. Even later, there developed in the tundra the economic-cultural type of tundra reindeer-breeders. The rich pastures of the tundra permitted a considerable increase in the size of the reindeer herds. Here the reindeer became not so much a transport animal as a basic source of subsistence; its meat was the main food and its hide was used for making clothes, for covering dwellings, and for different household furnishings. Transportation was by reindeer-drawn sled. Clothes were of parka-like cut, quite suitable when riding in a reindeer-drawn sled across the open tundra, though awkward when riding reindeer in the taiga. This economiccultural type was prevalent in the extreme northeast of Siberia, among the Chukchi and Koryaks, and in the northwest, among the Nenets and peoples neighboring them. The last type, the type of steppe cattle-breeders, was known mainly beyond the borders of the territory being surveyed, but nevertheless it influenced the economy and culture of northern peoples. An examination of the major economic-cultural types of northern Siberia and the [Soviet] Far East reveals that: (1) the same economic-cultural type may develop among different peoples, in different, even remote, regions but only under conditions of the same level of development of productive forces and of a similar geographic environment; (2) different types in a particular territory have a definite historical continuity [succession]—under certain historical conditions one type develops into another; (3) the cultural traits characteristic of each type form in the first place through the orientation of the economy to certain geographic conditions. The concept of a "historical-ethnographic region" has a different content. By this term we mean the territory where a definite cultural entity was formed as a result of continued relations among the people inhabiting it, of their influences on one another, and of a similarity in their historical destiny. Several historicalethnographic regions can be distinguished in Siberia. Of greatest interest to us are two of these, the Kamchatka-Chukchi peninsulas and the Amur-Sakhalin regions. In the Kamchatka-Chukchi region we find the Chukchi, Koryaks, and Itel-

6 Ethnie Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia mens, who speak closely related languages, and also the Eskimos and the Aleuts. Their cultural unity is revealed not so much in modern ethnographic studies as through retrospective re-creation. This unity goes back to a time when reindeer herding, which was comparatively little practiced here, had not yet spread. With the spread of reindeer herding, however, there arose a situation where a single historical-ethnographic region included two different economiccultural types: the tundra reindeer-herders and the arctic sea-mammal hunters. These economic-cultural types occur, as is known, even among a single people— i.e., there are the Reindeer and the Coastal Chukchi. The fundamental difference between an economic-cultural type and a historicalethnographic region can be clearly seen when Chukchi-Koryak and Nenets reindeer-herding are compared. The economic-cultural type among the Chukchi, Koryaks, and Nenets is one and the same. It is formed by the general orientation of their reindeer economy—reindeer breeding for meat, for use as draught animals, etc. Nevertheless, many of the features of reindeer breeding differ in the various groups: in contrast to the Nenets, the Chukchi and Koryaks do not have herding dogs, they usually harness one reindeer to a light sled with characteristic arched supports, they steer the reindeer with the right-hand rein, and so on. Despite the general similarity of the groups resulting from the type of their economy and environmental setting, important differences can also be observed in other elements of the material culture of the Chukchi and Koryaks in the east and of the Nenets in the west. This puts them in different historical-ethnographic regions. Included in the Amur-Sakhalin region are the Nanays, Ulchs, Orochs, Udege, Nivkhs, and a considerable portion of the Negidals. Despite their linguistic diversity and important differences in their economy and mode of life, all these peoples show considerable similarity in a great number of elements of material and spiritual culture. This similarity is so great and changes in the elements of culture proceed so gradually (except for the Udege, who show marked differences from the neighboring groups) that were it not for the language, it would be difficult to draw boundaries between these peoples. The Amur-Sakhalin historical-ethnographical region can serve as an example to illustrate the growth of a cultural unity while retaining at the same time basic linguistic differences. This condition resulted from the gradual infiltration of Tungus-Manchurian groups into the Paleo-Asiatic population already present (and ethnically undiversified) in this territory. What are the interrelations of economic-cultural types and historical-ethnographic regions with linguistic communities? As mentioned earlier, it is obvious that there is no relation between an economic-cultural type and language; a linguistic community always presupposes an initial historical-geographic community, while identical economic-cultural types, as we have seen, can arise independently among peoples living in different territories. On the other hand, the same language may spread among peoples of different economical-cultural types. The historical-ethnographic region may include groups speaking similar languages as well as groups speaking originally unrelated languages. Of course, mutual influences among peoples arriving in a specific historical-ethnographic region are known, and manifest themselves to some extent also in the sphere of language. However, different languages may be preserved by the various peoples even within a single historical-ethnographic region. The solution of the problem of the interconnections between economic-cultural

Introduction 7 types and historical-ethnographic regions and physical types appears to be in a general way the following: it is apparent that ethnic groups of entirely different origin and dissimilar physical appearance can belong to one specific economiccultural type. This can be clearly observed in the data on Siberia and the [Soviet] Far East. Concerning the historical-ethnographic regions, a certain connection with the physical make-up of the population may exist. The formation of any physical type presupposes, as already mentioned, long periods of intermarriages within a given community and a relative isolation of this community from its neighbors. The conditions favoring such a process evidently seem to exist within a single historical-ethnographic region. Of course, this does not mean that only one physical type enters into the composition of each historicalethnographic region. The formation of any of these regions could have been derived from a racially heterogenous base. But the existence of a historicalethnographic region always leads to some intercourse between groups entering into its composition, to marital ties, and, therefore, to a blending of physically distinct types among them. We shall deal with factual examples illustrating this thesis in the course of our presentation.

This page intentionally left blank

I. THE PRINCIPAL STAGES OF RESEARCH IN THE PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY OF NORTHERN ASIATIC PEOPLES 1. The History of Research in Physical Anthropology IT is DIFFICULT and at times impossible to draw an ethnic boundary between the Soviet Far East and Siberia. To understand the modern anthropological composition of the peoples of the Far East and to trace their ethnic history better, we shall have to refer constantly to comparative data from neighboring territories and to draw to varied extents from the physical anthropological data of different peoples of Siberia. A great number of general problems of the anthropology of the Far East and Siberia are so closely related that they cannot be considered separately. Similarly, the history of anthropological research in the Far East cannot be separated from the history of anthropological study of Siberia or, for that matter, from the progress of anthropological knowledge the country over. The accumulation of anthropological information concerning the population of Russia, in general, and the population of Siberia, in particular, began long before the refinement of special methods of anthropological research and developed hand in hand with the accumulation of ethnographic materials. The amount of this material increased considerably with the annexation of Siberia by Russia. The first ethnographic works on the peoples of Siberia and the Far East appeared at the beginning of the 18th century (Tokarev, 1948, 1951) and usually they also contained information about the physical type of the population described. More detailed data on the anthropology of the peoples of Siberia and the Far East are found in the works of the members of the Second Kamchatka Expedition of 1733-43. In the directives compiled by G. Miiller, a member of that expedition, physical anthropology is treated in great detail. These directives contain scores of questions on height; build; shape and color of hair; color of eyes; dimensions and forms of the face, nose, lips, chin, and ears; the size, arrangement, and color of teeth; and so on (cf. Miiller, 1900). The work of the Second Kamchatka Expedition was doubtless influenced by a remarkable document prepared for its use, a program-questionnaire compiled by the outstanding Russian scientist of the first half of the 18th century, V. N. Tatishchev (Tatishchev, 1950, p. 12). This questionnaire (its first edition dates to 1734, its second to 1737), which gives considerable attention to special ethnographic problems, appears to represent, as A. A. Tokarev noted, the very first ethnographic program not only in Russian but in world literature. It is of particular interest to us since it also contains questions

10 Ethnie Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia of a specifically anthropological nature. The program of 1737, Predlozheniye o sochinenii istorii i geografii rossiyskoy [Suggestions on a compilation of Russian history and geography], containing 198 questions on different topics of geography and history, points out that: In describing each people, common features of body structure should be depicted: heavy set or slight or broad; shape of shoulders; faces wide or round, and grey, black, or white in color; noses pointed or rounded, hooked or flat; hair black, light brown, white, or reddish, also how long; whether the noses and mouths are large, lips thick or medium thick, and the complexion swarthy, white, or yellow. . . . All this [should be described] as it is most often found, and it would be best to get an artist to sketch them. (Tatishchev, 1950, p. 95.)

In the remarkable ethnographic monograph Opisaniye zemli Kamchatki [Description of Kamchatka] by S. P. Krasheninnikov, a member of the Second Kamchatka Expedition, we also find a physical characterization of the peoples described: the Kamchadals, Koryaks, and Kurils (Ainu). His terse descriptions display a keen sense of observation and a gift of sketching salient features in a few words. We learn from them that the Kamchadals "are short of stature, their bodies swarthy [and] not hairy; they are black-haired, with scanty beards, Kalmyk-like faces with hooked noses'* (Krasheninnikov, 1949 edition, p. 365). In "body shape'* the Kurils differ sharply from the Kamchadals: "This people is of medium height, black-haired, round-faced, and swarthy, but far better-looking than other peoples. They have large, broad, and thick beards, hairy bodies . . ." (ibid., p. 468). Krasheninnikov points out that the peculiarities of physical type in conjunction with data on language are the basic sources of information as to "whence this people has its origin." The description of the physical type of the Itelmens is also found in Steller, who notes the resemblance between the Itelmens and the Koryaks—and the American tribes (Steller, 1774, pp. 297-303). In their body characteristics the Itelmens resemble Mongol peoples and are connected with them by origin. The aboriginal inhabitants of America are also of Asiatic origin (ibid., pp. 239-252). The subsequent increase in ethnographic information concerning the peoples of northern Asia added, to varying degree, also to the volume of physical anthropological data. In the years 1776 and 1777 the work of J. G. Georgi, Opisaniye vsekh v Rossiyskom gosudarstve obitayushchikh narodov [A description of all peoples inhabiting Russia], which is to a considerable extent a summary of all ethnographic data compiled up to that time, was published. In the description of each people (including those of Siberia), physical characteristics are presented in a more or less detailed manner, and the descriptive pattern of Muller's directives can be spotted easily.1 Even today the physical characteristics of the peoples of Siberia given in the work of Georgi have not completely lost their scientific value, as they express the observations of a period when mixture with the Russians, which subsequently changed the physical types, was still of little importance. We have named only a few of the writers whose works on 18th-century Siberia included physical anthropological material. During that period as well as in the first decades of the 19th century, physical anthropology had not yet developed into an independent discipline. The first steps in that direction in Russia are connected with the activities of one of the most distinguished natural scientists of the 19th century, K. E. Baer. A notable geographer and explorer, the first to study the abundant fish species of the Caspian Sea, the author of a series of works

Physical Anthropology of Northern Asiatic Peoples

11

on ethnography and archaeology, Baer was also one of the greatest physical anthropologists of his time. Baer's scientific interests in physical anthropology were very broad (Levin, 1954a). An important service rendered by this scientist was the establishment of the first craniological studies in Russia. In 1842, he became the curator of the anatomic collection of the Academy of Sciences of Petersburg, and for many years he administered this first museum of physical anthropology in our country, working towards the systematization and completion of its craniological collection. "Doubtless, there is no other country," wrote Baer, "where a rich craniological collection presents such interest and is so important and necessary as in Russia" (Baer, 1859, p. 177). During his study of the collection, he published a series of works on craniology. The first, chronologically, concerns Siberia and deals with the description of a Karagas skull (Baer, 1845b). As is known, Baer's methods of skull measurement and description have become the basis of subsequent craniological studies in Russia and abroad. Baer also was concerned with methods of anthropological research on the living, stressing the necessity of unifying somatognostic [somatological] findings. For this purpose he proposed reaching an agreement on the following points: skin color, hair type, construction of a table of variations in pigmentations, the necessity of collecting hair specimens, and the establishment of a single terminology. Personally, Baer did not engage in somatological research, but it was through his initiative that it was included in the work program of the famous Academy expeditions of A. F. Middendorf and L. I. Shrenk [Schrenk]. Indeed, in the program drawn up by Baer for M. Castren's expedition in 1844, he emphasized the necessity of taking advantage of Castren's travel to Siberia to collect data on physical anthropology. These materials, he wrote, would be valuable also for linguistic and ethnographic research (Baer, 1845a). As far as we know, the first physical anthropological investigation of the peoples of Siberia was carried out by Middendorf during his journey of 1843-44, which covered the vast area from Taymyr to the lower Amur river. This expedition was organized with the immediate assistance and active help of Baer, with whom Middendorf (who was later to become a famous explorer) made a joint trip to the Kola peninsula in 1840. The expedition's work included an extensive program of anthropological investigations including a large number of measurements of the head, face, trunk, extremities, and [the formulation of] somatoscopic definitions. Middendorf, as he himself writes, carried out "with the greatest of zeal" the anthropométrie work, which encompassed different groups of northern Siberia (Middendorf, 1878, p. 620). Great care was taken in the compilation of tables containing portraits of characteristic types. Unluckily, the anthropological materials collected by the expedition were lost and we find only isolated measurements in Middendorf's work (one Buryat, one Timan Samoyed, and one Kanin Samoyed). However, scattered in different parts of Middendorf s work are found descriptions of the physical characteristics of many peoples of Siberia: Samoyeds, Dolgans, Yakuts, Negidals, Gilyaks, and others. Among the Gilyaks in particular, Middendorf distinguishes two types: one possessing characteristic Mongol features, and the other showing peculiarities of "Caucasian type." He meticulously states his findings on the differences in the physical types of different Tungus groups, on the peculiarities of Yakut facial structure in comparison with the Tungus, etc.

12 Ethnie Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia Middendorf attributed great importance to physical anthropology ("somatic ethnography") for the solution of questions about the origin and kinship of different peoples. He wrote: Unity of language in two peoples does not yet prove their aboriginal unity and vice versa difference of language does not imply their aboriginal difference. Consequently, just as unity or difference of language cannot be deduced from aboriginal unity or difference, linguistic data cannot determine the unity or difference of origin. Only if the results of somatic ethnography agree with the results of linguistic research can the question of the peoples' common origin be definitely solved and considered reliable and indubitable. (Middendorf, 1878, p. 627.) Physical anthropological observations occupied a prominent place in the researches of Shrenk, who in 1854-56 carried out geographic and ethnographic investigations in the Amur basin and on Sakhalin. Even though he made almost no somatologic investigations, Shrenk's descriptions of characteristics are very detailed and interesting.2 To avoid repetition, as we shall return to these later, we shall merely note now that Shrenk meticulously extracted from the works of his predecessors everything relating to physical traits peculiar to the peoples of the Amur and of Sakhalin. A new stage in anthropological studies of the peoples of northern Asia, as well as in the development of ethnic anthropology in Russia as a whole, arose through the work of the Society of Friends of the Natural Sciences3 at the University of Moscow, founded in 1863. Its initiator, organizer, and director for many years was A. P. Bogdanov.4 Unlike the majority of scientific societies of that period, which formed a kind of closed corporation admitting to their ranks only persons with a definite standing in the scientific world and disinterested in the propagation of science per se, the new society attracted not only experts but also amateurs, and set as its aim the spread of scientific knowledge "to the general public," as well as the conduct of comprehensive studies of natural history throughout the country. From the very start anthropological subjects were given priority in the works of the Society. In 1864, an anthropological department was added with a program which included anthropological and archaeological research. The Society's first big venture was the organization of an anthropological exhibit. Its planning was exacting training for the budding anthropologists grouped around A. P. Bogdanov. The exhibit, conceived by Bogdanov as a joint one (physical anthropology and ethnography), acquired during its preparatory stage a character different from the one envisaged at the start, and became an ethnographic exhibit, which opened in 1867. However, physical anthropology was also included. The specimens collected were of exceptional interest for their time. [Later,] 600 skulls, representative of diverse peoples, and a set of anthropométrie instruments and photographs, formed the basis of an anthropological exhibit opened in 1879. The plan suggested for the exhibit by Bogdanov included the organization of three departments: prehistory, primitive tribes, and general physical anthropology.5 During the preparation of the exhibit, special attention was given to the craniological material. Bogdanov considered the collecting and publication of craniological data of prime importance during these first stages of anthropological work in Russia. For their compilation and preparation he managed to enlist the help of different specialists. As a result, the craniological department of the anthropological exhibit consisted of some 3,000 skulls, a collection enormous for

Physical Anthropology of Northern Asiatic Peoples 13 its time. It also included crania of the peoples of Siberia and the Far East brought to Moscow from different regions, thanks to the energy and hard work of the men in charge. These materials were processed and published by Bogdanov, who devoted a number of papers to the description of skulls of different peoples: Samoyeds (8 skulls), Yakuts (2 skulls), Ostyaks (4 skulls), Gilyaks (1 skull), Buryats (11 skulls), and Tungus (4 skulls). He also wrote the first work on the craniology of the ancient population of Siberia—a description of a skull found in a burial mound of the Trans-Baykal region (Antropologicheskaya vystavka [Exhibit of Physical Anthropology], vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 381-387, 401-404, 408-415, 418-420 ).6 Among the studies of the materials in the collections of the Society of Friends of Natural Sciences, Physical Anthropology, and Ethnography, we should note in particular the anthropological research on the Ainu by D. N. Anuchin (1876), Anuchin's work covers more ground than is suggested by its title. Besides a thorough analysis of two Ainu skeletons and skulls which were at his disposal and of all that was then published on the physical anthropology of the Ainu, his work contains a detailed historical survey of the Ainu, their ethnographic characteristics, and an analysis of theories on their origin. In its anthropological part, the work is doubtless a prototype of osteológica! research for its time, and it influenced not only the development of osteometric methodology, but also the formation of subsequent concepts of the racial significance of different features of the skeleton. The great value attributed to this work is attested to by the high praise of it in the works of subsequent students of Ainu osteology. In considering different theories on the origin of the Ainu, as set forth in the literature, Anuchin expresses several hypotheses which were further developed in later research. Such are the indications of southern ties of the Ainu, their physical similarity to the inhabitants of the Ryukyu islands, the proposition of the presence, in eastern Asia, of a physical type with strong hirsutism genetically unrelated to the European, and indications of a series of Ainu elements in the culture of the Japanese, and so on. In addition to materials of physical anthropology, Anuchin made wide use of ethnographic, historical, and even linguistic data. His interdisciplinary approach to problems of physical anthropology, expressed by their co-ordination with the data of ethnography, archaeology, and history, began a trend in our country. In the 1880's still during the lifetime of Bogdanov, the directorship of the anthropological department of the Society of Friends of Natural Sciences, Physical Anthropology, and Ethnography passed into the hands of Anuchin. For many years, the department was the center of anthropology in Russia. Here were pursued the activities, not only of the few anthropologists of the time—students of Bogdanov and Anuchin—but also of a comparatively large group of physicians, geographers, zoologists, and other professionals, as well as of explorers. While under Bogdanov they had concentrated their research on craniology, under the influence of Anuchin their work was directed towards the study of the racial composition of the peoples of Russia. This [influence] was also reflected in the anthropological studies of Siberia and the Far East. Connected with the anthropological department of the Society were also many "local" men, including the political exiles, who had conducted anthropological research in Siberia and the Far East. To the political exiles—starting with the banished members of the Decembrist movement and later the participants in the Polish uprising of 1863—Siberia owes credit for numerous explorations in the most diverse fields of science. Following the promulgation of the Statute on Administra-

14 Ethnie Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia tive Exile in 1878, the number of political exiles in Siberia rose sharply. Their extensive contributions to ethnographic research are well known. Some of the political exiles in Siberia (F. Ya. Kon, N. L. Gekker, I. I. Maynov, Yu. D. Talko-Grintsevitch, V. G. Bogoraz, V. I. Jochelson, and some others) also engaged in special physical anthropological research. The Anthropological Museum of Moscow University, the inventory of which was based on the collections of the anthropological exhibit of 1879, steadily increased its craniological materials of the peoples of Siberia and the Far East,7 thanks to the efforts of Anuchin. Numerous works on the somatology and craniology of Siberian peoples appeared during the three prerevolutionary decades, in the publications of the Society of Friends of Natural Sciences, and in the pages of the Russkiy antropologicheskiy zhurnal [Russian Journal of Physical Anthropology], founded in 1900 as the organ of the Society's Department of Physical Anthropology. The greater part of this work was done not by the anthropological specialist but by local men, amateurs; part of the material was prepared for publication by the collectors themselves, part was processed and published by the scientific members of the Moscow school of physical anthropology. Some of the works were also printed elsewhere, in the local press, [but] mainly in the publications of the Russian Geographical Society.8 Thus the works of A. A. Ivanovskiy (1905) and I. P. Silinich (1904) dealt with the Voguls and Ostyaks, N. A. Sinelnikov's (1911) with the Yenisey Ostyaks (Kets), N. M. Yadrintsev's (1886) and E. I. Lutsenko's (1902) with the peoples of the Altay region. The Khakas were studied by K. L Goroshchenko (Goroshchenko, 1901,1905; Ivanovskiy, 1907). To the Yakuts were dedicated the works of F. Ya. Kon (1899), N. L. Gekker (1896), and L I. Maynov (1900, 1902). Important works on the Tungus were also written by Maynov (1898, 1901). The Tungus of the Trans-Baykal region were investigated by Yu. D. Talko-Grintsevich, author of numerous works on the anthropology of the Trans-Baykal and Mongolia (1905). The physical anthropology of the peoples of the Amur region and Sakhalin is dealt with in the researches of N. L. Zeland (1886) and V. P. Margaritov (1888). An anthropological survey of the Chukchi and Lamuts was carried out in the 1890's by A. V. Olsufev (1896).9 N. P. Sokolnikov, for many years governor of the Anadyr region, collected some anthropological materials on the Chukchi, Eskimos, Lamuts, and Chuvans.* The material (collected according to Tarenetskiy's outline) was given by the collector to D. N. Anuchin, who processed and published it in part (1916a, 1918). V. G. Bogoraz, working as a member of Sibiryakov's expedition (1894-97) to the Kolyma region, gathered anthropological materials on the Chukchi and Lamuts (Nikolskiy, 1900). V. G. Bogoraz, V. I. Jochelson, and his wife D. L. Jochelson-Brodskaya took part in the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, organized by the American Museum of Natural History, which in the beginning of the present century conducted extensive research in northeastern Asia. They collected anthropological materials on the Chukchi, Koryaks, Eskimos, Yukagirs, Tungus, and Yakuts.10 Mention should also be made of L. Ya. Shternberg's material, published in part only in 1933; in 1910 he had conducted anthropological research among the peoples of the Amur region and Sakhalin. The methodological approach of Shternberg's investigations, which paid much attention to the so-called descriptive features, was superior to the methodology of other special institutional programs of the time. *[Originally a Yukagir tribe, now speaking the Chukot (Chukchi) language.—Editor.]

Physical Anthropology of Northern Asiatic Peoples

15

In connection with publications of the Moscow school, the work of A. A. Ivanovskiy should be particularly noted. From 1900 to 1913 he was the editor of the Russkiy antropologichesky zhurnal [Russian Journal of Physical Anthropology] and influenced, to a considerable degree, the direction of anthropological research on the peoples of Russia. He belonged to that school of physical anthropology of the end of the last and the beginning of the present century which attached scientific importance only to data of measurements and ignored those features of the physical type which could not be expressed by exact numerical quantification. In Ivanovskiy's works, the descriptive method of characterizing types was rarely used; as a rule his works lack data on such essentials of racial diagnosis as facial and body hair, peculiarities of the structure of the fleshy parts of the face, etc. The highly negative aspect of the above school was reflected in the way the anthropological materials were published. The passion for numerical indexes combined with a disregard for absolute values of characteristics and their substitution by different formulas often makes it impossible to use the quantitative materials on which the work of this school was based. Two major works summarizing the ethnic anthropology in Russia and the world and containing an anthropological classification were written by Ivanovskiy (1904, 1911). In these he broadly utilized the then available data on the physical anthropology of the peoples of northern Asia. However, the method of treatment of these materials and the nature of their publication diminish to a considerable extent the significance of the enormous labor expended by the writer of these extensive compilations.11 This applies also to some of his works on the anthropology of the peoples of Siberia and the Far East, published in the Zhurnal and elsewhere.12 Anthropological research on the peoples of Siberia and the Far East was also associated with the activities of the Society for Physical Anthropology, founded in 1893 as part of the Academy of Military Medicine in Petersburg. The head of this society was the eminent Russian anatomist A. I. Tarenetskiy, who is known particularly for his publication of several valuable works on the craniology of the Ainu, Gilyaks, and Aleuts (Tarenetskiy, 1890, 1893, 1900). In the number of skulls studied as well as in the theoretical approach, these craniological studies surpass previous attempts in this field. While Tarenetskiy had a number of forerunners in the study of Ainu crania, among them such famous investigators as Anuchin, Kopernitskiy, and Virchow, the craniological type of the Nivkhs (Gilyaks) was described by him for the first time. His materials consisted of a comparatively large series of 27 skulls. Besides detailed measurements, Tarenetskiy's work supplies very clear, though terse, characterizations of craniological types. They differ favorably from descriptions usually found in the works of anatomists, where descriptions important to physical anthropology are often omitted although numerous anatomical details are given. In general, the work of Tarenetskiy is distinguished by a broad treatment of anthropological problems. We shall return to these works later, when dealing with the peoples of the Amur region and Sakhalin; only some of the most significant general deductions of the author are mentioned now: such are, for instance, his conclusion that in physical type the Ainu are not only genetically unrelated to the "Caucasian" race, but also differ sharply from it morphologically; his demonstration of the pronounced "Mongolian" features in Gilyak skulls; his indications of considerable craniological differences between the Aleuts and the Eskimos—this despite their linguistic affinity—and many other important findings confirmed by later research.

16 Ethnie Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia As head of the Department of General Anatomy, Tarenetskiy encouraged the selection of anthropological subjects for the dissertations of those seeking a degree in the Academy of Military Medicine. Two of these dissertations deal with the physical anthropology of the Buryats ( Shendrikovskiy, 1894; Porotov, 1895). The only work on the Karagas in prerevolutionary literature was published in the Transactions of the Society for Physical Anthropology, Academy of Military Medicine (Zalesskiy, 1898). The theoretical level of the above-mentioned works is not high. Basically their contents amount to a discussion of the variations of physical traits with scant concern for general morphological questions and historical-ethnographic problems. Nevertheless, these works played a considerable role in the development of physical anthropology by drawing the attention of the medical world to anthropological problems and by providing the morphological characterization of numerous peoples that had not been investigated before. After the death of Tarenetskiy in 1905, anthropological research in the Academy of Military Medicine was discontinued. The anthropological center in Petersburg shifted to the university where, from 1906 on, anthropological studies were directed by F. K. Volkov. The scientific interest of Volkov and his assistants was in the ethnical anthropology of the Slavs. Despite this there emerged from this school several works on the peoples of northern Asia (Rudenko, 1914; Manizer, 1916). At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of 20th, anthropological research was also conducted in some other Russian cities besides Moscow and Petersburg, though on a more modest scale. At the University of Kazan, where N. M. Maliyev worked, an important craniological collection containing, among others, materials on peoples of Siberia was collected (Maliyev, 1888). A work on Vogul somatology was also authored by Maliyev ( 1901 ). S. M. Chugunov, a student of Maliyev who worked in Tomsk, published craniological and somatological materials on the Surgut Ostyaks ( 1890, 1893 ). He also studied a number of skeletons found in the ancient burial mounds of western Siberia and even excavated mounds to acquire osteological materials. His osteological works are notable for their formulation of general questions concerning the phylogenetic significance of different physical features and the desire to interrelate physical anthropological materials with historical data. In connection with the accumulation of materials on the physical anthropology of the peoples of northern Asia, the works of foreign authors should also be mentioned. These works concern mostly craniology. At different times, individual crania and small cranial series of the peoples of Siberia and the Far East found their way into foreign collections and were described by foreign anthropologists. Some of them also worked on craniological collections in our museums.13 Several foreign scientists also made somatological surveys in Siberia. One of the earliest anthropological publications on the peoples of northwestern Siberia was that of Sommier (Sommier, 1887). He studied the Ostyaks and the Samoyeds of the lower course of the Ob river in 1880. In the years preceding World War I, the Finnish anthropologist Hilden worked in the Altay region (Hilden, 1920); the Finnish ethnographer Kai Donner collected anthropological materials on the Selkups and the Kamasins which were later published by Hilden ( 1939). Some anthropological materials on the peoples of the Chukchi peninsula appeared in the American literature (Kroeber, 1909).

Physical Anthropology of Northern Asiatic Peoples

17

In 1916, summing up briefly the investigations in the field of ethnic anthropology in Russia, D. N. Anuchin wrote: If we consider everything that was collected in the discipline of physical anthropology by Russian investigators (and also that part collected in Russia by foreigners), we find that it resulted in an important number of observations concerning different peoples, periods, physical traits, variants, etc. Comparative studies of existing data from various regions, of series of peoples, or certain physical traits were also attempted—these are of interest because they summarize the data collected. Yet, they cannot be considered as having solved the problems under investigation. (Anuchin, 1916b, p. 13.) It must be remembered that most physical anthropological work was carried out by individual investigators, on their own initiative and often at their own expense, that anthropological work was centered primarily in general scientific societies, and that specialized institutions for physical anthropology were almost non-existent. Such a situation could not fail to affect anthropological research, especially in northern Asia, where it required the outfitting of special expeditions, entailed large expenditures, transportation difficulties, extended time schedules, etc.14 On the whole the level of anthropological research of the peoples of northern Asia remained extremely unsatisfactory. The materials on hand were from very unevenly represented territories. For many ethnic group anthropological data were completely lacking. Large empty areas remained, especially on the anthropological map of the Far East. There was an unsatisfactory development of anthropological methodology, a lack of agreement on a program—a lack which led to differences in the choice and definition of traits and considerably hampered the use of available data15—not to mention [the lack of] a methodological treatment of anthropological materials, the classification of racial types of northern Asia, and the use of anthropological data which would shed light on questions of ethnic history. The methodology of prerevolutionary research in physical anthropology reflected the general level of development of that period. Worst of all fared the study of paleo-anthropological materials. The anthropological study of aboriginal populations, so fruitfully started in our country by A. P. Bogdanov, did not enjoy further development, as we have already stated. This also affected the Siberian studies, and only a few publications ensued. Such are the works of Chugunov and of K. I. Goroshchenkov on the skulls from burial mounds of the Minusinsk region (Goroshchenkov, 1900), the investigations of Yu. D. Talko-Grintsevich on the craniology of the ancient population of TransBaykalia '(Talko-Grintsevich, 1903), and very few others.16 New paths and extended opportunities for the development of anthropology in our country opened after the October revolution. Already during the first years of the Soviet state there began a lively development of solidly based anthropological research, extensively financed by central and local institutions. Planned organization of this work, and the enlistment and training of new cadres, characterized this stage. In 1919, a chair of physical anthropology, and in 1922 the Science Research Institute, were established at Moscow University. At the same time, the anthropological work of the Academy of Sciences was expanded and new anthropological institutions appeared in different cities of our country. The beginning of systematic anthropological investigations in Siberia is closely connected with the name of A. I. Yarkho. While still a student, he started extensive anthropological investigations in the Altay-Sayan upland, sponsored by the

18 Ethnie Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia Society for the Study of the Urals, Siberia, and the Far East. In 192^-27, following a broad program, he investigated different Turkic-speaking groups of that territory—all the major tribes and territorial groups of the Altayans and the Khakas, as well as the Western Tuvins.17 Yarkho's investigations not only clarified for the first time the physical anthropology of the Altay-Sayan upland, but also became an important stage in the development of Soviet anthropology as a whole. In the process of research in the Altay and in Khakasia, conducted during the first years of his scientific activities, Yarkho developed many aspects of methodology and programming for the study of races and formulated theoretical propositions, which became the basis of most subsequent investigations in ethnic anthropology in our country. In its initial, as well as in later stages, the development of the physical anthropology of Siberia and the Far East progressed in close relationship with the development of ethnographic research. It expanded on a broad front soon after the end of the civil war and the liberation of Siberia and the Far East from White Guardists and the Interventionists. These investigations enormously enriched our literature by giving descriptions of the materials supplied, and partially solved many general questions on the ethnic history of the peoples of northern Asia; they stimulated anthropological work and presented anthropologists with new problems. Many of the ethnographic expeditions, supported by central and local institutions, also included the collecting of anthropological materials to some degree in their field-work. In 1926, an anthropological-ethnographic expedition, headed by V. V. Bunak, investigated the territory of the Tannu-Tuva Peoples Republic (Bunak, 1928; Yarkho, 1929b). Of great importance were the anthropological investigations of the Tungus expedition ( 1927-28 ) organized by the Museum of Ethnology and the Institute of Anthropology of the University of Moscow. This expedition supplied anthropological materials on the Orochs, the Oroks,* and the Sakhalin Nivkhs (A. N. Pokrovskiy) and on the Evenks of northern Cis-Baykalia ( Ya. Ya. Roginskiy andM. G. Levin). The somatological and craniological materials published by Roginskiy in 1934 played an important part in the development of our concepts of basic physical types of northern Asia18; they became a kind of "standard" which helped to single out the racial type which later received the name of "Paleo-Siberian" or "BaykaF in Soviet literature. In 1930-32, V. I. Levin and M. G. Levin, members of the Nogayevo Cultural Activities Center of the Committee of the North, f carried out for the first time anthropological investigations of the population of the Okhotsk seacoast. The materials collected revealed a number of distinctive features in the Lamut physical type in comparison with that of the Evenks on the Okhotsk coast (Levin, 1947a; Débets, 1934). In 1927-28, B. N. Vishnevskiy and his assistants conducted anthropological research on students in the School of Northern Studies in Leningrad who belonged to different peoples of northeastern Siberia. However, the small number of persons investigated in each group, and especially the way in which the materials have been presented in publication, greatly hamper their use for any kind of generalization.19 In the years just before World War II, expeditions conducted by the Institute *[The Orochs or Orokons live near the mouth of the Amur; the Oroks are a Sakhalin people. They have often been confused even in Russian literature.—Editor.] f Attached to the Presidium of V. Ts. I.K.

Physical Anthropology of Northern Asiatic Peoples 19 and Museum of Anthropology of Moscow State University collected materials on many peoples of northern Asia.20 However, the Far East remained untouched by these investigations. Some physical anthropological materials on different ethnic groups of the Amur region were collected by A. M. Zolotarev, who also conducted anthropological research in the course of his ethnographic work in the Cis-Amur region in 1936 and 1938.21 N. Komov and O. Komova, working as teachers in the Chukchi Cultural Activities Center, Committee of the North, in the early 1930's, studied a small group of Coastal Chukchi and Eskimos (Levin, 1936a). Before their departure for the North they had received preliminary training at the Anthropological Institute of Moscow State University. In the post-war years, anthropological research on the peoples of Siberia and the Far East was widened. It was carried out by expeditions of the Institute of Ethnography of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences.22 The Northeastern Expedition organized in 1945 was of greatest importance for the anthropological study of the peoples of the Far East. In 1945-47, G. F. Débets studied different groups of Eskimos, Chukchi, Koryaks, Lamuts, and Itelmens of the Kamchatka oblast. The investigations of the Northeastern Expedition, covering the extensive territory of the Chukot [Chukchi] and Kamchatka peninsulas, filled in one of the largest empty areas on the anthropological map of northern Asia ( Débets, 1946b, 1947b, 1949,1951a). The 1947 anthropological work on the lower Amur and Sakhalin was conducted in close co-operation with the investigations of the northeast. The Amur-Sakhalin expedition of the Institute of Ethnography, with G. F. Débets and M. G. Levin as participants, covered in its investigations different groups of Nivkhs of the lower Amur region and Sakhalin and also groups of Negidals, Ulchs, and Nanays. Materials on the Ainu and Japanese were collected in southern Sakhalin ( Levin, 1949a). A series of works on the craniology of the peoples of northern Asia, and in particular of the Far East, was also published in Soviet anthropological literature.23 The study of skeletal materials of different periods found in ancient burials started a new page in anthropological research in northern Asia. In Soviet times, craniological materials on the ancient population have been furnished by largescale archaeological works conducted by central and local scientific institutions in the different regions of Siberia and the Far East. Such were the excavations of S. A. Teploukhov and S. V. Kiselev in the Minusinsk basin, of M. P. Gryaznov and S. I. Rudenko in the Altay region, of A. P. Okladnikov in the Cis-Baykal, the upper reaches of the Lena river, and in Trans-Baykalia, and of G. P. Sosnovskiy in Trans-Baykalia. The well-dated and abundant skeletal materials of different eras obtained by Soviet archaeologists form a firm basis which, for the first time, can be used for the study of ancient populations of Siberia. The works of G. F. Débets, who is responsible for organizing large-scale investigations in the field of paleo-anthropology in the U.S.S.R., should be cited here among the first.24 Notwithstanding the considerable increase in anthropological information on the peoples of northern Asia during the last three decades, important gaps still exist. Almost totally lacking are physical anthropological data on the peoples of the Taymyr peninsula, on the Yukagirs, and on many groups of Events and Evens. Certain regional groups of the Yakuts are still insufficiently studied. The Koryaks of the eastern seacoast of Kamchatka were left out of the researches. There are no materials at all on the physical anthropology of the Udege, and the

20 Ethnie Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia Nanays have been insufficiently studied. No craniological materials exist for a large number of ethnic groups of northern Asia, and the absence of skeletal materials from ancient burials of the Far East remains an important gap. The search for paleo-anthropological materials in this territory is the imminent task of archaeological and anthropological investigations in the Far East. We have given here a concise sketch of the basic stages of growth in physical anthropological research among the peoples of Siberia and the Far East. Concurrently, and in close relationship with the increase in this research, come the study of general problems of racial classification for this region, and the study of the history of formation of the people, their dissemination, mixing, and so on. The development of views in this field of science has been most closely related to the solution of general methodological problems and has reflected to some extent the ideas predominant at one time or other in related disciplines—ethnography, archaeology, linguistics. In the fields of the above-mentioned disciplines, the 1930's are characterized by an insufficiently critical understanding of many theoretical assumptions of foreign science. This resulted in an infiltration into Soviet literature of alien, and at times incompatible, trends. During these years, a vogue for the use of formalistic methods in the investigation of different elements of material culture and a strong influence of the so-called school of "cultural circles" can be noted in ethnography and archaeology. In the field of ethnic anthropology, an insufficient maturity in theoretical thinking was displayed, in the main, in the absence of the historical approach to the study of racial types, in the acknowledgment ( at least practical) of the immutability of racial traits and their combinations, in the acceptance of constant parallelism between units of racial systematics on the one hand, and ethnic and linguistic classifications on the other. The attempt to revise the methodology of physical anthropology dates from the early 1930's. At that time, idealistic trends in the field of anthropology were subjected to criticism, the fight against the racist tendencies of bourgeois science was intensified, and methodological mistakes of the previous period were discovered. This critical reconsideration went hand in hand with the study of new theoretical principles, many of which in later years became the basis for investigations of Soviet anthropologists (Yarkho, 1932). These were, however, only the first steps in the revision of methodology. Then, the desire to rebuild physical anthropology on a new base could not be fulfilled because of the insufficient theoretical schooling of Soviet anthropologists. This was also the reason why anthropological work was affected by erroneous concepts. We shall not concern ourselves with the clearly incongruous assertions about the absence of general racial differences which penetrated into the literature at the time. These assertions, although they obviously did not originate with specialists, deserve mention, as they had some influence on several works of popular character. Yet, even in some of the specialized anthropological works of the 1930's there is reflected the influence of abstract sociologistic constructions. The criticism of "migrationism" as a system replacing the development of the theories of mass movements often resulted in a false tendency to ignore indisputably proved populational movements. An underestimation of the significance of solidly based historical conditions for the formation of physical types is reflected in the general survey works of that time. Setting as its main task the criticism of the "biologization" of the historical process and the theory of racial stability, some works of the period countered these false opinions only with abstract schemes.

Physical Anthropology of Northern Asiatic Peoples

21

Many anthropological works of the 1930's and 1940's reflected the influence of the theoretical principles of N. Ya. Marr's school of linguistics. Ethnic [racial] anthropology—a field which considers questions of the origin of physical types, the sources of the physical composition of modern aboriginal populations, a field where anthropological materials are used as a historical source to solve ethnogenetic problems—is most closely connected to linguistics as well as to archaeology and ethnography. The influence of Marr's school expressed itself not only in the adoption of certain assumptions from linguists, but also in an uncritical use by archaeologists, ethnographers, and historians of deductions based on these assumptions. In those works which attempted to tie the research data of physical anthropology to Marr's ethnogenetic concepts, concrete facts were often placed on the Procrustean bed of prejudiced concept. This applied particularly to those works which tried to co-ordinate the relationship between ancient and modern physical types of a given territory with linguistic deductions based on the methodology of Marr's school. Marr's teachings of the development of language in stages influenced not only the interpretation of ethnogenetic problems by physical anthropologists, but also the understanding of race genesis. This influence manifested itself particularly in a reappraisal of periodic variability in the history of specific racial types. It had one basic flaw: engrossed in the evaluation of differences between physical types as representing differences of periodization, anthropologists in many cases simplified the problem, refuting a priori other possible solutions. Later, in the section dealing with anthropological classifications, we shall find specific examples of the way in which these opinions have affected the interpretation of the physical types of Siberia and the Far East.

2. A Historical Survey of Racial Classifications Lacking the necessary materials, the authors of the first classifications of human races as well as anthropologists of the second half of the last century could not go beyond a generalized characterization of the peoples of northern Asia and consequently lumped them together into one anthropological type. Only the Eskimos occupied a special place in the classifications of these writers. Thus, Huxley distinguished the following variants within the main (great) Mongolian race: Mongolian, Polynesian, American, Eskimo, and Malayan. Topinard, both in the first edition of his classification and in its second version, again distinguished only two types in the population of eastern, central, and northern Asia—the Mongolian and the Eskimo (Topinard, 1878, 1885). Quatrefages, who recognized three basic stems—Negro, Yellow, and White—and several mixed races, distinguished the following branches within the Yellow stem: Siberian, Tibetan, Indo-Chinese, and American (Eskimo-Brazilian). The Oceanic (Japanese, Polynesian, Malayan) and the American peoples of North, Central, and South America were regarded as mixed races (Quatrefages, 1889). The first detailed classification of the physical types of northern Asia was made by I. E. Deniker. It is based not only on general descriptions but also on anthropological data, which however were far from complete. He distinguished 29 races in the world's population (Deniker, 1900).25 These he grouped into six basic types using their hair form and pigmentation as a basis of classification. In this

22 Ethnie Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia classification the following races are represented among the peoples of Siberia and the Far East: Ainu, Eskimo, Ugrian, Turkic or Turanian, and Mongolian. Of these races the Ainu alone are put into his group "E" characterized by straight or wavy black hair and dark eyes; this group also includes the Polynesian, Indonesian, and South American races. Besides the traits already mentioned, the Ainu race (preserved among the Ainu and forming a component of the population of northern Japan) is characterized by a light brownish skin color, heavy body hair growth, a broad concave nose, and dolichocephaly. The remaining races of northern Asia are assigned to group "F" ( characterized by straight hair), which also includes the North American, Central American, and Patagonian races. The Eskimo race is distinguished by a yellow-brownish skin, a round, flat face, short stature, and dolichocephaly. Its typical representatives are the Eskimos of eastern Greenland; an Eskimo race with Mongolian admixture is found among the Chukchi, Aleuts, and other peoples of northeast Asia. The Ugrian race includes two subraces: the Ugrian and Yeniseyan. The first is represented in the Ostyaks ( also among the western Finns ) ; the second includes the Siberian Samoyeds, the Kets, and different groups of the Altay-Sayan upland. The Ugrian race has a yellowish-white skin, a straight or concave nose, prominent cheekbones, and is distinguished by a short stature, and meso- or dolicho-cephaly. The Turkic (Turkic-Tatar or Turanian) race, though of the same skin color as the Ugrian,26 is characterized by a straight nose, medium height, and pronounced brachycephaly. In its purest aspect this race is found among the Kirgiz and, mixed with the northern Mongolian type, among the Yakuts. It also forms a component part of other Turkic-speaking groups—the Chuvash, Turkmens, Osmanli Turks. In Deniker's classification, the Mongolian race includes two subraces: the North Mongolian or Tungus and the South Mongolian. The Mongolian race as a whole is characterized by light yellow skin, prominent cheekbones, the so-called "Mongolian eye," and subbrachycephaly. The North Mongolian or Tungus subrace, as suggested by its name, includes different Tungus groups of Mongols, Buryats, Kalmuks, and also the population of Manchuria, Korea, and northern China. The South Mongolian subrace27 is represented by the populations of southern China and Indochina. This classification of Deniker played a very considerable role in the history of physical anthropology as a starting point for many subsequent classifications. This is especially true in respect to the physical types of northern Asia. We can but pay homage to Deniker's great erudition and talent when we consider that his work was done at a time when anthropological data on the peoples of Siberia and the Far East were highly fragmentary. As far as we know, Deniker was the first to single out the Ugrian race and note the physical similarity between the Ob Ugrians and the tribes of the Altay-Sayan upland—an opinion confirmed by subsequent research. He was also the first to describe the so-called Turanian race, still found under this or other names in modern classifications. Equally fruitful was his division of the Mongolian race into two variants or subraces, the North and South Mongolian. In subsequent years, among the summarizing works dealing with anthropological classifications of the peoples of northern Asia, the works of A. A. Ivanovskiy, already mentioned, are notable. Ivanovskiy's classification is based on the following traits: pigmentation, combination of hair and eye color, stature, cephalic index (calculated on the basis of the mid-sagittal diameter), head

Physical Anthropology of Northern Asiatic Peoples 23 height-length index, facial index (on the basis of the physiognomic height of the face), nasal index, trunk length (percentage of stature), circumference of the chest (also as percentage of stature), length of hands and feet (in percentage of body length). Each trait is divided into three or four categories, determined by the percentage of small, medium, and large numbers of the absolute measurement or index (the percentage of light-colored, short-statured, broad-headed, etc.). The categories are designated by the letters A, B, G, D and subdivided by lower-case letters, for example, a, ai, a2; b, bi, b2, etc. In comparing groups on the basis of particular traits, the "group difference," i.e., the difference between say, A and B, or B and C, is taken as a unit. The difference between subgroups is calculated as a fraction depending on the number of subgroups in each category— with two subgroups the difference between them is expressed as one-half of a "unit," with three as one-third. To determine the degree of similarity between peoples, a median difference based on the sum of the differences of all traits is calculated for the two groups being compared. Peoples showing greatest similarity form an "anthropological group." In Ivanovskiy's first book (1904), the peoples of Siberia and the Far East appear in the following anthropological groups: 1. Mongolian—the Samoyeds, Telengits, Buryats, Tungus (excluding the Northern Tungus studied by I. I. Maynov). Also included here are the Arbunsumuns, Kalmuk-Chakhars, Turfan-Kalmuks, Kuldzha and Tarbagatay Torguts, and Khalkhas. 2. Yakut—the Yakuts and North Tungus. 3. Ostyak—the Ostyaks (they reveal no particularly great resemblance to any other peoples). 4. Ainu—the Ainu. Because of insufficient data, a number of Siberian peoples were not classified. In his later work (1911), Ivanovskiy supplied additional information on the peoples of Russia, including Siberia and the Far East. The Tuvins [Tuvinians] were classified as Mongolian. The Ostyak and the Yakut groups remained unchanged. Though characterized in more detail, the Altay-Sayan peoples ( Beltirs, Kachins, Koybals, Kyzyls, and Sagays) as well as the peoples of northeastern Asia ( Eskimos, Chukchi, Koryaks, Yukagirs, and Lamuts ) were left out. The result itself proves the shortcomings of the method used for this classification. First, from the complex of traits were excluded such important factors of racial differentiation as the development of tertiary hair growth, hair form, structure of the ocular region, thickness of lips, degree of facial flatness, and some others. Second, the acceptance of a summation of differences without taking the taxonomic significance of traits into consideration generally hides and occasionally distorts the true correlation between the groups being compared.28 The classifications of Deniker and Ivanovskiy are based on morphological criteria. As indicated by Deniker, the order in which the races are listed in his scheme does not reflect their kinship but only the degree of their morphological similarity. Deniker does not discuss the question of taxonomic status among his races and types. These problems were reflected in the classifications of the Italian anthropologist Giuffrida-Ruggeri, who was next to develop a detailed systematization of northern Asiatic physical types. The problem of the taxonomic status of racial types in modern man received different interpretations in the literature published at the beginning of our century. Though the prevailing opinion was that modern mankind, from the viewpoint of zoological systematics, represents a single species

24 Ethnie Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia and that race is but a subdivision within this species, exactly opposite assertions were also voiced at the same time. Thus, the Italian anthropologist Sergi stubbornly evolved the thesis that, from the systematic point of view, large divisions of modern mankind represent genera(I), and their different subdivisions (secondary races), independent species (Sergi, 1911). GiuflFrida-Ruggeri came forward with a concept which was to a certain degree a compromise. He considered modern mankind as a "collective species" (Homo sapiens species collectiva) and distinguished eight basic species: (1) H. s. australis, (2) H. s. pygmaeus, (3) H. s. indo-africanus, (4) H. s. niger, (5) H. s. americanas, (6) H. s. asiaticus, (7) H. s. oceánicas, (8) H. s. indo-europaeus (GiuflFrida-Ruggeri, 1912, 191329). Within the basic species of H. s. asiaticus, which includes all Mongoloid groups of the Asiatic mainland, he distinguished four variants: Paleo-Arctic (H. s. asiaticus paleo-arcticus), Neo-Arctic (H. s. asiaticus neoarcticus), Mongolian (H. s. asiaticus mongolicus—subject to further subdivision), and Southern (H. s. asiaticus meridionalis). In a later work (1917), dealing specifically with the systematics of Asiatic physical types, GiuflFrida-Ruggeri presented a more detailed scheme.30 Proceeding from the combination of height and cephalic and nasal indexes31 he suggested the following classification of Asiatic Mongoloid types32: H. asiaticus (H. sinicus). Height: 1,612-1,676 mm, cephalic index: 79.3-80.2, nasal index: 72.9-79.0. H. asiaticus neo-arcticus. Height: 1,623-1,625 mm, cephalic index: 80.8-82.0, nasal index: 78.7. The Chukchi and Asiatic Eskimos [are representative of this type]. H. asiaticus paleo-arcticus. Height: 1,545-1,601 mm, cephalic index: 78.3-80.8, nasal index: 76.5-79.1 (Yukagirs, Koryaks, Kamchadals, Gizhiga Tungus, Anadyr Tungus, Kolyma Tungus, Orochs, Karagas, Ob Ostyaks, and Voguls. ) H. asiaticus paleo-arcticus brachimorphus. Height: 1,540-1,587 mm, cephalic index: 83.0-85.6, nasal index: 76.3-78.1. (Samoyeds, Western Tungus, Yenisey Ostyaks, and Soyots. ) H. asiaticus altaicus. Height: 1,597-1,626 mm, cephalic index: 79.5-82.7, nasal index: 71.2-78.9. (Beltirs, Kachins, Koybals, Sagays, Yakuts, and the Lebedins.) H. asiaticus centralis. Height: 1,614-1,684 mm, cephalic index: 84.3-87.0, nasal index: 71.7-80.5. ( Manchurians, Trans-Baykal Tungus, Khamnegans, Southern Tungus (after Maynov), Buryats, Mongol-Torgots, Kirgiz, Kazakhs, Taranchi, Khazars, Telengets [Teleuts].) H. asiaticus tibetanus. Height: 1,570-1,669 mm, cephalic index: 76.8-81.6, nasal index: 67.2-78.5. (Ladakhs, eastern Tibetans, Lepcha, and others.) H. asiaticus tibetanus brachimorphus. Height: 1,603-1,622 mm, cephalic index: 83.3-84.3, nasal index: 71.7-74.4. (The Changra of Tibet and the Limbu of Nepal. ) H. asiaticus protomorphus. Height: 1,550-1,635 mm, cephalic index: 75.9-80.8, nasal index: 84.0-95.0. (Khasi, Bodo, groups in southern China—Lisu, Miao, and others.) H. asiaticus meridionalis. Height: 1,559-1,649 mm, cephalic index: 82.7-85.5, nasal index: 86.3. (Burmese, Vietnamese, Laotians, Siamese.) GiuflFrida-Ruggeri assigns the Igorots, Malayans, Japanese, Koreans, Dungans, and Uzbeks to groups whose systematic position he considers unclear. The Ainu are singled out as a special variant of the Oceanic race (H. s. océaniens), which includes another variant, the Polynesian. This classification of the Asiatic Mongoloid types based on a combination of

Physical Anthropology of Northern Asiatic Peoples 25 height and cephalic and nasal indexes is in its greater part an example of an abstract scheme. In those points where Giuffrida-Ruggeri differs from Deniker, he digresses in most cases from the true correlation of physical types. Thus, the inclusion of the northeastern Paleo-Asiatics, a series of Tungus groups, and of Ob Ugrians into a single variant, the Paleo-Arctic, is not in accordance with the aggregate of anthropological facts, as we shall see later, and is contradictory to subsequent classifications which take into consideration such important taxonomic traits as pigmentation, peculiarities in the structure of the ocular region, dimensions and structure of the face, and so on. The Koryaks, Anadyr Tungus, and Voguls, in particular, included in one of Giuffrida-Ruggeri's variants, may be viewed as typical representatives of three distinct races of northern Asia in the light of modern anthropological findings. Deniker singled out the Turkic (Turanian) race, which possesses less-marked Mongoloid features, and ascribed to it the Kirgiz, a classification confirmed by subsequent investigations. In Giuffrida-Ruggerfs classification this race found no place, and the Kirgiz as well as the Kazakhs were arbitrarily assigned to one variant together with the Buryats and other brachycephalic Mongoloid types. In this same variant (H. asiaticus centralis) were also included the Manchurians, completely separated by Giuffrida-Ruggeri from the Chinese and other Mongoloids of the Far East. Deniker related the tribes of the Altay-Sayan uplands to the Ob Ugrians; Giuffrida-Ruggeri assigned them to diverse variants, including without any ground whatsoever the Yakuts in the Altayan variant (H. asiaticus altaicus). The Taranchi, distinguished by prevalently Europoid traits, were quite erroneously included in the Central Asiatic variant. The classification of Haddon ( Haddon, 1925 ) drew a wide response in foreign literature. This classification distinguishes three main stems based on the form of hair; within each stem the cephalic index is then used to establish the next [subordinate] unit. In accordance with this principle, the straight-haired races of Asia and America are classified as follows: the dolichocephals (the Eskimo group); the mesocephals [containing] the Paleo-Arctic (Ugrian or Paleo-Asiatic) group, the Chinese group (sinicus) and the Northern Amerinds; the brachycephals [containing] the Turkic group (Turki), the central (Tungus or Mongol) group, the South Mongoloid group, the Polynesians, the Neo-Amerinds, the Tehuelche, and the Amerinds of the Northwest Coast. The peoples of northern Asia, with the exception of the Eskimos, belong to the Paleo-Arctic, Turkic, and Central groups. First, Haddon includes in the Paleo-Arctic group the mesocephalic variants—Kamchadals, Karagas, Koryaks, Kolyma and Anadyr Tungus, Yukagirs, Orochs, Ob Ostyaks, and the North Voguls—and second, the more pronounced brachycephalic variants—Samoyeds, Lapps, Western Tungus, Yenisey Ostyaks (Kets—Author), Soyots (Tuvins— Author), and possibly also the Chukchi and Gilyaks. According to Haddon the "Paleo-Arctics" are characterized by the following morphologic traits: the color of hair varies from black to fair, the skin is yellowishwhite or yellowish-brown, the beard is scant, the stature is short or medium, there is platycephaly, the cheekbones are the prominent, the eyes slanting, and the nose straight or concave. The Turkic group is separated into "Eastern" representatives (the Yakuts), "Central" (the Kirgiz, Kazakhs, and Uzbeks), and "Western" (the Turkmen and Osmanli-Turks). This group also includes the Ogus [Ghuz], Uygurs, Bolgars [Bulgars], and Magyars. Haddon's "Turks" are characterized by dark hair, yellowish-white skin shading

26 Ethnie Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia into brownish tints, medium or tall stature (with a tendency to stoutness), marked brachycephaly, high-vaulted cranium, elongated oval face, straight sometimes prominent nose, dark eyes, absence of Mongoloid traits in the eyelid, and thick lips. The Central (Tungus or Mongol) group includes the Manchus [Manchurians], Trans-Baykal Tungus, Buryats, Mongols, Kalmuks, East Turkestan Taranchi, Torgots, Telengets [Teleuts], and Afghan Khazars. This group has the following traits: the hair is black, wiry, and straight, the facial and body hair growth is very sparse, the skin is yellow or yellow-brownish, the height medium, the head is usually platycephalic, the face broad and flat with prominent cheekbones, the nose root low, the nose generally mesorrhine, the nostrils wide, the eyes of various dark brown shades, the Mongoloid character of the ocular region is usually well defined, but the axis of the eye slit is often straight, the ears protruding. Haddon's classification is similar to other attempts to systematize the anthropological types of northern Asia in that it reflects to a certain extent an insufficient study of the peoples of Siberia and, even more, the author's poor acquaintance with the works of Russian investigators. Even when compared with previous classifications (particularly with Deniker's, from whom Haddon borrowed a great deal), it reveals to a degree a step backward, especially in its systematics of the physical types of Siberia and the Far East. It reveals with particular clarity the drawbacks of the very principle of a systematization based on the cephalic index. The influence of a linguistic grouping of peoples is also apparent. Because of it he classifies without any [other apparent] reason the Yakuts, Uzbeks, and Osmanli-Turks as one type. Completely unfounded and deeply erroneous is his inclusion of the peoples of western Siberia as well as the Chukchi, Koryaks, Itelmens, and Gilyaks into a single "Paleo-Arctic" group. Giuffrida-Ruggeri's classification separated the Chinese from the Mongoloids of northern Asia. Even here Haddon missed the course indicated and linked them again on the basis of the cephalic index. In this survey of anthropological types of northern Asia set forth by different writers, Montándonos work on the craniology of some of the peoples of the Far East, which presents a classification of Paleo-Asiatics, should be noted (Montandon, 1926). The author had at his disposal only a small number of ethnically poorly analyzed skulls. However, this did not deter him from making broad and totally unfounded deductions. Among the peoples of the Paleo-Asiatic group, Montandon distinguishes several basic types ("branches" according to his terminology). The Eskimo branch in its purest form is represented by the Eskimos, although the Chukchis are also included. The Ainu branch is typically represented by the Ainu although it is also revealed in varied degrees in the Kamchadals, Koryaks, Yukagirs, and Chukchi. The Mongol branch in its Gilyak-Aleut variant is best seen among the Gilyaks and Aleuts, yet it can also be traced in the Kamchadals, Koryaks, and Chukchi; the Tungus variant of this branch appears as one component in the racial composition of the Chukchi, Yukagirs, Koryaks, and Kamchadals. Besides the already mentioned basic types (branches), some secondary components appear among the peoples of the Paleo-Asiatic group: the American branch among the Chukchi and to a lesser degree among the Koryaks, Yukagirs, and Kamchadals, and the Negroid branch among the Ainu. A division into basic branches—Eskimo, Ainu, and Mongol—cannot be objected to; however, in this, Montándonos scheme contains nothing original.

Physical Anthropology of Northern Asiatic Peoples 27 The singling-out of the Gilyak-Aleut type is not corroborated by any convincing arguments and is in a final analysis based only on the cephalic index. As we shall see later, this deduction cannot be upheld. The diffusion of different physical types among the ethnic groups of the Far East as described by Montandon remains likewise unsubstantiated. He does not produce and could not produce any argument to favor his assertion that, for example, the Ainu type is present in the Yukagirs as one of their racial components; that, in the Chukchi, the Ainu, Gilyak-Aleut, Tungus, and American types are present in addition to the Eskimo type, and so on. This early work of Montandon does not reflect his concept of hologenesis, a theory he proposed somewhat later. It is not difficult, however, to trace it even in the style of this writer—a disregard of facts and superficiality which became even more apparent in his later writings. An analysis of Montandon's theoretical views which attempt to apply to anthropology and ethnography the theory of hologenesis suggested by the Italian biologist Rosa would lead us too far away from our subject (cf. Gramyatskiy, 1934; Tolstov, 1938). We shall pause only momentarily to consider the influence of these views in the classification of human races; they are set forth by Montandon in his summarizing works (Montandon, 1928, 1933). Human races are divided by Montandon into so-called fast-maturing [precocious] but primitive races and slowly maturing races which followed a slower, more protracted, but progressive course of development. To the first he assigns five great races: the Pygmoid, Tasmanoid, Veddoid-Australoid, Amerindoid, and Eskimoid; to the second or progressive races belong the Negroid, Mongoloid, and Europoid. In his scheme of human classification Montandon puts the Pygmies at the bottom of the human lineage while the great Europoid race appears as the crown of creation.33 The Ainu race appears within the Europoid race as a precocious branch of a primitive type. The great Mongoloid race includes the following races; Paleo-Amerindian, Neo-Amerindian, Eskimo, Paleosiberian, Mongolian, and Turanian. In the great Mongoloid race the Eskimo race is assigned the place of a fast-maturing branch; in comparison with other Mongoloid races it possesses, according to Montandon, primitive features (Montandon, 1933, p. 200). The Paleosiberian race includes three groups: the West Paleosiberians ( Voguls, Ostyaks, and Paleo-Altayans ), the East Paleosiberians (Kamchadals, Koryaks, Yukagirs, Chuvans, and Chukchi), and the Central Paleosiberians (Yeniseyans or Kets ). The Paleosiberian race is defined by Montandon as an intermediate, metis [mixed] race. It is the product of an ancient mixture of Mongoloid types with ancient Europoids of Siberia, i.e., those Proto-Nordic elements which must be considered ancestral to the northern races of Europe and to the Ainu race. An Amerindian racial component, very ancient on the Asiatic mainland, is also observable in the composition of the Paleosiberian race. All these componentsMongoloid, Europoid, Amerindoid—are present in the composition of the West, East, and Central Paleosiberians as well; Europoid traits, Montandon maintains, appear very distinctly in the East Paleosiberians, whose kinship with the OstyakVoguls is undeniable. As the Mongoloid components present in the Paleosiberian race became in time predominant, the Paleosiberians are included among the Mongoloid races. The Ainu preserved their Europoid traits and must be unreservedly classified as a European race (Montandon, 1933, pp. 205-221). The Mongolian race [a subdivision of the great Mongolian race] includes the following subraces: the Tungus, North Mongolian, Sinid (North Chinese), and Cis-Oriental (those of South China and Indochina).34 The Tungus subrace is

28 Ethnie Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia divided into two somatic groups: the Northeastern, characterized by brownyellowish skin, short stature, mesocephaly (cephalic index 81.4), moderately prominent cheekbones; and the Southwestern, notable for its markedly yellowish skin, medium stature, subbrachycephaly (cephalic index 82.7), and more prominent cheekbones. According to Montandon, the Tungus display less-pronounced Mongoloid facial traits than other representatives of the Mongolian race (Montandon, 1933, pp. 225-226). Even though Montandon refers to Maynov in his description of the Tungus, his classification remains schematic. Moreover, there is no basis for his characterization of the Tungus type. Indeed, this applies also to other types in Montándonos classification, especially to his characterization of the Paleosiberian race. The North Mongolian subrace embraces a series of so-called somatic groups: the Mongolian group proper (Mongols, Buryats, Kalmuks), the Manchurian, Korean, Gilyak-Aleut, and Sayan-Samoyed groups (Soyots, Kamasins, Karagas, and Samoyeds). Montandon insists particularly on uniting the Gilyaks and the Aleuts; he considers the pronounced tapeinocephaly, the extreme flatness of the nasal root, and the weak development of the skull relief as characteristic traits of their craniological type. As we have already mentioned, the principal source for these assumptions was a small number of skulls which happened to be in his possession.35 In Montandon's classification, Koreans and Manchus are separated from North Koreans and united with Central Asiatic Mongoloids—a conclusion which once again leads the physical anthropologist astray. The characterizations of the Sinid and "Cis-Oriental" subraces offer nothing original and therefore we shall not dwell on them. Of later classifications the most cited in foreign literature was Eickstedt's (Eickstedt, 1934). We do not intend to examine here the general theoretical formulations of this writer; these, which clearly bear the stamp of racism, have already been dealt with in Soviet anthropological literature (Débets, 1935a). Besides, we shall return later to a critical analysis of them. At present, we shall limit ourselves only to specific problems of classification. Eickstedt adopts a division into three basic stems. In his own terminology, they are the Europids, Negrids, and Mongolids. Within each stem he distinguishes basic races (racial circles), lateral races, isolated forms, and intermediate or ancient forms. In accordance with his- concept, Eickstedt's classification of the principal Mongolid stem includes the Mongoloid "racial circle," the lateral Indid (American) races, the Eskimid isolated form, and the Khoisanid ancient form (Bushmen race). Within the Mongoloid racial stem Eickstedt distinguishes four races: the Tungid (or North Mongoloid), the Sibirid, the Sinid, and the Paleomongolid. The first two are distributed over northern Asia; besides these the following races are also represented here: the Turanid, Ainuid, and Eskimid. If we disregard the completely arbitrary inclusion of the Bushmen36 in the Mongoloid racial stem, it becomes apparent that Eickstedt's classification of Mongoloid types does not differ much from the previously discussed ones of Haddon and Montandon. Although Eickstedt had more material at his disposal and his characterizations are more extensive and detailed, he not only repeats some of the erroneous assertions of the previous classifications but, proceeding from a defective general position, he often aggravates them.

Physical Anthropology of Northern Asiatic Peoples 29

FIGURE 1. Distribution of the Mongoloid racial types of Asia. After Eickstedt.

30 Ethnie Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia Let us consider first Eickstedt's so-called Sibirid race. It corresponds on the whole to Haddon's Paleo-Arctic group (the Paleo-Arctics). According to Eickstedt, this race inhabits the northern margins of Asia and includes the KomiZyryans, Komi-Permyaks, and Udmurts in the west and the Chukchis in the east. As typical representatives of the west Sibirids he names the Voguls, Ostyaks, and Kets; he finds elements of this race in the Kachins,* Beltirs, Koybals, Kyzyls, and finally in the Samoyeds, who also reveal an admixture of the Lappoid type. Farther east some traits of this race appear, according to Eickstedt, in the Tungus, Lamuts, Yukagirs, and Karagas. Typical East Sibirids are the Itelmens and to a large extent also the Koryaks and the Chukchis; the Koryaks show a strong admixture of Tungid, the eastern Chukchis of Eskimid and even of the American races (Indids). The Sibirid race is considered by Eickstedt a "contact form" between the Europoid and Mongoloid "racial circles" resulting from the Mongolization of an ancient Europoid type. In the past the Sibirids were widely disseminated, and they were displaced and to a great extent absorbed by a later wave of Tungids, whom, in accordance with his general concepts, the author endows with traits of unusual activity and whom he includes among the dynamic races. All of Eickstedt's formulations point to his very obvious belief that, in ancient times, Siberia was an area of Europoid habitation with the Ainu as the marginal eastern branch; he considers the Sibirids as the link between the Europoids of eastern Europe and the Ainu. The characterization given by Eickstedt for the Sibirids—he stresses particularly the depigmentation—generally agrees with the differentiating traits of Deniker's Uralic race. This is correct in the case of the Western Sibirids but when Eickstedt attributes these characteristics to all Sibirids he distorts the facts. No mixtures with a supposedly [in the past] single type can account for the dissimilarities between the Khanty and the Chukchis; no signs of depigmentation or other Europoid traits, if we exclude a later Russian admixture, can be found in the "East Sibirids" (Itelmens, Chukchis, Koryaks), unless we sacrifice factual anthropological material for the sake of a preconceived idea. Eickstedt's category of a "Sibirid race" is as unwarranted as Haddon's "Paleo-Arctic" groups, whom Eickstedt follows when dealing with this question. The Tungids or North Mongoloids, as they are also designated by Eickstedt, are characterized by him as follows: extreme short-headedness, medium or somewhat above medium height, black wiry hair, sparse tertiary hair, skin color of yellowish shades, a pronounced epicanthic fold, broad and flat face, low and very broad nasal root, sloping forehead, mesorrhiny, thick lips (on the average thicker than the Europoid's ), a markedly prominent chin. Among the Tungids Eickstedt distinguishes three subgroups: the Gilyak-Aleut, Mongol, and Tungus; the last represents a transition towards the Sinids and forms the main racial nucleus of the Manchus and Tungus. The Northern Tungus are considered the product of a mixture of ancient Sibirids and Tungids who migrated from the south, i.e., from Central Asia (Eickstedt, 1934, pp. 192-197). In this part, too, Eickstedt's classification is not very original; basically he repeats Montandon's scheme. We have mentioned already the groundless category of a Gilyak-Aleut type, which Eickstedt accepts without argument. A physical type very characteristic of the Northern Tungus, which, as we will see later, shows no improvement as far as Eickstedt's Sinids are concerned, has not found its place in a classification. *[A division of the Khakas.-Editor.]

Physical Anthropology of Northern Asiatic Peoples

31

As for all of his assertions concerning the peoples of Siberia, Eickstedt's assertions of the presence of "Sibirid" components in the formation of the Tungus are arbitrary. Classifying the Tungus and the Manchus as one type is also deeply erroneous. As will be shown later, typologically the Manchus (and Koreans) are akin to the North Chinese (Eickstedt's Sinids) and differ sharply from the Tungus as well as from the Mongol types. Also, completely unsubstantiated are Eickstedt's assumptions about the areas of formation and the course of diffusion of the physical types of northern Asia. Eickstedt's Turanid race is represented in Siberia among the peoples of the Altay region. This race, he writes, corresponds in his classification to Deniker's Turkic-Tatar (or Turanian) race and to Haddon's "Turkic" (Eickstedt, 1934, pp. 169-174). This is inexact. In contrast to the authors he mentions, Eickstedt includes among the "Turanids" the Mountain Tadzhiks and the Pamir tribes, thus unifying different types—Haddon's "Turkic" and Pamir races. Eickstedt includes the Turanid race in the "circle" of Europoid races, which once again sets him apart from Deniker and Haddon. This part of Eickstedt's classification is doubtless a step backward. Whatever may be the decision on the place of the Pamir racial type within a system of Europoid races, its definite morphological differences from Deniker's Turanian race (whose characteristic representatives are the Kazakhs) are beyond doubt. Also, there hardly can be doubt about the different origins of these racial types. An important part of Eickstedt's work deals with the Ainuid race. He includes the Ainus unreservedly in the Europoid races and considers them the extreme eastern wing of ancient Europoids, who were once, as he assures us, spread over all of Siberia. He attempts to detect traces of these ancient Europoid types, who were later absorbed or displaced by Mongoloids, among the various modern peoples of Siberia. Eickstedt denies any connections between the Ainu and the island world of southeastern Asia. We shall not analyze here Eickstedt's views on this question. Their untenability will be discussed in the chapter dealing specifically with the Ainu problem. Eickstedt's work, published some twenty years ago, would not be deserving of such a detailed analysis if his classification had not attained so wide a dissemination. Eickstedt's classification also influenced the definitive work of the well-known Italian anthropologist Biasutti (Biasutti, 1941). Within the Mongoloid branch Biasutti distinguishes two groups, the Paleomorphic and Neomorphic. The Paleomorphic includes two races, the Sibirid and the Tibetan. Within the Neomorphic, two subgroups are distinguished, the Neo-Arctic and Asiatic. The first is represented by the Eskimo race; the second includes the following races: (1) the Tungid with two variants, the Tungus and Central Asiatic; (2) the Sinid with four subraces, the North, Central, South, and Korean; (3) the South Mongoloid (corresponding in full to Eickstedt's Paleomongoloid race). Unlike Eickstedt, Biasutti includes the Uralian race in the Paleomorphic group of the Europoid branch (together with the Ainu and Lapp races). In his classification the Sibirid race corresponds to Eickstedt's East Sibirids but at the same time Biasutti detects representatives of the Sibirid race also in northwestern Siberia. In the second edition of his work Biasutti presents a different classificatory scheme (Biasutti, 1953-54). The Mongoloid branch is divided into three groups: the Premongolid, Mongolid, and Eskimid. The first includes three races: the Paleosiberian, Tibetan, and Punan ( in the interior regions of Indonesia and Indochina). The Mongolids comprise the Tungus, Chinese, and South Mongoloid

32 Ethnic Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia

FIGURE 2. The races of Asia. After Biasutti.

Physical Anthropology of Northern Asiatic Peoples

33

races. The Uralian and Ainu races are included in the Pre-Europoid group of the Europoid branch. On the whole both of Biasutti's schemes are close to Eickstedt's. His later classification is used in recent foreign ethnological summaries ( Lundman, 1952 ). Eickstedt's classification, as reviewed above, was repeated in approximately the same version in his later works, among them the first volume of Historia Mundi published in Bern in 1952.37 This work clearly indicates the stubborn unwillingness of its authors to acknowledge the achievements of Soviet science and the urge to ignore all that was accomplished by Soviet investigators. This applies in full measure to Eickstedt, who has closed the door which could have led to the proficient use of Siberian anthropological materials. Without these no scientific classification of Mongoloid types can be constructed. In Soviet literature the first detailed classification of the physical types of northern Asia is that of Débets (Débets, 1930). Sharing the prevailing idea of the time about the great taxonomical significance of the cephalic index and lacking sufficient materials for a critical examination of the classifications set forth in the literature, Débets tried to co-ordinate the schemes of different scientists. He united the dolichocephalic Tungus, Voguls, and Ostyaks, and also the Eskimos in one Paleosiberian variant.38 The brachycephalic groups of Siberia and in Far East were assigned to the Central Asiatic type after Yarkho's classification. The Ainus were connected with the Europoid type.39 From the point of view of a modern investigator the basic shortcomings of this scheme are obvious.40 For its time, however, and in comparison with classifications of foreign authors it represented a considerable advance, especially in its treatment of the differentiation and characterization of the more fractional subdivisions within the races. Its weakest point was the inclusion of the Gilyaks, Orochs, Aleuts, and Tlingits in a single Pacific type. In this Débets followed Montandon's classification. We have mentioned earlier the importance of A. I. Yarkho's works in the development of Soviet physical anthropology. His analysis of the classifications of Mongoloid types was especially of great importance. On the basis of his extensive investigations in the Altay-Sayan upland, Yarkho distinguished three basic racial types in this territory: (1) the North Asiatic or Ural-Altayan, (2) the Central Asiatic or Sayan, (3) the South Siberian or Altayan. In his works (1930; 1947, pp. 124-125), he characterizes them as shown in the table [on p. 34]. These three types Yarkho considered independent variants of the great Mongoloid race and he thought the presence of a Europoid component in the formation of the physical types of the Altay-Sayan upland unlikely. Noting such distinctive characteristics of the North Asiatic and South Siberian racial types as depigmentation, decreased frequency of epicanthus, less pronounced upper eyelid fold, a greater prominence of the nose, Yarkho stubbornly defended the concept of an independent, parallel development of "Europoid" traits among the peoples of the Altay-Sayan upland and especially an independent origin of the depigmentation, unrelated to European admixture. In the years of Yarkho's investigations, paleoanthropological materials from southern Siberia were still quite scarce.41 The assumption of an ancient Europoid population in the Minusinsk basin and territories contiguous to it is based mainly on the interpretation of early Chinese information on the Dinlins. This received in many works a racist interpretation, as in that of G. E. Grum-Grzhimaylo. The controversial character assumed in these circumstances by Yarkho in his work influenced to a considerable degree

34 Ethnie Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia North Asiatic or Ural-Altayan type Medium- to long-headed Index: 78-79 Longitudinal diameter: 190-192 Transverse diameter: 149-151 Comparatively narrow face: 142-143; narrowing, oval Forehead of medium inclination Weak browridge Narrow to medium nasal breadth Indexes: 68-75, 60-67 Prominent nose with a straight or concave profile Epicanthus infrequent (15-20%) Medial and distal fold well developed Lips less than medium thickness Straight and mostly soft hair Frequent depigmentation

Central Asiatic or Sayan type Broad, short-headed. Euribrachycephaly or subbrachycephaly Index: 80-86 Longitudinal diameter: 188-190 Transverse diameter: 157-160 Broad, long face: 148-151; mostly round or pentagonal; flat Forehead tends to be vertical Weak browridge Narrow or medium nasal breadth Indexes: 68-76, 61-65 Poorly outlined nose presenting almost no prominence in the flatness of the face Frequent epicanthus Pronounced fold equally developed in its entire length Lips more than medium thickness; very high Wiry hair Dark pigmentation; usually color No. 27

South Siberian or Altayan type Broad-headed or shortheaded Index: 84-86 Longitudinal diameter: 187-189 Transverse diameter: 159-161 Broad, long face: 150-152; because of its length it does not appear very wide; frequently oval Sloping forehead Prominent browridge Narrow nasal breadth ; long and narrow nose Indexes: 66-69, 56-61 Prominent nose; sharply outlined Rare epicanthus Fold developed in its entire length, less so medially Lips less than medium thickness Straight, often wiry hair Partial depigmentation

his treatment of the origin of Europoid traits among peoples of southern Siberia. After challenging the views of Grum-Grzhimaylo and others, Yarkho favored a denial of the role of an ancient Europoid population in the formation of the physical types in the territories under discussion.42 The position taken by Yarkho affected the characterization of the physical types evolved by him. For example, an essential trait that differentiates the Mongoloids and Europoids—tertiary hair growth—is lacking in his characterizations.43 Basically he focused his attention on the shape and relief of the brain case. Subsequent studies carried out by Soviet anthropologists, particularly of the racial systematics of northern Asia, were considerably influenced by the work of Yarkho. The types distinguished by him in the Altay-Sayan upland received an extended interpretation as basic systematic categories for Siberia as a whole. At this time, the influence of this scheme shows strongly in the works of G. F. Débets, M. G. Levin, T. A. Trofimova, N. N. Cheboksarov, and others. In following Yarkho, peculiarities of the cranial structure were accepted as decisive characteristics diagnostic of Mongoloid types. These were the cephalic index,

Physical Anthropology of Northern Asiatic Peoples 35 the degree of inclination of the forehead, the degree of development of the browridge. Such features of the South Siberian type as a more prominent nose and a heavier development of tertiary hair—in comparison with the central Asiatic type—were interpreted as having occurred independently of Europoid admixture. As a consequence of such an approach to the evaluation of the various traits and of questions of systematization generally, any craniological series, Mongoloid in type, characterized by brachycranialism, inclined forehead, and strongly developed browridge, was ascribed, regardless of territory or chronological dating, to the South Siberian type. In investigations of the living, the combination of these characteristic of skull structure with a heavier beard also formed a sufficient criterion to include any Mongoloid group of Siberia and the Far East in this South Siberian type. Thus, in Débets' work dealing with the physical anthropology of the peoples of the Soviet North, the following are included in the South Siberian type: the Kets (on the basis of the shape of the forehead and nasal root), the Nivkhs and Chukchis (on the basis of tertiary hair development), and even the Indians of the Pacific Coast of North America (Débets, 1934). This same approach influenced also our work on the craniology of the Orochs, who on the basis of their skull structure were assigned to the Central Asiatic type, as its Pacific variant (Levin, 1936b). N. N. Cheboksarov, in his work on the somatology of the Kalmuks (Cheboksarov, 1935), and M. G. Levin and T. A. Trofimova, in their study of Kalmuk craniology (Levin and Trofimova, 1937), proceeded from the same criteria. Numerous other works which were influenced, to varying degrees, by this approach could be cited. These principles of systematization of Mongoloid types, originating with Yarkho and receiving wide acceptance, were reflected in the table of racial classifications given in the text book Antropologiya ( Bunak, Nesturkh, Roginskiy, 1941, pp. 192295). The following secondary races are distinguished within the great Mongoloid race: the Eskimo, the American races, the Manchu-Korean (Daurian), North Chinese, South Asiatic (South Mongolian), Central Asiatic (North Mongolian), South Siberian (Turkic, Turanian), Paleosiberian, Ural-Altayan (Ugrian, Uralian, Paleo-Arctic). The last four races are representative of the peoples of northern Asia. Listed as typical representatives of the Central Asiatic race are the Kemchik (western) Tuvins, the Buryats, and Kalmuks. In its mixed form this race is seen in the Yakuts, the peoples of the Altay region, and the Tungus, particularly the Southern Tungus. The Arctic (e.g., the Samoyed) and Pacific (Oroch) types are listed as variants of the Central Asiatic race. The Kazakhs, Kirghiz, and Telengets are cited as typical representatives of the South Siberian race; in a hybrid form it appears in the Yakuts and some Mongol tribes. As variants of the South Siberian race, the table lists the Yeniseyan (e.g., the Kets) and the Pacific (Chukchis). The Paleosiberian race is represented by the Tungus of the northern Cis-Baykal and the Lamuts. The Ural-Altayan race is distributed over western Siberia. Its characteristic representatives are the Voguls, ethnic groups of the northern Altay (the Shors) and Khakasia (the Beltirs and Sagays); in its hybrid form it appears in the Ostyaks. A variety of this race, the Sub-Uralian type, possesses Europoid traits and spreads also beyond the borders of Siberia (e.g., the Mari and Chuvash). Earlier we had mentioned that in his works Yarkho proceeded from the thesis that ancient Europoid components were absent in the physical type of the Altay-Sayan upland and that the races of southern Siberia developed indepen-

36 Ethnie Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia dently of Europoid admixture. This thesis is inseparable from his concept of a [monophyletic] phasic character of traits and their complexes. He wrote: If we consider the Altay-Sayan material from the point of view of monophyletic evolution, many facts will appear in a different, broader light. Instead of considering the Altay-Kizhi, who show a puzzling combination of very thin lips and vertical forehead, a product of hybridization, it will be simpler to regard them (as well as other tribes who occupy an intermediate position between the South Siberians and Central Asiatics) as transitional, monophyletic forms, that is, the presence of Central Asiatic traits in the Kazakhs should be explained not as a mixture with the Mongols but as vestiges of a past phase, and so on. . . . Morphologically, the Central Asiatic type appears more protomorphic and closer to the root stock of South Asian Mongoloids. The other two types, as well as numerous Americanoids, while of general Mongoloid origin are characterized by specialized traits. (Yarkho, 1947, p. 139.)

This phasic approach was adopted and developed by Débets (Débets, 1935b), Cheboksarov ( Cheboksarov, 1935), and several other anthropologists. "Facts compel us to see in the South Siberian and Central Asiatic complexes," wrote Cheboksarov, "not so much independent, morphologically sharply defined 'races' as specific evolutionary trends manifested in all areas of formation of brachycranial Mongoloids and mutually tied to the very process of their origin" ( Cheboksarov, 1935, p. 59 ). The assumption of a lesser differentiation ( greater neutrality ) of morphological traits in ancient physical types in comparison with modern is widespread in Soviet literature. The available data suggest that racial types of the Upper Paleolithic of Asia, Europe, and Africa were less unlike each other than are the modern Mongoloids, Europoids, and Negroids. The characteristics of the Upper Paleolithic skulls from the Chou-kou-tien cave in China, in particular, should be considered in this light. Roginskiy convincingly argues for the unequal chronological remoteness of the various Mongoloid traits, among them the comparatively late appearance of such a characteristic trait as epicanthus (Roginskiy, 1937). The analysis of physical traits in accord with this scheme, and the clarification of their chronological appearance and developmental stages, constitute an important task for anthropology. At the same time it must be admitted that in many works the monophyletic concept received an unnaturally wide and erroneous interpretation. This also applies to the above-mentioned problem of formation of physical types in Siberia. Materials on Soviet physical anthropology accumulated during recent years have made a critical re-examination of these theories possible (see Levin, 1954c). Yarkho denied, as we have noted, the mixed origin of the Ural-Altayan type. An earlier similar proposal was set forth by V. V. Bunak. The Uralian type, which occupies in many respects an intermediate position between Europoids and Mongoloids, was considered by Bunak as an ancient, undifferentiated type—an ancestral source for the formation of the Mongoloid and Europoid variants. In his latest work Bunak still adheres to this idea (Bunak, 1956). At one time, Débets also shared this point of view and considered the Volga-Kama types as undifferentiated forms. Later he emphatically renounced this concept (Débets, 1951a, p. 66). At present, the mixed origin of the Uralian type—its formation resulting from an ancient intermingling of Europoid and Mongoloid types—is acknowledged by the majority of Soviet anthropologists (Cheboksarov, 1951; Débets, Trofimova, and Cheboksarov, 1951; Levin, 1951; Débets, 1951a).

Physical Anthropology of Northern Asiatic Peoples 37 The question of the South Siberian type is now viewed also in a different light. Today, its mixed ethnic origin can hardly be doubted. Paleo-anthropological investigations of V. V. Ginzburg and G. F. Débets enabled the determination of a wide distribution of ancient, pronounced Europoid types on the territories of southern Siberia, Kazakhstan, and Central Asia, types that were already predominant there in the first millennium B.C. In particular, materials found in Kazakhstan helped to trace the replacement of an ancient Europoid type with a short and very broad face (the Andronovo type) by later Mongoloid types, as well as successive stages of remote Europoid and Mongoloid intermingling which produced the South Siberian type of the present-day Kazakhs (Ginzburg, 1951). One of the points used by Yarkho to deny a mixed origin of the Kazakhs was their pronounced facial breadth, which he regarded as an exclusive characteristic trait of the Mongoloid race. In the light of paleo-anthropological materials this argument also breaks down: the ancient Europoid (Andronovo) type which entered as one of the components into the formation of the South Siberian type was characterized, as noted, not only by a short but also by a broad face. Hence, if we acknowledge the mixed ethnic origin of the South Siberian type and carry the necessary corrections to the diagnostics of the Central Asiatic type given by Yarkho,44 it becomes evident that the differentiation of these types must follow the direction of those traits which reveal the Europoid characteristics of the South Siberian type. Considered separately, neither the shape or relief of the cranium nor the breadth of the face can be used as diagnostic criteria. On the other hand, the weakening of Mongoloid traits of this or that group in northern Asia ( such as a heavier hair cover and weakening of the epicanthus ) should not always be ascribed to Europoid admixture. The fallacy of such a concept is clearly expressed in an analysis of the physical types of the [Soviet] Far East. The inadequacy of those works—comparatively recent in date—which considered the Chukchis as a variant of the South Siberian race, assigned the Orochs to the Central Asiatic race, found South Siberian traits in the Yakuts, and so on, is now evident. Subsequent research by Soviet anthropologists has permitted a revision of the different theoretical proposals of Yarkho, a more precise definition of his diagnostics for the selection of Siberian types, and mainly, a considerable change in the distribution of these ethnic types. This was associated with the use of materials from a broader territory and with the solution of a much greater problem—the over-all classification of Mongoloid types. Considerable achievement towards this solution was realized with Cheboksarov's investigations in eastern Asia. His work dealing with the systematization of races should be mentioned first ( Cheboksarov, 1947a). An analysis of geographical differences in cranial traits45 enabled him to distinguish four races among the Mongoloids of eastern and northern Asia: North Asiatic, Arctic, Far Eastern, and South Asiatic. Cheboksarov based his classification on the following distinctive traits: the absolute measurements of the cranium and the shape of the forehead, and, in the case of the facial skull, its absolute measurements, horizontal and vertical outline of the profile, nasal index, and the degree of prominence of the nasal bones. Cheboksarov stresses in particular the taxonomic significance of skull height as a trait differentiating the northern and southern Mongoloids. Unlike his predecessors, he was not influenced by classifications based on an overemphasis of the cephalic index for purposes of systematics and succeeded in better revealing the interrelations between the physical types of eastern and northern Asia.

38 Ethnie Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia As a basis for racial differentiation within the great Mongoloid race, Cheboksarov follows a division into two "circles" of Mongoloid forms, a northern and a southern. The Northern Mongoloid, [with its] Central Asiatic and Siberian variants, is characterized by a cranium which is large in its horizontal diameter, though short, [and] with a sloping forehead. The face is long, wide, orthonathous, and markedly flat; there is leptorrhiny or mesorrhiny, and the nasal bones are more prominent than in the South Mongoloid. In this "circle" of northern types, Cheboksarov includes the Kalmuks, Kazakhs, Telengets, Tuvins, Buryats, Evenks, Mongols, Ulchs, Orochs, Oroks, and Aleuts, the last representing "an easternmost outpost of the forms examined" (Cheboksarov, 1947a, p. 63). The South Mongoloids, whose area of distribution is mainly Indochina and Indonesia, differ altogether by a combination of opposite traits: the cranium is small but high, the forehead straight, the face relatively narrow, short, mesognathous, and moderately flat; typical for them are chamaerrhiny and an extremely small angle of the nasal bone. The Far Eastern and Arctic races on the whole occupy an intermediate position between the North and South Mongoloids and are represented by a series of transitional types distributed along the coasts of the Pacific Ocean. The Far Eastern race (the East Mongoloid), which includes the Chinese and Koreans (Cheboksarov includes also the Nanays), is characterized by a small but high cranium with a straight forehead (which links it to the South Mongoloid), a long but relatively narrow, mesognathous, and moderately flat face, leptorrhiny or mesorrhiny (in this the East Mongoloids are closer to the north Mongoloids), and a moderately weak projection of the nasal bones. The Arctic race (the Mongoloids of the north east, i.e., the Eskimos and Chukchis) is chacterized by a large and high cranium with a sloping forehead, a high, broad, mesognathous, and markedly flat face, definite leptorrhiny, and a moderately low projection of the nasal bones.46 Each of these four races includes several types ("race variants" in Cheboksarov's terminology) which correspond to the secondary races of Yarkho's classification. "The ingenious taxonomic transition from 'great races' to 'secondary races' in Yarkho's treatment (e.g., North Chinese, Central Asiatic, KoreanManchu, and others)," writes Cheboksarov, "is impossible; it means a disregard for the lines of demarkation between the basic historical-geographical complexes of diagnostic traits composed of several secondary types but in turn included in one of the main varieties of homo sapiens" ( Cheboksarov, 1947a, p. 62 ). Cheboksarov's question of the co-ordination of units for anthropological classification (specifically in connection with Mongoloid types) is of great importance. Indeed, in the classification suggested by Yarkho and published in Antropologiya (vide supra), a proportional division within the great Mongoloid race is not carried out consistently. We cannot but agree with Cheboksarov when he states that, for instance, the differences between such morphologically similar races as the Manchu-Korean and North Chinese are not equally valid taxonomically for the differentiation of each of them from the Paleosiberian or (to an even greater degree) for the differentiation of the South Asiatic from the Uralian, and so on. In a later work Cheboksarov modified somewhat the above classification of Mongoloid types (Cheboksarov, 1951). Within each of the primary or great races he distinguishes secondary or minor races which, in turn, include a series of "group types." If the American race is excluded, the Asiatic or Mongoloid great race is subdivided in two secondary races: the North Mongoloid or Continental and the South Mongoloid or Pacific. The first includes the following group

Physical Anthropology of Northern Asiatic Peoples 39 types: Uralian (Ural-Lappoid), South Siberian, Central Asiatic, and Siberian (Baykal). The second (South Mongoloid) includes the South Asiatic and Polynesian groups. The Arctic and Far Eastern (East Asiatic) group types occupy an intermediate position between the North and South Mongoloid races. The Uralian and South Siberian group types are viewed as "contact groups," i.e., resulting from a mixture of Europoids and Mongoloids; the Polynesian group type is also considered a "contact group"—it shows affinities to both the South Mongoloids and the Australoids. The focal point of the classification under review is the division of Mongoloid forms into two basic branches—the North (Continental) and South (Pacific)—a division reflecting, according to Cheboksarov, the main trend of racial differentiation among them. This division, suggested already by Deniker (vide supra), has been comprehensively dealt with in Cheboksarov's works. On the whole, the problem of subdivisions within the North Mongoloids ( which have been studied much more thoroughly than Mongoloid types of southeastern Asia because of the investigations of Soviet anthropologists ) is successfully solved in Cheboksarov's classification. However, certain gaps were left in this section of the classification. These concern the characterization of individual types as well as their ethno-geographical localization. These omissions are explainable by the lack of data for a series of ethnic groups of northern Asia at the time Cheboksarov worked out his craniological survey. In particular, the position of the Nivkhs, whose peculiarities were repeatedly noted by various observers, remained unsolved. Subsequently investigations by Débets and Levin added considerably to the materials available to Cheboksarov and enabled a redefinition and partial reconsideration of numerous problems of classification of Siberian and Far Eastern types.

3. Basic Principles of Classification The basic problem of any classification is the selection of traits upon which the systematics are to be based, in other words, the question of their taxonomic significance. The necessity to take into account, in an analysis, the taxonomic significance of individual traits has definitely been adopted as a principle in Soviet anthropology. In substance this principle stipulates that the diagnostic value of a trait is the greater, the clearer it reveals genetic links, or the absence of such links, between the types being, compared; hence, the diagnostic value of a trait is the greater, the less it is subject to temporal changes or the smaller the probability of its independent appearance in different places. Unfortunately, it is impossible, in the majority of cases, to decide directly on these questions and to make a choice on this basis: the paleo-anthropological material by which we could evaluate the epochal variations of a trait in a given territory still is very scarce for most regions of the world. More complicated still is the solution of the problem created by probable convergence of a specific feature in a physical type. However, we can deduce an indirect answer to these questions from an analysis of the geographic distribution of the traits. If, for example, types resembling each other in the profile of the nasal bridge are encountered in different, distant regions, and in different ethno-linguistic groups, and if the variations in the profile are very great in a certain territory—within the limits of the same ethnic group—we may conclude that the diagnostic significance of this trait is

40 Ethnie Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia less than, for example, that of lip thickness, which manifests clearer geographic and ethnic differentiation. By the same token the taxonomic significance of the cranial index is much less than that of the degree of nasal prominence, and so on. It must be particularly emphasized that data on the geographic distribution of traits in a given territory should not be used for the evaluation of absolute meanings of these traits in racial systematics but only as a tool in the analysis of physical types in that territory; a particular trait may present different patterns of distribution in different places. The greater the number of similar traits in the groups being compared, the more dependable the assumption of their genetic kinship. However, in the examination of a trait complex it is indispensable to consider not only the taxonomic significance of each trait separately but also the nature of the relationship among various traits. Understandably, if a so-called physiological relationship exists among traits, i.e., if an alteration in one trait due to inner functional dependence is linked to constant and definite alterations in another or several other traits, the diagnostic significance of such a combination essentially equals the alteration in one of them. The diagnostic significance of a given complex increases with the functional independence of its traits since the formation of a complex of functionally unrelated traits, in a given territory and in a given ethnic group, presupposes genetic kinship which was made possible only as a result of prolonged inbreeding within certain groups, which, because of certain circumstances, were less strongly associated with other groups in which a different complex of traits had formed.47 When the investigator compares certain groups, basing the comparison on particular traits or trait complexes, when he establishes on this basis certain physical types, he is then faced with another important problem—the relative antiquity of the traits and of the formation of the type. Indeed, only after this problem has been clarified can he fully judge the depth of the genetic links in the groups being compared. A. I. Yarkho has formulated the principle that the taxonomic significance of a trait increases with its phylogenetic age. In zoological systematics the traits that characterize the family are considered older than generic traits and the generic traits older than the specific ones. It is clear that the higher the position of a trait in a systematic order, the longer the time that was necessary for its formation. The principle formulated by Yarkho is based on this thesis, extended to smaller taxonomic categories and to subdivisions within the single species of modern mankind. Indirect indications about the degree of antiquity of certain traits can be drawn from their geographic distribution. This has been examined in some detail by G. F. Débets in his work on the physical anthropology of Kamchatka. Those traits which are densely distributed over a wide territory are comparatively old, for it may be supposed that the larger the territory of compact distribution the longer the time that was necessary for its dispersion. Thus, such traits as the curly hair characteristic of populations of large contiguous territories in Africa, or well-developed tertiary hair, characteristic of populations in the territory stretching from Europe through southern Asia to Australia, should be of relatively great age and therefore traits of demarkation for large divisions of mankind—i.e. for major races. Débets writes: It is easy to see that traits characterized by compact distribution coexist in definite combinations and these combinations are revealed only by comparing groups, not individuals. The Russian school of comparative anatomy calls such a form of coexistence a co-ordination. For example, in the territory of the U.S.S.R. a clearly pronounced co-

Physical Anthropology of Northern Asiatic Peoples

41

ordination is observed in the development of tertiary hair, the frequency of occurrence of epicanthus, the profile of the upper lip and other, functionally unrelated, traits. To the contrary, the shape of the skull is not related by co-ordination to any other traits and occurs in any type of combination with them. There is every reason for explaining this by the short time of existence of traits that are characterized by a dispersive type of geographical differentiation. Stable combinations have simply not had time to form. (Débets, 1951a, pp. 67-68.) The manner of distribution of a trait in a given territory can truly serve as an important indicator of its relative antiquity. Indeed, as a rule, ancient traits have a compact distribution. However, the possibility of a compact distribution of "new" traits cannot be ruled out. If a trait is characteristic of a population which by rapid multiplication has spread over a large territory, it can acquire temporary compactedness of distribution. Compactedness does not in itself represent sufficient evidence of antiquity. We may assign antiquity to a trait only if, while occurring in a compact distribution, i.e., being distributed widely and continuously over a territory, it combines in various locations with other traits which differ from one another. For example, wavy hair in southern and southeastern Asia may be considered truly ancient, as it combines with various structures of the soft parts of the face, various pigmentations, unequal developments of tertiary hair, and so on, as among the Australians, Veddas, and Dravidians. The straight hair of the Mongoloids is also undoubtedly a very ancient trait since in the populations of East Asia, Central and North Asia, and America it combines in some groups with a flat nose and in others with a very prominent one. In examining the taxonomic significance of particular traits in a classification of physical types of northern Asia, Débets has concluded that the following traits are the most important ones for differentiating northern Asiatic Mongoloid types, as according to him they reveal a clear ethno-geographical co-ordination which cannot be wholly or partially connected to functional dependence: (1) the degree of nasal prominence, (2) the degree of expression of Mongoloid characteristics in the ocular region, (3) the vertical profile of the face, (4) the nasal breadth on the skull, (5) the eye and hair pigmentation, (6) the thickness of growth of the eyebrows and, bearing some relation to it, of the beard. Proceeding from these criteria, Débets distinguishes the following groups among the population of northern Asia: (1) the Arctic, (2) the Baykal, (3) the Central Asiatic, (4) the Uralian. The Arctic group. Moderate prominence of nose, narrow apertura piriformis, moderately frequent prognathism, dark hair and eye pigmentation, moderately pronounced Mongoloid peculiarities of the eyelids, sparse growth of the beard, average growth of the eyebrows. The Baykal group. Small nasal prominence, broad apertura pirijormis, prognathism very rare, dark [or] mixed hair and eye pigmentation, sharply defined Mongoloid peculiarities of the eyelids, very sparse growth of beard and eyebrows. The Central Asiatic group. Slight nasal prominence but greater than in the Baykal group, broad aperture piriformis, prognathism almost absent, moderately dark and eye pigmentation, well-defined Mongoloid peculiarities of the eyelids but less so than in the Baykal group, sparse growth of beard and eyebrows but greater than in the Baykal group. The Uralian group. Small nasal prominence, intermediate breadth of apertura piriformis, very rare prognathism, dark [or] mixed hair and eye pigmentation, moderately well defined Mongoloid peculiarities of the eyelids, moderately thin growth of beard and eyebrows (Débets, 1951a, pp. 70-71).

42 Ethnie Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia The important diagnostic significance of the traits upon which Débets bases his classification is indubitable. However, greater precision and expansion is needed. In our opinion, the omission of skin color from characteristics of pigmentation is not fully justified, neither is the emphasis placed upon a trait such as the degree of eyebrow growth in comparison with the degree of beard growth, the latter having been a long-established independent characteristic in the methodology of physical anthropology. In spite of the inadequacy of all of the existing methods for the determination of skin color, the data on the geographic distribution of this trait reveal nonethe less a rather definite geographic differentiation corresponding on the whole to that of eye and hair pigmentation. Eyebrow growth has the advantage that it can be determined equally well in men and women. Nevertheless, the differentiation by this trait is less precise and less perceptive than by the degree of beard growth. A strong parallelism between beard and eyebrow growth has not been observed in the various groups. Therefore, the degree of beard development remains a most important trait for the differentiation of the physical types of northern Asia. At least one additional trait, lip thickness, should be added to the list adopted by Débets. The principal physical types of northern Asia differ rather clearly in the thickness of their lips. Thus, thick lips are characteristic of the Arctic or Eskimo type, i.e., the Eskimos, Chukchis, and Koryaks. The Central Asiatic type, represented by the Yakuts, Buryats, Tuvins, and Southern Altayans, is characterized by lips of medium thickness, thinner than those of the Arctic type, but considerably thicker than those of the Baykal type, which is chiefly represented by the Tungus-Manchu group. The Uralian type, the population type of northwestern Siberia, is distinguished by having the thinnest lips. The degree of stiffness of the hair is undoubtedly an important diagnostic trait. Only the absence of sufficient data for comparison prevents at this time the use of this trait for classificatory purposes for Siberian types in general. Nevertheless, it is clear even now that the Baykal type has much softer hair than the Central Asiatic and Arctic types and that comparatively soft hair is characteristic of the population of northwestern Siberia. Apparently, in the various groups of northern Asia, the stiffness of hair differentiaties to a certain extent in parallel with hair pigmentation. This was pointed out by Débets.48 In Débets' classification, as well as in Cheboksarov's works, the problem of the physical type of the Nivkhs is left open. After indicating its peculiar position, Débets refrained from determining its relation to his basic types of northern Asia. In our works, which are based on investigations in the Amur region and on Sakhalin, we have distinguished a special type in the population of these territories—the "Sakhalin-Amur type" (Levin, 1950a, 1951). The question of the Sakhalin-Amur type will be examined in detail later. At this point we shall simply state that this type, which spread in the past over a larger territory, occupies a peculiar position among the basic physical types of Siberia and the Far East. In discussing a classification of the peoples of northern Asia, it is necessary to dwell especially on the question of "Americanoid" types in the populations of Siberia and the Far East. This question was first raised by A. Hrdlicka, who noted the resemblance of a series of Asiatic Mongoloid groups to the Indians of North America and saw in this one of the proofs of the Asiatic origin of the American Indians. Hrdlicka based his theory of the original peopling of America from the Asiatic continent particularly on the presence of "Americanoid" types among the populations of southeastern and eastern Asia: the Malayan archipelago, the Philippine islands, Taiwan, East China, Tibet, and Mongolia. A series

Physical Anthropology of Northern Asiatic Peoples 43 of groups in this large territory, which differ from the typical Mongoloids by a more prominent nose and less developed epicanthus, according to Hrdlicka, reveal definite kinship with the American Indians. Hrdlicka found "Americanoid" types also in Siberia (Hrdlicka, 1925).49 His views were reflected even in Soviet anthropological literature. "Americanoid" features have been observed repeatedly among the various peoples of Siberia and the Far East. This refers first of all to the peoples of the Pacific coast, among whom many investigators have observed a lower frequency of occurrence of epicanthus, a greater prominence of the nose, and other peculiarities which distinguish them from the typical Mongoloids. However, "Americanoid" traits have been noted also in other groups located far beyond the limits of this territory—even in western Siberia among the Kets (Dolgikh, 1934), the Mansi [Voguls] (Cheboksarov and Trofimova, 1941), the Yamal and Taz Nenets (Shluger, 1941), and the Nganasans.50 Débets raised the question of the "Americanoid" types of Siberia in connection with his study of the physical peculiarities of the Kets (Débets, 1934). He pointed out the closeness of the Ket type to some of the American races and noted its deviation towards certain Europoid characteristics. He tended to explain such traits not as the result of ancient, and still less, of recent admixture of Europoid elements, but as traits preserved from a stage of race genesis preceding the definite formation of the archetype of the great Mongoloid race. In Ya. Ya. Roginskiy's work, the question of "Americanoid" types was examined on a broader plane (Roginskiy, 1937). Roginskiy pointed to the weak development of the epicanthus in the basic American races. He noted the resemblance in this trait (and in some others) between them and some eastern Asiatic peoples and arrived at the conclusion that the antiquity of various Mongoloid traits is not the same; the epicanthus, in particular, developed rather late in the formative process of the Mongoloid racial type. For an explanation of the "Americanoid" peculiarities in the populations of Siberia, the following assumptions are theoretically possible: 1. All "Americanoid" types are genetically linked with each other and express a definite stage in the development of the Mongoloid race. 2. These types are genetically linked, but they represent merely a certain variant which formed in a specific territory, similarly to other variants of the Mongoloid race. 3. All these forms resulted from Europoid admixture. 4. The "Americanoid" forms have various origins : some are mixed forms, others have formed without the participation of Europoid elements. The last hypothesis corresponds best to the available facts. It was stated specifically by Cheboksarov and Trofimova who, when examining the origin of the "Americanoid" forms in the populations of Siberia, showed that they could have had various origins and that the development of such forms to the west and east of the Yenisey apparently proceeded along different lines. Thus, for eastern Siberia, these authors accept the evolutionary process for the origin of the "Americanoid" forms, while tending to explain the trait combinations in western Siberia (the zone of ancient contest of Europoids and Mongoloids), which morphologically resemble those of the eastern Siberian "Americanoid" forms, as the result of mixing (Cheboksarov and Trofimova, 1941). Débets also resolves this problem in the same manner in a later work (Débets, 1951a). It should be emphasized that various answers about the origin of the "Americanoid" types of Siberia tend to overestimate the morphological resemblances in these types. In generally resembling features, where the resemblance is caused

44 Ethnie Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia by an over-all weakening of the "Mongoloid type," these [Americanoid] forms show considerable differences in the degree of manifestation of the Mongoloid peculiarities in the eye region, the height of the nasal root, the frequency of occurrence of convex nasal bridges, and in the combination of these traits with others—the horizontal profile, facial height, pigmentation, the degree of development of hair cover, and so on. Differences in all these traits from one group to another appear also in a comparatively small territory. The terms "Americanoid type/' "Americanoid traits," require in each case an explanation of the meaning attached to them, and corresponding terms must be strictly defined. In the preceding discussion we maintained in the various classifications the terminology adopted by their authors and used such expressions as "major races," "minor races," "type groups," and "type." The term "major race" was adopted in Soviet anthropology to designate the basic racial divisions of humanity; it does not lead to differences of interpretation. The proponents of a threefold division speak of the "major" [or "great"] Mongoloid, Europoid, and Negroid races, whereas the opponents of such a division use the term "major race" to designate their more numerous basic racial groups. The next taxonomic unit is the "minor" or "secondary" race. This term, often simply expressed as "race," has been adopted for the designation of large subdivisions within each of the "major races." Thus, in the classification presented in Antropologiya ( Bunak, Nesturkh, and Roginskiy, 1941 ) Central Asiatic, South Siberian, Paleosiberian, and other races are portrayed. This is the meaning this term has in the majority of Soviet works. Also, to indicate a [finer] difference in meaning, the term "type" ("racial type," "physical type") is often used. In the table showing the physical composition in the Altay-Sayan upland, mentioned earlier, Yarkho differentiates the North Asiatic, Central Asiatic, and South Siberian "types."51 In N. N. Cheboksarov's works on the principles of racial classification ( Cheboksarov, 1951) these terms have been given another meaning. In his classification mankind is subdivided according to its physical characteristics into three "primary, or great races"; within each of these a few—two or three—"secondary," or "minor" races can be distinguished, which in turn comprise a whole series of "type groups." Thus, a "minor" race in Yarkho's sense corresponds to a "group of types" in Cheboksarov's and the latter's "secondary" or "minor" race becomes a unit of higher taxonomic order. We do not mean to discuss differences in terminology here; the terminology adopted by Cheboksarov reflects his theoretical position on race formation with its central thesis that the factors of race formation differed during the various stages of mankind. The thesis of the prevailing influence of natural environment in the early stages of race formation and the increasing role of isolation or mixing during later periods was developed in Soviet physical anthropology already in the 1930's. Cheboksarov has approached these processes somewhat differently. He particularly emphasized the concept that in the developmental history of physical types successive steps differing in quality were to be distinguished. He endeavored to express these differences through his terminology. He believes that the term "race" is correctly used only with reference to those physical groupings which developed in the process of mastering the oikoumene by adaptation to different natural environments. The influence of physical environment and geographic isolation was most pronounced during the development of the "great" races, which took place in the Upper Paleolithic. The "minor" races formed at a

Physical Anthropology of Northern Asiatic Peoples 45 later date, during the Mesolithic and Neolithic, and on the basis of tribal groups which were already partially mixed racially. However, even here the influence of geographic factors was manifested, though to a lesser degree than during the earlier epoch. According to Cheboksarov, the formation of chronologically later physical groupings differed in principle from that of the races since it proceeded essentially without the influence of the elements of natural environment. To these groupings Cheboksarov applies the terms "physical types" and "groups of physical types." The latter serve as the basic units for the physical classification of modern man. The "groups of types" ["type groups"] include a series of variations ("types") more or less resembling each other. In Cheboksarov's work many problems of systematics have been solved successfully. As pointed out before, this refers particularly to the Mongoloid types of eastern and northern Asia. However, some of the theses he developed, including those involving terminology, require further analysis and more precise definition. Thus, the differences between "minor" races and "type groups," to which Cheboksarov attributes decisive importance, are not always clearly drawn. The author himself admits that in the formation of some "type groups," e.g., the South African (Bushman), the influence of natural environment is still considerable. This applies just as much to the Central African (Pygmy) "type group" and to some others. If the determination of a terminological position is based upon the extent of environmental influences on the formation of traits, then it is as justifiable to speak of Australian and Melanesian "races" as of such "type groups." Paleoanthropological data testify to the great antiquity of the Bushman and Australian types. [They date] to the Mesolithic and perhaps even the Upper Paleolithic. Consequently, the chronological criterion proposed by Cheboksarov is not acceptable in this case. These examples could be multiplied. However, those presented are sufficient to convince one of the conditionally of a division into "minor races" and "type groups." In the classification of Roginskiy and Levin, the following terminology has been adopted (Roginskiy and Levin, 1955). "Great race" designates the three basic racial divisions of mankind—the Equatorial or Australo-Negroid, the Eurasian or Europoid, and the Asiatic-American or Mongoloid. "Race" designates the large subdivisions within the great races: e.g., the Australian, Bushman, and other races within the Australo-Negroid great race; the Atlanto-Baltic, the Indo-Mediterranean, and other races within the Europoid great race. Within races "types" are distinguished. The South Siberian and Uralian races occupy an intermediate position between the great Mongoloid and Europoid races. The Kurilian (Ainu) race occupies a similar position between the great Australo-Negroid and Mongoloid races. The following races enter into the great Mongoloid race: the North Asiatic, the Arctic (Eskimo) the Far Eastern, the South Asiatic, and the American. In the North Asiatic race two characteristic types are distinguished: the Baykal and the Central Asiatic. The authors based their racial unification of the Baykal and Central Asiatic types, which, as we know, differ considerably from each other, on the following: regardless of all the differences, these types differ less from each other than each one of them differs from the American, South Asiatic, Far Eastern, and Arctic races. The Central Asiatic type is represented in several variants, some of which come close to the Baykal type, others to the

FIGURE 3. The distribution of the principal races of northern Asia. The areas are schematized.

Physical Anthropology of Northern Asiatic Peoples

47

variants of the Arctic race of the [Soviet] Far East. As was pointed out, within the type, variations are distinguishable. In the main, we shall adhere to this terminology in the exposition that follows.52

Motes and References 1. Here, for example, is how Georgi describes the Tungus: "The Tungus are of medium height and are never too short or too tall; moreover (they are) stately and vivacious. The face is not as flat as that of the Kalmyk and its color is vivid; the eyes are small and alert, the nose is smallish and straight; the beard is definitely sparse and in some cases does not show; the voice is somewhat hoarse; however, they are extremely sharp of sight and hearing, but their organs of sense and smell are duller. The children look quite like young Kalmuks. Young women are attractive with pretty features, extreme gaiety and politeness; on the contrary, old women horrify one by their wrinkles, dirtiness, and eyes as red as burning coals. Old men are seldom gray, walk erect until their very end, and are so energetic as well in their gait as in their work that it seems hard at times to consider them even elderly." (Georgi, 1777, Part 3, p. 37.) 2. Shrenk lists measurements on four Gilyaks, one Gold, four Tungus. 3. Its name was later changed to Society of Friends of Natural Sciences, Physical Anthropology, and Ethnography. 4. For the anthropological activities of Bogdanov, see M. G. Levin (1946a). 5. Expeditions organized by the Society helped to bring this plan to realization; among them were the trips of A. P. Kelsiyev to the Lapps and N. Yu. Zograf to the Samoyeds. In the summer of 1877, Zograf studied 48 persons of both sexes and of different age groups in the Kanin tundra. His work furnished the first physical anthropological information on the Samoyeds. Up to that time, Samoyed anthropological data were almost totally absent in the literature, except for general characteristics contained in the works of explorers. The program of investigation was quite extensive and included measurements of height, different parts of the trunk and extremities, head and face, and also descriptions of various characteristics. It gave the color of skin, hair (with the help of Broea's tables), and eyes, noted the type of hair and the extent of facial hair growth, and described in detail the shape of the nose and the lip structure. Characterizing the general Samoyed type, Zograf stresses its closeness to the type "which is usually called Mongolian" and notes the necessity of considering the influence of environment on structural peculiarities. The work contains graphs on changes of certain measurements in relation to age, and beautifully executed portraits of Samoyeds. The research of N. Yu. Zograf was the first detailed anthropological work on the peoples of Siberia produced by the Moscow school of anthropologists (Zograf, 1879). 6. A description of all skulls exhibited was also published separately (Bogdanov, 1879). 7. Of note are: a collection of Vogul skulls given to the museum by N. L. Gondatti, a large collection of Ostyak skulls supplied by the expedition of D. T. Yanovich, a series of skulls collected by E. I. Lutsenko in the Altay (Telenget), Tuvin crania received from F. Ya. Kon, Oroch skulls collected by A. D. Ronchevskiy, an extensive collection of Aleut crania given by V. I. Jochelson, a series of Chukchi skulls from N. L. Gondatti's collection, and several others. 8. A comprehensive bibliography is listed in the works of A. A. Ivanovskiy (1904, 1911). 9. The anthropométrie materials of Olsufev were processed and published by A. G. Rozhdestvenskiy (1896).

48 Ethnie Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia 10. These materials were only partially prepared and published by JochelsonBrodskaya in her article on the anthropology of women (Jochelson-Brodskaya, 1906). They were also published in a re-edited form in Russian (1907). 11. The classification of Ivanovskiy is stated further on, together with an evaluation of his conceptual scheme. 12. See, for instance, the works of Ivanovskiy (1905, 1907) and A. G. Rozhdestvenskiy (1896). 13. For instance, Fridolin worked on skulls from Chukchi peninsula kept in the Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography of the Academy of Sciences in Leningrad (Fridolin, 1901); Reicher investigated Telenget crania from the collections of the Anthropological Museum of the University of Moscow (Reicher, 1913-14). 14. A survey of anthropométrie materials on the peoples of Siberia and the Far East (including unpublished materials), with indications of the number of persons investigated in each group, is listed in S. M. Shirokogorov's article, which deals with basic questions of the statistical processing of anthropological data ( Shirokogorov, 1916). 15. The anthropologists of Moscow and Petersburg followed different programs. The methodology of the Moscow school differed from that of Volkov even in the definition of some measurable features. Volkov, who had received anthropological training in France under Manouvrier, introduced the facial height measurement from the ophryon —a method not too successful in itself and complicating comparisons with the materials of other Russian anthropologists. Neither can the data of Volkov's school be used for comparisons in such important matters as eye color (the Petersburg anthropologists classified gray eyes as belonging to a mixed-color group, and hazel-green eyes as dark). 16. Some of the skeletal material from burials of different periods was collected by Siberian archaeologists at the end of the last and the beginning of the present century. We should mention at least the protracted excavations and collections of N. I. Vitkovskiy and M. P. Ovchinnikov in the Cis-Baykal region, of I. T. Savenkov and A. V. Andrianov on the Yenisey river, of A. K. Kuznetsov and Yu. D. Talko-Grintsevich in the Trans-Baykal. The first excavations of the famous Kitoy Neolithic burial were made in 1880-81 by the Irkutsk archaeologist N. I. Vitkovskiy. Four skulls from this burial were measured by him and the data published in concise form (Vitkovskiy, 1881, 1882). It was also Vitkovskiy who found and described the first skeletal materials from the Glazkovo burial (1889). The craniological series from this burial was enriched by the discoveries of Ovchinnikov, who over many years superintended the construction work taking place in the Glazkovo suburb of Irkutsk and saved for science remainders of the burials which were being destroyed. We should also mention the skulls from the burials on the dunes near Bazaikha village near Krasnoyarsk, secured by Savenkov in 1884-86. But on the whole, paleoanthropological materials on Siberia remained extremely fragmentary and did not attract proper attention. 17. Materials on the Altay-Sayan peoples were published by Yarkho in a series of works, the most important of which was published posthumously (1947). For a bibliography of Yarkho's works see: A. I. Yarkho kak antropolog [A. I. Yarkho as a physical anthropologist], Antropologicheskiy Zhurnal, No. 1, 1935. 18. This article contains comparative materials on the Tunkin Buryats studied by Roginskiy in 1926. 19. It is difficult not to object to the division of the materials, during their processing, into two groups: Paleo-Asiatic and Tungus-Manchurian. The first includes 3 Aleuts, 9 Gilyaks, 1 Koryak, 2 Chukchis, 1 Chuvan, 4 Kamchadals, 13 Kets; the second, 16 Golds, 1 Dolgan, 1 Ulch, 2 Negidals, and 45 Tungus (from Sakhalin, Okhotsk, Amur, and the Trans-Baykal). No individual data are supplied in Vishnevskiy's article. 20. In 1938, an expedition headed by N. N. Cheboksarov investigated the Nenets in the Bolshezemelskaya and Malozemelskaya tundras. In 1939, an expedition directed

Physical Anthropology of Northern Asiatic Peoples 49 by S. A. Shluger continued investigations on the Yamal peninsula and in the Taz river basin (Shluger, 1940, 1941). In 1937, G. F. Débets and T. A. Trofimova studied the Barabinsk, Tomsk, and Tobolsk Tatars, the "Bukharets" and Chulymets (Débets and Trofimova, 1941; Trofimova, 1947). In 1939, G. F. Débets studied the Vakh Khanty, and the Narym Selkups; in 1941, in co-operation with S. A. Shluger, he investigated the Selkups of the Taz river and the Kets (Débets, 1941, 1947a). 21. Zolotarov's work will again be mentioned in the chapter dealing with the peoples of the Amur region and Sakhalin. 22. In 1943, the Institute of Ethnography of the Academy of Sciences was reorganized; a section of physical anthropology was founded in its Moscow department. During the past years its members have conducted important investigations in the field of ethnic physical anthropology in our country, including the Far East and Siberia. In 1945, M. G. Levin studied the Yakuts (Levin, 1947b). In 1946, G. F. Débets investigated a group of Alar Buryats (Débets, 1948a, 1951a). In 1947, he also studied the Evenks of the Podkamennaya Tunguska [river] (Débets, 1951a). In 1952, M. G. Levin conducted research among the Kudin Buryats, the Tofalars (Karagas), and the Tuvins (Levin, 1954b). 23. Débets (1929); Levin (1936b, 1937, 1941, 1949b); Alekseyev (1955a); Yuzefovich (1937, 1949); Roginskiy (1934); Trofimova (1932); Tokarev (1937). New craniological materials on the peoples of northern Asia were published by G. F. Débets (1951a). These represent a summary of all principal craniological collections in our museums. The well-known American anthropologist A. Hrdlièka, who visited the Soviet Union in 1939, studied the principal craniological series on the peoples of northern Asia kept in the Moscow, Leningrad, and Irkutsk museums. He published a comprehensive work which, nevertheless, included only a small number of measurements (Hrdlièka, 1942a). 24. Craniological materials on the ancient population of Siberia, from different areas and periods, were summarized by him in his definitive work (Débets, 1948b). Other works and later paleo-anthropological studies will be noted infra in pertinent chapters. 25. There is a Russian translation of this book (Deniker, 1902). 26. Because the Ugrian and Turkic races dwell both in Europe and in Asia, they are classified by Deniker as a Eurasian group. Both races have Mongolian characteristics, though not in pronounced form. 27. In the first edition of his classification, three types—the Eskimo, Tungus, and Mongol—are distinguished by Deniker within the Mongoloid race (one of his 13 world races). Besides the Eskimo proper, to the first type belong, to various degrees, the Chukchi and possibly also the Aleuts and Kamchadals. The Tungus type is represented by the Tungus of continental Siberia; mixed with the Mongol type it is also found among the Manchurians, Daurs, and Koreans (the last show also traits of the Indonesian or Malay-Polynesian race). The Mongolian type in its purest form appears among the Khalkha-Mongols, the Kalmuks, and possibly the Tibetans; it also is a component of the Chinese (Deniker, 1889). 28. E. M. Chepurkovskiy published a shattering criticism of Ivanovskiy's classification and concept as a whole, demonstrating in a series of reviews and works the arbitrariness of Ivanovskiy's method, which could be used with equal success to obtain the most diverse combinations in racial systematics (Chepurkovskiy, 1913). D. N. Anuchin also disagreed with Ivanovskiy's survey. He took an opposing view in the debate on Ivanovskiy's doctoral dissertation. See: Opyt novoy antropologichskoy klassifikatsii . . . [The experiment of a new classification in physical anthropology . . .]. 29. The writer's theoretical concepts of racial studies are stated in detail in the latter [1913] work. 30. There is an English translation of this work, slightly enlarged by the author (1921). The classification of Giuffrida-Ruggeri found in this work is taken from this later edition.

50 Ethnie Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia 31. The cephalic and nasal indexes are based on data obtained on the living. 32. In considering the peoples of Siberia, Giuffrida-Ruggeri used mainly Ivanovskiy's materials. 33. Montándonos division of mankind into eight races is found in his 1928 work; in a later work (1933) he distinguishes five great races: the Pygmoid, Veddoid-Australoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, and Europoid. The Tasmanoid race is included in the great Negroid race as its primitive branch; the Amerindoid and the Eskimoid races occupy a similar position in the great Mongoloid race. 34. Montandon uses Haddon's term pareoan—derived from the Greek "para" and "eos"—in its French form "paréenne." 35. In the chapter dealing with the analysis of the Gilyak type we shall show the arbitrariness of Montandon's interpretations. 36. This strange inclusion is puzzling, the more so because Eickstedt bases his classification on genetic principles. Notwithstanding the physical peculiarities of the Bushman, their genetic kinship with the Negroid races is indubitable. Paleoanthropological material proves the antiquity of this type in South Africa (Boskop man). The few traits which remotely relate the Bushman and the Mongoloid—a developed epicanthic fold, a comparatively light-yellow skin, a marked prominence of the cheekbones— may be viewed as having evolved convergently in the steppes and in the deserts of South Africa. 37. This publication, according to the plan of its contributors, will represent the latest achievements of science. In the first volume, which deals with the ancient history of mankind, much space is given to questions of physical anthropology. The chapter on the racial typology of Asia ("Rassentypen und Typendynamik von Asien," pp. 147-166) is written by Eickstedt. 38. It should be emphasized that while in Débets' tabulation the Eskimos are entered as a Paleosiberian variant, in the text he expressly stipulates the differences of the North American type from others. "It is possible," he writes, "that the North American (Eskimo) type will have to be recognized as a distinct variant (race)" (Débets, 1930, p. 31). 39. Even here it should be noted that Débets reacted critically to the theory of a Europoid origin for the Ainu; he held it possible that the common morphological traits between the Ainu and the Europoid types could be explained by their provenance from a common Indo-Australoid stock. 40. These shortcomings were acknowledged by Débets in a later work (1951a, p. 64). 41. K. I. Goroshchenko's work (1900), and Débets' preliminary publications (1931, 1932) were Yarkho's only sources of information pertaining to this question. 42. The article in which Débets demonstrated the presence of an ancient, lightpigmented Europoid population in the Minusinsk basin (Débets, 1931) was received critically by Yarkho. 43. Even though noting the heavier beard of the Kazakhs in comparison with that of the Tuvins, Yarkho eliminated this trait from his summarizing table presented above. 44. It should be recalled that Yarkho used the western Tuvins (investigated by him) as a "standard" for his characterization of the Central Asiatic type. According to Yarkho's materials, they are characterized by a very sparse beard growth, an extremely small prominence of the nose, which has transversely oriented nostrils, and some other traits which give reason to presume a difference in these important traits between the Tuvins and representatives of other local variants of the Central Asiatic type subsequently studied by Soviet anthropologists. Yarkho studied the Tuvins in 1926, at a time when some of the principles of the method now used as a matter of fact by a majority of Soviet anthropologists were still inadequately established. In 1952 anthropological investigations carried out among a number of southern Siberian groups permitted a more precise definition of the characterization of the western Tuvins given by Yarkho, and at the same time a revision of the diagnostics for Central Asiatic types in general (Levin, 1954b).

Physical Anthropology of Northern Asiatic Peoples 51 45. In setting himself the task of analyzing the geographical variability of racial traits in a large territory, which consequently obliged him to use extensively data of different authors, including foreign sources. Cheboksarov based his investigations on craniological materials, materials best suited for comparison from the point of view of a methodology. 46. Mainly because of a comparatively large skull height, Cheboksarov discerns an admixture of the Arctic race in the Yakuts. 47. The question of so-called "historical" and "functional" correlations in Soviet literature was first examined by V. V. Bunak. 48. In surveys of the composition of the peoples of Siberia (Levin, 1950a, 1951), I endeavored to account for as many traits as possible that are characteristic of the basic physical types of northern Asia: the Baykal, Central Asiatic, Eskimo, Sakhalin-Amur, and Uralian. In the Uralian type I distinguished a Yenisey variant which is represented by the Kets and some of the West Siberian groups. 49. For the views of Hrdlicka see my article (Levin, 1946b). 50. The Nganasans have not yet been examined in regard to somatological aspects. B. O. Dolgikh pointed to their "Americanoid" traits (Dolkikh, 1929). This author, who worked among the Nganasans and the Kets, emphasized their great physiognomic resemblances. V. P. Alekseyev, who has studied a series of Nganasan skulls, concluded that they do not reveal Americanoid traits. On the basis of craniologic characteristics the Nganasans belong to the Baykal type (Alekseyev, 1955a). 51. See also, G. F. Débets, in whose work the Central Asiatic, South Siberian, and Paleosiberian "types" of Siberia are discussed (Débets, 1934). 52. The expression "physical type" has, in addition to its taxonomic significance, also a more general meaning and serves to designate a complex of physical characteristics as in "the physical type of the population," and so on.

IL PHYSICAL TYPES AND PROBLEMS OF ORIGIN OF THE PEOPLES IN THE LOWER AMUR REGION AND SAKHALIN 1. The History of Investigations THE EARLIEST ACCOUNTS concerning the population of this territory are found in various Chinese sources. Certain materials are contained in the works of Japanese authors, among whom Mamiya Rinzu, who traveled in Sakhalin in 1808-09, deserves special mention. In Russian literature the first detailed descriptions of the population of the lower Amur and of Sakhalin were made by the members of the Amur Expedition of 1850-54, led by G. I. Nevelskiy. Nevelskiy's own reports (Nevelskiy, 1947 edition) and those of N. K. Boshnyak (Boshnyak, 1858, 1859a, 1859b) and D. I. Orlov (Orlov, 1857), which include very valuable ethnological material,1 also contain data of interest to the physical anthropologist. L. I. Shrenk gives the most complete—although often purely descriptivecharacterizations of the physical types in the different ethnic groups of this territory; his observations of the peculiarities of the peoples in the Amur region and Sakhalin are recorded carefully and in detail. Shrenk not only notes the characteristic traits that had arrested his attention, but also compares them in an effort to distinguish their basic components, and makes broad use of anthropological data to elucidate the questions of ethnic interrelations. In this he goes beyond the limits of the Amur basin; in his work we find descriptions of physical characteristics of a number of Siberian peoples. In particular, we are indebted to him for a detailed description of the Tungus. It is so striking that we think it appropriate to quote: In general the Siberian Tungus is of average height, or even short; with a rather large head and comparatively broad shoulders; the extremities are somewhat short, hands and feet small. His figure is lean, muscular, and tough, like that of all other northern nomads; there are no obese among them. The skin color is a more or less yellowish brown; the eyes are brown, the hair black, straight, thick, and abundant; the beard, moustache, and side-whiskers are very sparse and short; the eyebrows are usually sharply outlined, sometimes strongly arched and raised a little. The head and face are unquestionably Mongolian in type, although this is not too conspicuous; the skull is always broad, and with this broadness it is sometimes also very high, i.e., the crown is raised and drawn slightly backward, so as to resemble the so-called "turret" head. The face is usually somewhat elongated, with broad cheeks, narrowing towards the forehead; the cheekbones are prominent, though not as much as in the Mongols proper. The eye sockets are large, the eyes narrow, with a slanted slit; they are set widely apart. At its root the nose is broad and flat, often slightly depressed; farther down it is slightly convex, small, and thin. The lips are thin, the upper lip rather long; the chin is rounded; the jaws are slightly prognathous. (Shrenk, 1883, p. 297.) Shrenk's prototypic description of the Tungus is not so much the result of his own observations as a compilation from the descriptions of various travelers,

Peoples in the Lower Amur Region and Sakhalin 53 especially of A. F. Middendorf. Much in this generalized description is based on his individual encounters with the Evenks, and as we know today, is not specific for the Baykal type, the most widely distributed type among the Tungus groups. Nevertheless, such peculiarities as the very prominent cheekbones, extremely sparse beard growth, the low and broad nasal root, the thin lips, and the long upper lip were indeed keenly observed. According to Shrenk, this 'Tungus" type appears also mixed with others within the Tungus-Manchu groups of the Amur region and Sakhalin. Sometimes individuals of the Tungus type are encountered among the Ulchs ( Olchs, in Shrenk's terminology), who, in their appearance, occupy a "middle position" between the Gilyaks and the Tungus, and because of interbreeding with the Gilyaks and occasionally with the Ainus present a heavier build, less prominent cheekbones, less slanting eye slit, and a thicker beard. The Oroks of Sakhalin resemble the Ulchs in type; Shrenk regards this tribe as being closely related to the Ulchs and as "having probably even been one with them at an early date, but having separated later on and crossed from the continent to the island" (ibid., p. 290). Among the Golds, Shrenk distinguishes two types—one related to the northern Tungus type, the other characterized by less prominent cheekbones, a more prominent and more convex nose, thicker lips, and a taller stature. He attributes these traits to interbreeding with the Manchus. Shrenk also points to the possibility of Gilyak and Ainu admixture in the Golds, which manifests itself in individuals by heavier beard growth, less slanted eye slit, and so on (ibid., pp. 299-300). The Oroch type is described by Shrenk less from personal observations than from accounts of earlier travelers—La Perouse and his companions Rollin2 and Maksimovich. In his opinion, the Tungus type prevails among the northern Orochs, while a strong Chinese influence is notable in the southern, the so-called Ta-dzo. Shrenk also observes the physical peculiarities of other Tungus Manchu groups living on the Amur. Thus, the northern Tungus type predominates among the Samagirs and Orochs, while the Birars and Manegirs are similar to the Manchu. Among the Negidals there is an appreciable Gilyak admixture (ibid., pp. 302304). The physical characteristics of the Gilyaks are described by Shrenk in greatest detail. He emphasizes their diversity and distinguishes three types among them. The first, which is closely related to the Tungus, he designates as the "TungusGilyak" type. The second, the "Ainu-Gilyak" type, has, as the name implies, traits of resemblance with the Ainu. The third occupies a somewhat "in-between" position; Shrenk calls it the "Gilyak type proper." The Ainu-Gilyak type, in which "the Mongolian traits disappear almost completely," is characterized by an oblong face, a relatively slight prominence of the cheekbones, a straight forehead, a rather high nasal root, a straight eye slit, and, especially, considerable beard growth. This type results from interbreeding with the Ainus, with whom, Shrenk emphasizes, the Sakhalin Gilyaks as well as the Amur Gilyaks have been in touch since ancient times. The Tungus-Gilyak type presents more or less pronounced Tungus features; it formed, according to Shrenk, from the mixing of the Gilyak and Tungus tribes. The Gilyak type proper "also manifests a Mongolian character in the general structure of the face, but is much softened and has some Ainu touches" (ibid., p. 232). Shrenk illustrates his descriptions with photographs of representatives of the

54 Ethnie Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia three types. Although the traits of the "Gilyak type proper" place it between the other two, Shrenk regards it as an indigenous specific Gilyak type.3 In his work, Shrenk gives much space to the physical anthropology of the Ainus. However, his descriptions are not based on original materials and findings but on publications which he quotes with his usual accuracy and—for that timecomprehensiveness. His descriptions are coupled with critical discussions of the various theories about the origin of the Ainus. Descriptive characterizations of the peoples in the Amur region are also found in the works of A. F. Middendorf (1878), P. K. Maak (1859), and a number of others. However, in regard to systematic coverage and completeness all these works are inferior to Shrenk's. The first anthropométrie data referring to the population of this territory are in N. L. Zeland's work ( 1886 ). His article, which is an extremely general description of the natural environment, economy, and life of the Gilyaks, is of no real scientific value. The description of the Gilyak type is, in regard to completeness, far inferior to Shrenk's. Zeland measured the height and head length on 12 men and 8 women, but he did not say to which Gilyak group they belonged. The average cephalic index obtained, 86.2, arouses doubts as to the correctness of the measurements. To the 1880's belong also V. P. Margaritov's anthropométrie data on the Orochs (Margaritov, 1888). Margaritov's work sums up measurements on 51 people, and presents data on a series of Oroch skulls he had studied.4 In 1910, investigations in the Amur region and on Sakhalin were undertaken by L. Ya. Shternberg, who collected materials on the Amur and Sakhalin Nivkhs, Nanays, Negidals, and Orochs.5 These materials were analyzed and first published by G. Petrov only in 1933 (Petrov, 1933). Unfortunately, the value of the published data is diminished by the omission of absolute head and face measurements and of the age composition of the groups.6 It is difficult to compare Shternberg's data on the describable traits with those given by other authors; also, for some of the traits his data are clearly contradicted by the findings of later investigations, such as those on skin pigmentation, lip thickness, epicanthus, and to a certain extent also those on the measurable traits. Thus, Shternberg's facial and nasal indexes of the Sakhalin and Amur Nivkhs are at variance with V. N. Vasilyev's data and those of other investigators. The most important results which can be deduced from Shternberg's data are the differences in the cephalic indexes (the Sakhalin Nivkhs are brachycephalic), in the development of tertiary hair ( it is heavier in the Amur Nivkhs ), and in the occurrence of wavy hair (it occurs more frequently in the Amur type). In 1912, the ethnographer V. N. Vasilyev studied the Gilyaks, traveling along the lower Amur, the shores of Okhotsk Sea, and the eastern shore of Sakhalin island. His materials, which pertain mostly to the continental Gilyaks—153 men and 111 women of whom 10 men and 4 women were from Sakhalin—were analyzed and published by G. G. Manizer in 1916 (Manizer, 1916). Manizer's work contains head and face measurements and data on growth, body proportions, and on some additional traits. The degree of malar prominence is noted (determined descriptively by a four-point scale), as well as the prominence and profile of the nasal bridge, the degree of epicanthus, the thickness of the lips and breadth of the mouth, the size and form of the helix, the distance between the inner and outer eye corners, and the inclination of the eye slit (measured by N. N. Lebedev's procedure, with a plumb and a protractor). Because of the inclusive program of investigation and careful handling of the material, Vasilyev's study and Manizer's

Peoples in the Lower Amur Region and Sakhalin 55 analysis were in their time important contributions to the anthropological literature of the Far East. Notwithstanding the small number of Sakhalin Gilyaks examined, Manizer noted the basic differences of their type in comparison with the continental Gilyaks: a much higher cephalic index, a broader face, shorter body, and some differences in proportions. Using the very scarce comparable materials available at that time for other eastern Siberian peoples, Manizer arrived at the conclusions given below. He emphasized their provisional nature. 1. The continental Gilyaks are, in their somatic traits, related to the PaleoAsiatics of northern Siberia and to the Tungus, who have mixed with them. 2. The Gilyaks of Sakhalin island stand apart by reason of their brachycephaly and long legs and represent the indigenous, ancient population of Sakhalin and speakers of the Gilyak language. In somatic traits they sharply differ from immigrant Ainus. 3. The Oroks of Sakhalin island do not differ greatly from other Tungus tribes; their relative brachycephaly can be explained by their mixing with the shortheaded native Gilyak population. On the eve of World War I, and during the years following it, anthropometrical studies of the Orochs and the Golds were made by I. A. Lopatin. He published his material on the Orochs many years later (Lopatin, 1937). In 1927 and 1928 A. N. Pokrovskiy, a member of the Tungus expedition of the Institute of Anthropology of Moscow State University and of the Museum of Ethnology, carried out anthropological investigations of the Orochs, the Oroks, and the Sakhalin Nivkhs. His papers were not published7; only scant data on the basic measurable and describable traits were quoted by Débets (Débets, 1934). Pokrovskiy's data arouse no doubt as to methodology; nevertheless, they cannot be easily compared with those of other authors. According to Pokrovskiy, the Nivkhs differ from the Orochs and Oroks by a darker pigmentation, a much heavier development of tertiary hair, and a relatively high percentage of wavy hair (15 per cent). Of particular interest are certain distinctive traits of the Orochs (in comparison with those of the Nivkhs and Oroks), such as the low percentage of epicanthus (31.5 per cent), the low morphological height of the face (131.2 mm), and the great breadth of the nose (39.8mm). In 1934, the ethnographer A. M. Zolotarev collected anthropological material on the Ulchs, which was published by Débets (1935b).8 In 1938 he collected additional material on the Nanays, Ulchs, Amur Nivkhs, and Negidals. Zolotarev published only brief notes on a few basic racial traits (Zolotarev, 1941 ).9 Basing myself chiefly on the materials of Zolotarev and Pokrovskiy, I once attempted to discern the basic types among the Nivkhs and the Tungus-Manchu groups of the Amur region and Sakhalin, and to relate them to types of other territories (Levin, 1946b). Unfortunately, as discovered later, Zolotarev's data differ in a whole series of traits from those of Débets and from mine, which were collected in 1947. This applies particularly to pigmentation. According to Zolotarev, the Negidals do not differ from the Nivkhs and have a darker pigmentation than the Ulchs. This does not correspond to reality. Also it applies to the height of the nasal root (the Negidals are erroneously shown as having the highest nasal root) and to beard growth—according to Zolotarev, the Ulchs do not differ from the Negidals and Nanays, but in reality the development of the facial hair in the Ulchs is undoubtedly heavier. In some cases the data on the measurable traits

56 Ethnie Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia are also at variance. Thus, according to Zolotarev, the morphological height of the face in the Ulchs is 132.9 mm—and obviously the figure is too low. We have briefly reviewed the available literature on the Nivkhs and TungusManchu groups of the Amur region and Sakhalin. As regards the physical anthropology of the Ainus, there are no original works in Russian on the living. In foreign literature the materials are also very fragmentary. The most detailed data are in Montándonos work (Montandon, 1927). However, even these are very incomplete and not easily comparable with data on other peoples. Craniological data on the peoples of the Amur region and Sakhalin are more numerous. Basing his research on available publications and on the results of his own measurements on skulls in the museum collections of the U.S.S.R., Débets published a complete account of craniological material on the Ainus, Nivkhs, Ulchs, Orochs, Nanays, and Negidals (Débets, 1951a). An earlier account was compiled by Cheboksarov (Cheboksarov, 1947a). Hrdlicka made and published partial measurements of some of the cranial series in Soviet museums ( Hrdlicka, 1924a). Concerning the Ainus, there are, besides rather numerous works by ancient authors, several recent publications by Japanese anthropologists and anatomists. However, these works, which include a very large amount of all kinds of measurements and a description of anatomic details, are unfortunately lacking in information on many important traits.10 The preceding is a brief review of the pertinent literature on the ethnic groups of the Amur region and Sakhalin which was at our disposal prior to the [field] investigations of the Institute of Ethnography in the [Soviet] Far East. In 1947, the expedition* of the Institute examined various groups of Nivkhs, Negidals, Ulchs, and Nanays. In the south of Sakhalin materials were collected on the Ainus and the Japanese. The staff of the Amur-Sakhalin Expedition comprised, besides the present writer and leader of the expedition, the following: I. P. Lavrov, scientific worker at the Institute of Industrial Arts, who studied the figurative arts of the peoples of the Amur region and Sakhalin; N. P. Débets, scientific worker of the Institute of Ethnography, who participated in the physical anthropological research; and a post-graduate student, A. V. Strenina, who was to collect ethnographic material on the Ulchs. G. F. Débets came from Kamchatka to participate directly in the Amur investigations for the purpose of co-ordinating the methodology and program, to ensure the maximum comparability of the data to be collected. The examination of the Nivkhs was done jointly by G. F. Débets and myself and began with the Nivkhs in the Amur estuary. Almost all Nivkh villages were covered, from Langr village on Petrovskaya spit (north of Chkalov island) to Uarka village. Later, the investigations proceeded in two detachments. Débets examined the Negidals along the Amgun river (in the villages of Krasnyy Yar, Daldzha, and Ust-Amgun), the Nivkhs along the lower Amur (Kalma and Takhta Móchala villages),11 and the Ulchs over almost the entire area of their habitation. I studied the ethnic groups of Sakhalin. On the eastern shore of the island we studied the Nivkhs in the villages of Nyyvo, Dagi, and Chayvo, and the Oroks who are centered at a collective farm located on the Val river, about 12 kilometers from Chayvo. In northern Sakhalin we also studied the Nivkhs at their collective farm Chir-unvd ("New Life") located on the middle reaches of the Tym river, 60 kilometers from Derbinskoye village of Kirov rayon. The Nivkhs *The Amur-Sakhalin Anthropological and Ethnographic Expedition of the Institute of Ethnography of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences.

Peoples in the Lower Amur Region and Sakhalin 57 established at this collective farm consist of those who were scattered earlier in various places along the entire Tym river, and also of some of those from the villages on the west bank of the Sakhalin river. However, the Nivkhs of Rybnovsk rayon in northern Sakhalin were not studied.12 In southern Sakhalin we studied the Ainus, visiting their villages of Tarantomari, Toftsu, and Raichisi on the western shore, and Niitoy, Sirokhama, and Tomikhama on the eastern. We shall show that because of forced Japanization, the Ainus of Sakhalin had almost completely lost their indigenous culture at the time we examined them, and had adopted the Japanese language. Marriages between Ainus and Japanese were not infrequent. In Otasu and Taran villages near Poronaysk, we examined several Oroks (mostly women).13 At the collective farm "New Life" in southern Sakhalin we studied the Nanays who had come there in 1946 from the Nanaysk and Komsomolsk rayons on the Amur. In southern Sakhalin we also collected a fairly large amount of data on the Japanese.14

2. Ethno-geographic Differentiations

of the Various Traits™

The age composition of the groups examined is unequal (Table 1). A comparison of groups of différent ages by traits which undergo noticeable alterations after the age of 25 sometimes disguises the true interrelations. For an effective comparison of materials from various ethnic groups, it is necessary to have these groups in the same age range. TABLE 1 AGE COMPOSITION Percentage represented by given age group Ethnic and territorial group MALES 1. Ainus 2. Amur Nivkhs 3. Liman [Estuary] Nivkhs 4. Sakhalin Nivkhs 2-4. Nivkhs (combined) 5. Oroks 6. Negidals 7. Ulchs 8. Nanays FEMALES 1. Ainus 2. Amur Nivkhs 3. Liman [Estuary] Nivkhs 4. Sakhalin Nivkhs 2-4. Nivkhs (combined) 5. Oroks 6. Negidals 7. Ulchs

N

Group I ^-25

Group II 26-39

Group III 40-*

57 79 75 91 245 19 52 125 50

15.5 20.3 14.6 13.2 15.9 21.0 17.3 19.2 12.0

32.8 35.4 42.7 41.7 40.0 21.0 26.9 42.4 48.0

51.7 44.3 42.7 45.1 44.1 58.0 55.8 38.4 40.0

57 54 65 90 209 39 42 106

19.3 27.8 24.6 22.2 24.4 43.6 23.8 21.7

28.1 50.0 50.8 46.7 48.8 28.2 35.7 49.1

52.6 22.2 24.6 31.1 26.8 28.2 40.5 29.2

If the number of individuals examined is large, the comparison may be made in the middle division, which includes individuals aged from 26 to 39 years. In our materials, however, where the age groups are not large, it is more convenient to

58 Ethnie Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia arrange the ages of the groups examined according to some standard system, such as that proposed by A. I. Yarkho and G. F. Débets. So that our data would be comparable with those of Débets from Kamchatka, we adopted the following percentual age distribution as a prearranged standard: age group I (up to 26 years)—25 per cent, age group II (26-39 years)—50 per cent, age group III (40 years and over)—25 per cent. For the individual traits the calculations are done according to the formula: (% age group I) + (% age group II X 2) + (% age group III) 4 For example, in our Nanay group the occurrence of epicanthus was found to be 100 per cent in the first age group, central value* 1.25; 45.9 per cent in the second age group, central value 0.5; and 25 per cent, central value 0.25, in the third age group. If we apply the occurrence of epicanthus to the standard age distribution, we have: Percentage or epicanthus occurrence =

100 + (45.9X2) + 25 = 54.2; 4

u AQ Central value* of epicanthus occurrence = 1.25 + (0.5X2) + 0.25 = nU.oo. 4

PIGMENTATION

Skin color (Table 2). The determination was done on the inner surface of the upper arm, using von Luschan's scale. Von Luschan's scale has its imperfections: comparison of the skin color with the scale numbers allows for a great deal of subjectivity, and the cold brilliance of the opaque glass greatly hinders the determination—which also depends to a great extent on lighting conditions. All this makes us approach with great caution, not only the data of different collectors, but even those obtained at different times and among different ethnic groups by one investigator. Among the peoples of the Amur region and Sakhalin two groups can be clearly distinguished on the basis of skin color. One includes the Tungus-Manchu peoples, the other the Ainus and the Nivkhs. In general, the Tungus-Manchu are characterized by a light skin (shades lighter than No. 10 of von Luschan's scale were found in 60 to 80 per cent). The Nivkhs, and particularly the Ainus, have a much darker skin (light shades are found in about 20 to 40 per cent). According to our data the Amur Nivkhs differ from the Sakhalin and Liman Nivkhs by a somewhat lighter skin. This probably should be attributed to a discrepancy of readings between Débets, who examined the Amur Nivkhs, and myself. The Negidals have the lightest skin; they do not differ from the Lamuts of Kamchatka examined by Débets. Contrariwise, the Nivkhs resemble in this trait the northeastern Paleo-Asiatics and Eskimos. Manifestly, the Ainus are of an even darker color. In the majority of our groups the women were generally of a darker skin color than the men. *[In this and similar cases, we interpret the average value in this three-point system as 1.5, and therefore translate the term sredniy ball, lit. "middle point," as "central value."—Editor.]

TABLE 2 SKIN COLOR (INNER SURFACE OF UPPER ARM) ACCORDING TO VON LUSCHAN'S SCALE Ethnic and territorial group MALES 1. Ainus 2. Amur Nivkhs 3. Liman Nivkhs 4. Sakhalin Nivkhs 2-4. Nivkhs (combined) 5. Oroks 6. Negidals 7. Ulchs 8. Nanays FEMALES 1. Ainus 2. Amur Nivkhs 3. Liman Nivkhs 4. Sakhalin Nivkhs 2-4. Nivkhs (combined) 5. Oroks 6. Negidals 7. Ulchs

N

3

54 47 66

— — —

85

—

12.8 1.5 —

198 19 36 68 38

— 5.3 5.5 4.4 —

46 32 43

— — — —

66 141 31 24 82

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

1 2 Central 0 (3,7-9) (10-14) (15-18) value

14

15

16

17

18

— — —

— — —

— — —

24.1 55.4 28.8

74.1 44.6 71.2

1.8 — —

0.78 0.45 0.71

—

37.6

62.4

—

0.62

— — —

24.1 24.1 42.6 34.0 27.3 45.5

18.5 16.7 7.4 4.3 2.1 2.1 3.0 7.6 13.6

7.4 2.1 1.5

1.8 — —

—

37.6 31.8

11.8

15.3

2.3

1.9 j. ¿i

~^

3.5 10.5 36.1 25.0 21.1

— — — — —

35.4 57.8 41.7 36.8 42.1

36.9 15.8 8.3 32.3 34.2

7.1 5.3 2.8 — —

9.6 5.3 — — 2.6

6.0 — 2.8 — —

1.5 — 2 . 0o — —

— — • — —

— — 1.5 —

— — — —

— — — — —

38.9 73.6 83.3 66.2 63.2

61.1 26.4 16.7 32.3 36.8

— — — 1.5 —

0.61 0.26 0.17 0.34 0.37

— 12.5 2.3

— — —

30.4 37.0 15.7 46.9 16.3 46.5

13.1 10.8 6.5 9.4 6.2 6.2 9.3 4.7 16.3

2.2 3.1 2.3

— — —

— — —

— — 2.3

— — —

30.4 28.1 18.6

69.6 71.8 79.1

— — 2.3

0.70 0.72 0.84

—

—

13.6 47.0

13.6

18.2

— — — — —

— 0.7 — — —

13.6

86.4

—

0.86

14.9 38.7 29.2 40.2

— — — — 1.2

—

— — — —

— 1.4 — — 1.2

— — — —

18.4 54.8 75.0 73.1

80.9 45.2 25.0 26.9

0.7 — — —

0.82 0.45 0.25 0.27

— 3.5 3.2 12.9 12.5 33.3 8.5 24.4

7.6

46.9 11.3 11.3 10.0 — 35.5 9.7 — — 20.8 4.2 — 2.6 1.2 20.7 —

60 Ethnie Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia To arrive at a workable differentiation by skin color between our TungusManchu groups and the Nivkhs, we calculated the percentage of men with light skin ([Luschan] Nos. 3, 7, and 9) in the combined Tungus-Manchu groups and in all the Nivkhs, and compared them according to the formula:

where mi—relative number (%) of individuals presenting the given trait in the first population, ni=relative number (%) of individuals not presenting the given trait in the first population, 7n2=relative number (%) of individuals presenting the given trait in the second population, n2=relative number (%) not presenting the given trait in the second population, Ni=number of individuals in the first population, N2:=number of individuals in the second population. In our case mi (percentage of individuals with light skin among the TungusManchu groups) is 70.2, m2 (percentage of individuals with light skin among the Nivkhs) is 38.9, NI is 161, N2 is 198. Thus,

The difference between the Tungus-Manchu groups and the Nivkhs (31.3 per cent) far exceeds the triple error margin (15.0 per cent), i.e., it is statistically significant. Eye color (Tables 3, 4, and 5) was determined by V. V. Bunak's method, which has been used in almost all the examinations made by Soviet physical anthropologists since the 1920's. It has been the experience of many observers that the determination of classes 2 and 3 ( dark brown and light brown ) often depends on the conditions of lighting, and differences in relative frequencies of these [two] classes should be viewed with caution. In comparing the data for the various groups it is necessary to keep in mind their age composition, since eye color changes considerably with age; considerable variation in each age group from the standard distribution will be reflected not only in the frequencies of occurrence of the individual classes, but also in those of the basic types, i.e., eyes of dark and mixed color. Thus, in our 1949 Korean materials we obtained the following distribution for eyes of mixed color in the different age groups: 20 to 25 years (N = 92) 8% 26 to 39 years (N = 230) 10% 40 to 50 years (N = 77) 16% Older than 50 years (N — 87) 30% On the whole, among the peoples of the Amur region and Sakhalin, the differences in eye color follow the same directions as those of skin color. The Ainu^s and Nivkhs, in whom the percentage with dark eyes is never below 80, show a distinct difference from the Tungus-Manchu peoples (Oroks, Negidals, and Nanays), in whom the percentage with dark eyes does not exceed 50-60; the Ulchs occupy an intermediate position between these groups.

TABLE 3 EYE COLOR, CONDENSED SUMMARY

Ethnie and territorial group

MALES

Ainus Amur Nivkhs Liman Nivkhs Sakhalin Nivkhs Nivkhs (combined) Oroks Negidals Ulchs Nanays

57 79 75 90 244 18 52 125 46

— — — — — — — — —

1.8 29.1 16.0 4.4 16.0 — 21.1 35.2 10.9

84.2 56.9 70.7 74.5 67.6 44.4 38.5 39.2 41.3

— — 1.3 1.1 0.8 —

FEMALES 1. Ainus 2. Amur Nivkhs 3. Liman Nivkhs 4. Sakhalin Nivkhs 2-4. Nivkhs (combined) 5. Oroks 6. Negidals 7. Ulchs

55 54 65 88 207 36 42 106

— — — — — — — —

11.0 64.8 40.0 21.6 38.6 13.9 52.4 49.0

85.5 31.5 52.3 75.0 56.5 72.2 23.8 44.2

— — — — — — — 0.9

1. 2. 3. 4. 2-4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

z —

14.0 11.4 9.4 18.9 13.6 44.4 32.7 20.0 32.6 3.5 3.7

7.7 3.4 4.9

13.9 16.6

5.9

—

1.3 1.3 — 0.8 — 2.4 — — — — — — — 4.8 —

— — 1.3 — 0.4 —

— 1.3 — 1.1 0.8

5.8 2.4 —

11.2 1.9 0.8 15.2

_ _ — — — — _ — —

— — — — — — 2.4 —

— — — — — — — —

— — —

— — —

— — —

— — —

— —

— —

— —

— —

—

—

—

—

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — — — — — — — — —• — — — _ _ _ — — — — — —

.

14 o !4 o 12.0 20.0 15.6 55.6 40.4 25.6 47.8

86.0 86.0 88.0 80.0 84.4 44.4 59.6 74.4 52.2

1.86 1.86 1.88 1.80 1.84 1.44 1.60 1.74 1.52

3.5 3.7 7^7

96.5 96.3 92.3 96.6 95.1 86.1 76.2 94.1

1.97 1.96 1.92 1.97 1.95 1.86 1.76 1.94

0 .A O rr

4.9 13.9

00 0

¿/o . o

5.9

62 Ethnie Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia TABLE 4 CHANGE IN EYE COLOR WITH AGE—MALES

Eye color Percentage with mixed eyes, unit 1 Central value (0-2) Percentage with mixed eyes, unit 1 Central value (0-2)

I II III I II III

11.1 — 21.4 15.8 13.8 14.3 1.89 2.00 1.84 1.79 1.86 1.86 Standard- 14.1 14.3 ized

2.6 50. 0 75 .0 50 .0 1.,50 1. 25 1. 50 62. 5

—

8.3

1.88

1.82 1.85

18.7 18.9 9.4 24.4 2.00 1.92 1.81 1.81 1.91 1.76 11.7 17.6

19.6 16.7 1.97 1.80 1.83 14.6

11.1 21.4 58.6 1.89 1.79 1.41 28.1

12.5 22.6 35.5 1.88 1.77 1.65 23.3

16.7 37.5 75.0 1.83 1.63 1.25 41.6

1.77

1.59

age

Standard- 1.86 ized

1.86

1. 37 1.72

age

TABLE 5 CHANGE IN EYE COLOR WITH AGE—FEMALES

Eye color Percentage with mixed eyes, unit 1 Central value (0-2) Percentage with mixed eyes, unit 1 Central value (0-2)

I II III I II III

2.00 2.00 1.83

12.5 1.94 1.94 1.88

Standard- 4.1 ized

4.2

7.7

2 .0 6.7 20 .0 3 .0 18.2 20 .0 29 .3 10 .7 20.0 2.00 1.98 1.93 1.80 1.98 1.97 1.82 1.80 1,.71 1.93 1,,89 1.80 22 .3 3.0 4 .7 15.8

Standard- 1.96 ized

1.96

1.93

1.97

6.3 3.6

2.00 1.94 1.96

— 16.7

6.3 6.1

2.4 7.1

4.4 3.8 9.7

1.96 1.96 1.90 5.4

age

1.95

1.84

1.78

1.94

age

Pokrovskiy's data confirm the lighter eye-pigmentation in the Tungus-Manchu peoples as compared with the Nivkhs. Thus, among the Sakhalin Nivkhs he found 92.6 per cent with dark eyes; among the Oroks, 61.3 per cent; and among the Orochs, 63.5 per cent. This great frequency of dark eyes in comparison with our data may be explained, at least in part, by the younger average age of the groups examined by Pokrovskiy. In eye pigmentation, the Negidals, Oroks, and Nanays are similar to the Lamuts of Kamchatka. Percentually, the Ainus have the darkest eyes, especially when the very large percentage of older individuals investigated is taken into account. In all our groups the frequency of dark eyes was greater in women than in men. The difference in eye pigmentation between the Tungus-Manchu groups and the Nivkhs constitutes 19.7 per cent, exceeding the triple error margin of differences (11.6 per cent), and thus satisfying the criterion for statistical significance. Hair color ( Table 6 ). The determinations were made by means of the much-used

TABLE 6 HEAD HAIR Hair color Ethnic and territorial group

N

27 (1)

4 (2)

MALES 22 81.8 18.2 1. Ainus 2. Amur Nivkhs 69 33.3 63.8 3. Liman Nivkhs 61 45.9 52.5 4. Sakhalin Nivkhs 66 48.5 48.5 2-4. Nivkhs (combined) 196 42.3 55.1 5. Oroks 11 36.4 63.6 6. Negidals 43 2.3 76.8 7. Ulchs 108 18.5 59.3 8. Nanays 36 63.9 27.8

Hair form Straight, Straight, Wavy, Wavy, Curly, Curly, soft wiry wiry soft wiry soft

5 (3)

6 (4)

7 (5)

8 (6)

9 (7)

10 Central (8) value

— 2.9 1.6 1.5

— — 1.5

— — —

— — —

— — — —

— — — —

1.18 1.70 1.56 1.56

19 67 54 59

63.2 35.8 24.1 44.1

10.5 43.3 66.7 52.5

2.1 — 11.6 17.6 5.6

0.5 — 7.0 1.8 2.8

— — 2.3 1.9 —

— — — — —

— — — 0.9 —

— — — — —

1.61 1.64 2.30 2.13 1.48

180 11 45 115 37

35.0 45.5 8.9 40.9 32.4

53.4 45.5 80.0 51.3 56.8

— — — —

— — — —

— — — —

— — — —

1.20 1.60 1.74 1.68

50 53 61 84

74.0 73.6 52.5 41.7

20.0 22.6 41.0 57.1

— — 2.5 —

— — — —

— — — —

— — — —

1.68 2.03 2.05 1.96

198 34 41 105

53.6 41.2 7.3 46.7

42.9 55.9 85.4 45.7

FEMALES 1. Ainus 49 79.6 20.4 — — 52 44.2 53.8 — 2. Amur Nivkhs 2.0 3. Liman Nivkhs 61 31.2 65.6 1.6 1.6 1.2 4. Sakhalin Nivkhs 85 34.1 64.7 2-4. Nivkhs (combined) 198 35.9 62.1 0.5 1.5 5. Oroks 35 22.8 62.9 2.9 11.4 6. Negidals 40 7.5 85.0 5.0 — 7. Ulchs 1.0 96 17.7 69.8 11.5

N

10.5 11.9 — — 4.4 — 6.7 5.2 5.4

15.8 9.0 9.2 3.4

— — — —

— — — —

7.2 9.0 4.4 0.9 5.4

— — — 1.7 —

— — — — —

4.0 3.8 1.6 — 1.5 2.9 7.3 5.7

2.0 — 3.3 1.2

— — — — — — — —

— __ 1.6 — 0.5 — — —

1.5 — — 1.9

64 Ethnie Origins of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia Fischer scale. A clear-cut distinction between Nos. 27 and 4 of this scale is far from easy, as noted by a number of investigators. This is due to intermediate shades of hair color, lighting, fading of hair color, degree of soiling, and so on. Yet, there are differences in hair color among the groups and basically they agree with the frequencies of distribution among the scale numbers [in such a way] that we find among the peoples of the Amur and Sakhalin the same sort of distribution of hair color as eye color. The Negidals, Ulchs, and Oroks have lighter hair than the Nivkhs and, particularly, the Ainus. The latter are the most dark-haired of our groups. The Nanays drop out of their usual order with a very high percentage of hair color No. 27. It is possible that this may be the result of our misreadings. On the whole, a considerable correspondence in skin, eye, and hair pigmentation exists in our groups. For the Tungus-Manchu peoples of the Amur and Sakhalin a considerable depigmentation of the skin, eyes, and hair may be taken as characteristic when they are compared with the Nivkhs and Ainus. There is no reason to attribute this depigmentation to Russian admixture. Historical data provide evidence that Russian contact with the Negidals or Oroks was not any greater than with the Amur or Sakhalin Nivkhs. As investigations of Soviet anthropologists have shown, depigmentation is also observed in the Tungus-Manchu peoples beyond the limits of the Amur region and Sakhalin. The Lamuts of Kamchatka studied by Débets, the Lamuts and Evenks of the Okotsk coast studied by Levin, and the Evenks north of Lake Baykal investigated by Roginskiy are also distinguished from neighboring groups (the northeastern Paleo-Asiatics, the Eskimos, Buryats, and Yakuts) by a lighter pigmentation. HAIR COVER Form of head hair (Table 6). Two distinct traits are distinguishable in the form of head hair: waviness and coarseness. While the determination of the first trait is sufficiently clear methodologically, that of hair coarseness is unfortunately very subjective. An examination of the data available on the most varied groups has convinced us that even among the investigators affiliated with [the same] Moscow institute, the methodological discrepancies in determining the degree of hair coarseness are very great. In the absence of accepted standards, unity becomes difficult even in teamwork. Our data on individual groups may not be fully comparable among themselves either. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the Ainus have the coarsest hair. The difference in the coarseness of hair between the Negidals and the Nivkhs surely cannot be ascribed to errors of method. Also, it seems that the Nivkhs have coarser hair than the Tungus-Manchu peoples. In respect to hair waviness the Ainus are distinctive; wavy hair is noted in 25 per cent of the men. The Amur Nivkhs resemble them closely in this trait with 21 per cent with wavy hair. In the remaining groups the percentage of wavy hair is considerably lower and noticeable differences are not found among them. An exact comparison of the hair form is possible only through microscopic examination of cross-sections. This was done with the head hair of Ainus, Nivkhs, and Negidals collected by T. D. Gladkova (Zvyagintseva) in the 1951 expedition. Samples of Japanese hair were also examined by her (Table 7). Generally, microscopic examination confirmed the [empirical] results. The thickest and flattest [in cross-section] hair is found among the Ainus, which endows them with the greatest coarseness and waviness; the Nanays have the

TABLE 7 MICROMETRIC HAIR INDEXES FOR SOME OF THE GROUPS EXAMINED—MALES

Nationality Ainus Nivkhs Nanays Japanese

Number Number

Maximum hair diameter

samples

hairs

MM