A Craniometric Investigation of The Bronze Age Settlement of Xinjiang

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 124:199 222 (2004)
Horse-Mounted Invaders From the Russo-Kazakh

Steppe or Agricultural Colonists From Western Central
Asia? A Craniometric Investigation of the Bronze Age
Settlement of Xinjiang
Brian E. Hemphill1* and J.P. Mallory2
1
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, California State University at Bakerseld,

Bakerseld, California 93311-1099
2
School of Archaeology and Palaeoecology, Queens University, Belfast, Northern Ireland BT7 1NN, UK
KEY WORDS
craniometry; phenetic distance; Tarim Basin; Bactria; China
ABSTRACT
Numerous Bronze Age cemeteries in the
oases surrounding the Taklamakan Desert of the Tarim
Basin in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, western China, have yielded both mummied and skeletal
human remains. A dearth of local antecedents, coupled
with woolen textiles and the apparent Western physical
appearance of the population, raised questions as to where
these people came from. Two hypotheses have been offered
by archaeologists to account for the origins of Bronze Age
populations of the Tarim Basin. These are the steppe
hypothesis and the Bactrian oasis hypothesis. Eight
craniometric variables from 25 Aeneolithic and Bronze
Age samples, comprising 1,353 adults from the Tarim
Basin, the Russo-Kazakh steppe, southern China, Central
Asia, Iran, and the Indus Valley, are compared to test
which, if either, of these hypotheses are supported by the
pattern of phenetic afnities possessed by Bronze Age
inhabitants of the Tarim Basin. Craniometric differences
between samples are compared with Mahalanobis gener-
alized distance (d2), and patterns of phenetic afnity are

assessed with two types of cluster analysis (the weighted
pair average linkage method and the neighbor-joining
method), multidimensional scaling, and principal coordinates analysis. Results obtained by this analysis provide
little support for either the steppe hypothesis or the Bactrian oasis hypothesis. Rather, the pattern of phenetic
afnities manifested by Bronze Age inhabitants of the
Tarim Basin suggests the presence of a population of
unknown origin within the Tarim Basin during the early
Bronze Age. After 1200 B.C., this population experienced
signicant gene ow from highland populations of the
Pamirs and Ferghana Valley. These highland populations
may include those who later became known as the Saka
and who may have served as middlemen facilitating
contacts between East (Tarim Basin, China) and West
(Bactria, Uzbekistan) along what later became known as
the Great Silk Road. Am J Phys Anthropol 124:199 222,
2004. 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Schoolchildren in the United States are taught

that the peoples of western Asia and Europe remained ignorant of the populations of East Asia for
many centuries, but that this changed with the incredible journey of Marco Polo. According to popular
account, Marco Polo, a Venetian merchant, left
Venice along with his father and uncle in A.D. 1269
and traveled east across Central Asia along the
route of what later came to be known as the Great
Silk Road, arriving at the court of Kublai Khan at
Beijing in A.D. 1275. There they were received by
the great Khan and remained for the next 16 years,
only to return to Venice with news of the wonders of
the East in A.D. 1295 (Komroff, 1930, p. viixx). Yet,
despite popular perception, the numerous inaccuracies, apparent plagiarisms, and profound gaps of
observation evident in The Travels of Marco Polo
raise serious doubts as to whether Polo ever went to
China at all (Mallory and Mair, 2000, p. 71).
Those with more than a passing familiarity often
identify the date 132 B.C. as the beginning of con-
tacts between East and West along the Great Silk

Road (Barber, 1999, p. 19; Di Cosmo, 1996, p. 87;
Mair, 1995, p. 302; Mallory and Mair, 2000, p. 56). It
was at this time that the Chinese explorer Zhang
Qian embarked on a 13-year mission westward from
Gansu, through Xinjiang, and across the Ferghana
Valley into Central Asia. Soon the Emperor Wudi
gathered an army of some 60,000 soldiers to secure
the Great Silk Road, so that between 114 and 108
B.C. no less than 10 caravans a year were making
2004 WILEY-LISS, INC.
*Correspondence to: Brian E. Hemphill, Department of Sociology

and Anthropology, California State University at Bakerseld, Bakerseld, CA 93311-1099. E-mail: bhemphill@csub.edu
Received 25 October 2002; accepted 2 June 2003.
DOI 10.1002/ajpa.10354
Published online 19 September 2003 in Wiley InterScience (www.
interscience.wiley.com).
200
B.E. HEMPHILL AND J.P. MALLORY
the journey from China in the east to the Ferghana

Valley in the west.
Other scholars maintain that the beginning of
contacts between East and West occurred even earlier, for silk appears in Europe by the sixth century
B.C., throughout the northern Mediterranean basin
by the fth century B.C, and perhaps as early as
1000 B.C. in North Africa (Mair, 1995, p. 285). In the
fth century B.C., Herodotus mentioned transit
trade occurring across great distances in Central
Asia along a route that stretched from the River Don
in the Urals in the west to the Altai and the Minusinsk Basin in the east (Chlenova, 1983).
Archaeological excavations at the site of Sapalli
tepe, located in the North Bactrian oasis of southern
Uzbekistan, during the 1960s and 1970s yielded the
earliest evidence of silk outside of China and raised
the possibility that contacts between East and West
along the Great Silk Road may be far older than
previously thought (Askarov, 1973, p. 133134,
1974, 1977, 1981, 1988). No longer were contacts
dated to 13th century A.D., nor to the second century B.C., nor even to the 10th century B.C. Rather,
the presence of silk at Sapalli tepe raised the possibility that contacts along the Great Silk Road may
have occurred near the end of the third and the
beginning of the second millennia B.C. (Hiebert,
1994; Kohl, 1984). Yet, as provocative as this discovery was, few scholars outside the former Soviet
Union knew of these discoveries (Kohl, 1981, 1992).
One of the major archaeological events of the past
decade has been the proliferation of popular articles,
books, and television documentaries devoted to the
discovery of prehistoric Bronze Age Caucasoid or
Europoid populations in the western Chinese Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (Mair, 1995, p.
281). Here along the oases of the Tarim Basin have
been recovered some 300 mummies, many of which
have been found along with their clothes in an extraordinary state of preservation, dating from ca.
1800 B.C. until the Chinese conquest of the region in
the rst centuries B.C. A far greater assemblage of
skeletal remains has been recovered from Bronze
and Iron Age cemeteries of the region (an assemblage that should be numbered in the many hundreds, if not thousands), though only a few more
than 300 have been examined. Where it has been
possible to identify a phenotypic pattern, the majority of these individuals are identied as possessing a
stronger resemblance to a Western pattern (e.g.,
fair hair, high-bridged noses, heavy beard) rather
than the phenotypic pattern common to the Han of
China (Barber, 1999, p. 19; Mallory and Mair, 2000,
p. 16; Wang, 2001). Not surprisingly, such identications led many to ask (Mair, 1995, p. 289), Who
were the[se] corpses from the Tarim Basin? Where
did they come from? And how did they get there?
Three lines of evidence have been offered to demonstrate that the Bronze Age inhabitants of Xinjiang
were neither long-term indigenous inhabitants of
this region, nor ethnic Han Chinese immigrants
from the East. These lines of evidence include the

textiles worn by these individuals, the evidence of
Indo-European languages in Xinjiang, and previous
biological analyses of the human remains themselves. The purpose of this paper is to compare
craniometric variation among Bronze Age inhabitants of Xinjiang, western China, with Aeneolithic
and Bronze Age samples from the Russo-Kazakh
steppe, south Central Asia, southern China, Iran,
and the Indus Valley, in order to test which of the
hypotheses best explain the origins and subsequent
interactions of the Bronze Age inhabitants of the
Tarim Basin.
Mair (1995, p. 295) considered the textiles worn
and associated with the Xinjiang remains to be
highly diagnostic, perhaps still more so than DNA
analysis, for identifying the origins and afliations
of the Tarim Basin Bronze Age people. These textiles encompass an array of items including string
skirts, fur-lined and fur-trimmed coats, long stockings, and pants that Mair (1995, 1998), Mallory and
Mair (2000), and Barber (1999) claim are indicative
of a close relationship with Indo-European-speaking
pastoralist nomads from the Russian steppe. The
most ancient Bronze Age remains found in Xinjiang
derive from the site of Qawrighul (ca. 1800 B.C.),
located along the Konchi River at the southeastern
edge of the Tarim Basin (Fig. 1). These remains were
found clad in simple cloaks, mantles, and wraps in
shades of natural brown or beige that lack any evidence of piping, sleeves, or trouser legs. Barber
(1999, p. 71) maintained that these individuals not
only appear to have introduced weaving into the
Tarim Basin, but the mere presence of woolen textiles reveals that domestic sheep from the West had
been introduced into the Tarim Basin by the beginning of the second millennium B.C. (Mallory and
Mair, 2000, p. 219).
Some 500 years later, during the closing centuries
of the second millennium B.C., mummies recovered
from Zaghunluq (near Charchan), located along the
southern margin of the Taklamakan Desert in the
southern Tarim Basin, document the introduction of
an entire array of new techniques in clothing manufacture (Barber, 1999). Textiles from the site of
Qizilchoqa (near Qumul/Hami), in the easternmost
part of the region, are marked by weaving of improved quality that includes twill as well as plain
weave. A detailed examination of a textile fragment
by Good (1995) yielded evidence of the same decorative technique as that found in Scottish tartans
which, in turn, exhibited similarities to tartans
found at Hallstatt in Austria dated to the late second millennium B.C. (Mallory and Mair, 2000).
The second line of evidence is linguistic, and involves the discovery of written documents in the
Tarim Basin that attest to the presence of a series of
Indo-European languages collectively known as Tocharian (Barber, 1999, p. 115; Jettmar, 1998, p. 216;
Mallory, 1998, p. 189; Renfrew, 1988, p. 63 66).
These languages exhibit no close similarities to
INHABITANTS OF XINJIANG
201
Fig. 1. Geographic location of craniometric samples. Sample abbreviations from Table 1. Xinjiang samples (QAW, ALW, and KRO)
and Chinese sample from Hainan (HAI) are represented by asterisks; North Bactrian samples, by stars; Iranian samples, by
pentagons; Turkmenian, Caucasus, and Tajik samples, by triangles; Indus Valley samples, by circles; and Russo-Kazakh samples, by
squares.
Indo-Iranian (which is well-represented by a number of languages in the Tarim Basin) or any other
eastern (satem) Indo-European languages (other
than loan words). Within the phylogeny of the IndoEuropean languages, Tocharian languages are either placed with the western (centum) languages
of Europe (Adams, 1984; Hamp, 1998), or are regarded as languages that split from the rest of the
Indo-European languages at such an early date that
they lack many of the isoglosses found between
other Indo-European languages (Ringe et al., 1998).
Mallory and Mair (2000, p. 240 246) suggested that
the separation of Tocharian speakers from other
Indo-European-speaking communities may have occurred as early as the fourth millennium B.C., and
they identied the Afanasievo culture (ca. 3500
2500 B.C.), a primarily pastoralist culture found in
the Altai and Minusinsk regions of the Eurasian
steppe, as a possible source for a Tocharian presence
in the Tarim Basin (Mallory, 1989, p. 62, 263, 1995,
p. 380 381, 1998, p. 189; see also Parpola, 1998).

Wall paintings of Tocharian speakers depict these
individuals as possessing red or blonde hair, long
noses, blue or green eyes, and wearing broadswords
inserted in scabbards hanging from their waists
(Mair, 1995, p. 299).
The third line of evidence comes from analyses of
the biological features of the human remains themselves. This evidence derives from the obviously
Western appearance of many of the mummied
remains, analyses of ancient DNA, and craniometry.
Francalacci (1995) obtained tissue samples from 11
mummies, but only two of these samples were permitted out of China, and the DNA from one was too
damaged for analysis. Hence, at present, the genetic
evidence for the history of the Bronze Age inhabitants of Xinjiang rests on results obtained from a
single individual (Mallory and Mair, 2000, p. 246
247). The mtDNA of this mummy was identied by
Francalacci (1995) as belonging to haplogroup H,
202
one of nine subtypes of mitochondrial lineages

largely associated with Europeans. Yet, while haplogroup H is the most common marker of European
populations (40%), it is also found in 15% of individuals from the Near East. Hence, despite claims to
the contrary (see Cavalli-Sforza, 2000), the ancient
DNA evidence currently available offers little resolution concerning the precise origins of the Bronze
Age inhabitants of Xinjiang.
Over the course of the last two decades, Han
(1994a,b; see also Mair, 1998) conducted craniometric analyses of some 302 adult Bronze Age inhabitants of Xinjiang. Han (1998, p. 568) concluded that
metric variation among these individuals revealed
that the majority (89%) may be attributed to at least
three branches of the Caucasoid type, while a minority (11%) may be ascribed to two branches of the
Mongoloid type. Han (1994a, 1998, p. 566 568)
contended that the temporal and geographic patterns observed among these cranial types document
a three-stage settlement of Xinjiang during the
Bronze Age. According to Han (1998), the rst wave
of immigration involved colonization by a protoEuropoid type with Nordic characteristics that he
attributed to Afanasievo and Andronovo populations
who migrated to Xinjiang and the Tarim Basin from
the steppelands located to the north and northwest.
Han (1998) maintained that a second wave of immigration, this time involving an Eastern Mediterranean type and possibly a Pamir-Fergana type,
entered Xinjiang and the Tarim Basin from the west
around 500 B.C. The third wave of immigration involved a westward migration of an Eastern Mongoloid type into the eastern regions of Xinjiang and
the Tarim Basin, most likely from the adjacent province of Gansu and points further east (see also An,
1992b; Shui, 1993).
MODELS FOR XINJIANG POPULATION ORIGINS
Contemporary researchers are divided over the
most likely explanation for the origins of the Bronze
Age inhabitants of Xinjiang, and this division is
reected by the wide array of explicative accounts
advanced by archaeologists, biological anthropologists, historical linguists, and others. Nevertheless,
these explanations can be grouped into two general
models. These models may be designated the steppe
hypothesis and the Bactrian oasis hypothesis.
Proponents of the steppe hypothesis maintain
that the Tarim region experienced at least two population inuxes from the Russo-Kazakh steppe region (Anthony, 1998; Han, 1998; Kuzmina, 1994,
1998; Mallory, 1995; Mallory and Mair, 2000; Parpola, 1998). They suggest that the initial wave of
immigration into Xinjiang may have originated
among members of the Afanasievo culture found in
the Altai and Minusinsk regions of the steppe north
of the Tarim Basin. This attribution is based on
numerous similarities in material culture, including
bronze metallurgy, burial practices, and textiles,
found between Afanasievo culture sites and the ear-
liest Bronze Age sites in Xinjiang, such as Qawrighul (Kuzmina, 1994, p. 241, 1998, p. 69; Mallory,
1995; Mallory and Mair, 2000).
The Afanasievo culture itself is believed intrusive
to the eastern steppe and is held to share the closest
similarities to the Yamnaya culture (3500 3000
B.C.; Mallory and Mair, 2000) found in the PonticCaspian region of the Russian steppe (Alexeev,
1961; Anthony, 1998, p. 104; Chernykh, 1992;
Gryaznov and Vadezkaya, 1968; Kuzmina, 1998;
Mallory, 1989, p. 62, 1995, 1998, p. 189; Mallory and
Mair, 2000; Parpola, 1998; Posrednikov, 1992; but
see Shishlina and Hiebert, 1998, p. 222223). As
noted by Mallory (1995) and Mallory and Mair
(2000, p. 381382), an eastward emigration and subsequent isolation of Yamnaya-derived Afanasievo
populations in the eastern steppe provides a possible
explanation for the appearance of Tocharian in the
Tarim Basin of Xinjiang. Hence, the apparent similarities between Tocharian and such western IndoEuropean languages as Celtic and Italian are due to
a common retention of proto-Indo-European archaicisms (Mallory, 1989, p. 61), while the differences
between Tocharian and neighboring Indo-Iranian
might be explained by the peripheral position of
proto-Tocharian populations with respect to the
emergence of Indo-Iranian languages. This assertion appeared to be supported by Hans (1998) contrast of cranial and facial indices which indicated
that the earliest individuals from Qawrighul (type I
tombs; see below) were most similar to individuals
from Afanasievo cultural contexts (see Mallory and
Mair, 2000, p. 240 243).
Many proponents of the steppe hypothesis contend that the immigration of Afanasievo populations
to the Tarim Basin was followed by a later inux of
populations derived from the Late Bronze Age Andronovo culture complex (ca. 2100 900 B.C.; Mallory and Mair, 2000) found to the west, northwest,
and north in the Pamirs, the Ferghana Valley, Kazakhstan, and the Minusinsk/Altai region (Chen
and Hiebert, 1995; Kuzmina, 1998; Mei and Shell,
1998; Parpola, 1998). As with earlier Afanasievo
populations, those accompanied by artifacts assigned to the Andronovo culture are believed to have
originated in the western Russian steppe. In this
latter case, ultimate stylistic origins of the artifacts
are traced to the Sintashta culture (ca. 2300 1900
B.C.; Mallory and Mair, 2000) of the southeast Urals
(Anthony, 1998; Anthony and Vinogradov, 1995, p.
36; Kuzmina, 1994; Mallory, 1998). The eastward
expansion of these likely Indo-Iranian-speaking peoples was facilitated by the development of the war
chariot (Anthony, 1998, p. 94; Di Cosmo, 1996, p.
90 91; Mallory, 1989; Parpola, 1998) and is reected by the rapid appearance of such regional
variants of the Andronovo culture designated as
Alakul, Federovo, Tazabagyab, Beshkent, and Vakhsh (Gupta, 1979; Hiebert, 1994; Kohl, 1984, p.
183184; Kuzmina, 1994; Masson, 1992b, p. 350
351; Sulimirski, 1970, p. 261, 263; Zdanovich, 1988).
203
The initial appearance of Andronovo-derived populations in the Tarim Basin is held to be signaled by
the introduction of new clothing styles, ceramic
wares, and burial customs as well as objects of tin
bronze, and objects associated with horses around
1200 B.C. (Barber, 1999; Kuzmina, 1998, p. 73; Mei,
2000, p. 7275; Mei and Shell, 1998).
The second model for the origin of the Bronze Age
inhabitants of Xinjiang is the Bactrian oasis hypothesis. Proponents of this model assert that settlement
of this region of western China came not from nomadic pastoralists of the steppe, but from sedentary,
agriculturally based populations of the Oxus civilization (the Bactrian-Margiana archaeological complex (BMAC); Hiebert, 1994) found west of Xinjiang
in Uzbekistan (north Bactria), Afghanistan (south
Bactria), and Turkmenistan (Margiana) (Barber,
1999; Chen and Hiebert, 1995, p. 287). Proponents of
this model emphasize the environmental similarities between the desert basins of eastern (Xinjiang)
and western Central Asia (Bactria, Margiana) and
maintain that the sophisticated irrigation techniques developed in the oases of Margiana and Bactria permitted the colonization of the river deltas
and oases surrounding the north, east, and southern
margins of the Taklamakan Desert (Barber, 1999;
Chen and Hiebert, 1995).
Barber (1999) suggested that the archaeological
record provides better evidence that the initial colonizers of the Tarim Basin were agriculturalists
from Bactria than nomadic pastoralists from the
Russian steppe. This evidence not only includes irrigation systems, evidence of western cultigens such
as wheat, and bones of sheep and goats, but also
evidence of carefully bundled bags containing Ephedra sp. found accompanying many Bronze Age Xinjiang burials. Use of ephedra is well-known in Oxus
civilization urban centers, where Hiebert (1994) and
Sarianidi (1987, 1990, 1993a,b, 1994; see also
Kussov, 1993; Meyer-Melikyan, 1998; Meyer-Melikyan and Avetov, 1998) found evidence of specialized areas known as white rooms where it is believed a ritual drink, known as haoma in Iranian
and soma in Indic, was consumed (but see Nyberg,
1995, p. 400; Parpola, 1995, p. 371). Ephedra does
not grow on the Russo-Kazakh steppe, nor is it associated with either Afanasievo or Andronovo cultures (Barber, 1999, p. 165; but see Parpola, 1998, p.
126 127).
Barber (1999) suggested that the Bronze Age settlement of the Tarim Basin was a two-step process
in which initial immigration came from the oases of
Bactria and Margiana, and is represented by remains found at such southeastern sites as Qawrighul. This was followed by a second wave of immigration soon after 1200 B.C. This time, immigrants
came from Andronovo populations located to the
northwest, and participants in this wave of immigration may be associated with the remains found at
northern Tarim Basin sites such as Alwighul, Hami,
Turfan, and Kucha. Barber (1999) claimed that ev-
idence of these two separate waves of immigration is

provided not only by dramatic differences in textile
manufacture, but also by textual evidence from the
rst centuries A.D. which documents that inhabitants of the southern Tarim oases spoke Iranian languages (such as Saka and Sogdian), while those
inhabiting the northern oases spoke Tocharian.
Measurements of the neurocranium and facial
skeleton have been used for many years to provide
an assessment of the degree of biological relatedness
among samples of past and living populations. Although it is clear that these measurements actually
provide assessment of an unknown combination of
environmental and hereditary factors (CavalliSforza and Bodmer, 1971), and may be affected by
masticatory mechanics (Carlson and Van Gerven,
1977; Van Gerven, 1982) and environmental variation (Beals, 1972; Guglielmino-Matessi et al., 1979),
twin studies (Clark, 1956; Lundstrom, 1954; Nakata
et al., 1974a; Orczykowska-Swiatkowska and Lebioda, 1975; Saunders et al., 1980), familial studies
(Devor, 1987; Howells, 1966; Nakata et al., 1974b;
Susanne, 1975, 1977), and worldwide comparisons
of craniometric variation revealed a moderate degree of genetic control (Susanne, 1975, 1977), and
demonstrated the utility of such variables for reconstructing patterns of biological interactions among
populations (Howells, 1973, 1989). Since all of the
samples included in this study derive from either
sedentary, agricultural communities or pastoralist
populations who received regular supplies of agricultural produce, and from sites that differ little in
latitude, a comparison of craniometric variation
should suffer no systemic biases due to differences in
masticatory stresses or natural selection for dramatically different environments (Hemphill, 1998,
1999).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials
Analyzed Bronze Age skeletal samples from Xinjiang are few and are underrepresented in the literature. Although many individuals included in the
current study were the subject of craniometric comparisons by Han (1990, 1994b, 1998, 2001) and Mallory and Mair (2000, p. 236 244), these comparisons
are limited to contrasts of cranial and facial indices
that provide no assessment of covariation among
cranial indicators or of the signicance of phenetic
separation between samples. Further, results obtained from these contrasts are interpreted within a
typologically grounded ethnogenetic paradigm that
identies human variation, even in individual cemeteries, as attributable to the presence of multiple
physical types and subsequent interbreeding
among them (Han, 1994b, 1998; Mair, 1995, p. 291
292; Mallory and Mair, 2000, p. 235). Hence, reication of such xed physical types encourages a
static perspective of human populations that fails to
accommodate the known evolutionary forces of nat-
204
ural selection, mutation, gene ow, and genetic drift.

It is these processes that result in the inherent dynamism in the genetic foundation of all populations,
as emphasized in modern population genetics (Falconer, 1981; Hartl and Clark, 1997; Hedrick, 2000).
Through the efforts of Mallory (1995), measurements made in accordance with standards established by Martin (1928) by Han (1998) on crania
recovered from three sites from the Tarim Basin of
Xinjiang were made available to B.E.H. for further
statistical analyses and interpretation. These sites
include Qawrighul, Alwighul, and Kroran (Fig. 1).
Discovered in 1979 and excavated by Wang (1987,
1996), Qawrighul represents the most ancient
Bronze Age cemetery in Xinjiang (DebaineFrancfort, 1988, p. 1516; Han, 1994a; Jettmar,
1992; Kuchera, 1988; Wang, 1987, 1996). A series of
ve radiocarbon dates places this cemetery between
2300 1430 B.C. (An, 1998; Chen and Hiebert, 1995).
The cemetery is located on the bank of the Konchi
River, 70 km west of ancient Lake Lopnur along the
eastern edge of the Taklamakan Desert (Kuzmina,
1998; Mallory and Mair, 2000, p. 137). Excavation of
the cemetery resulted in the recovery of 42 burials,
each containing a single individual, from two different types of tombs (Wang, 1982, 1983).
The rst, designated as Qawrighul type I tombs,
account for 36 of the burials. All are shaft pit graves,
and a minority of these graves feature wooden poles
placed at east and west ends. The actual burial
chamber was lined with small wooden boards, and
the top of the chamber was sealed with animal
skins, carpets, or a basket-shaped cover. The bodies
were placed in a supine, extended position, with
their heads to the east and their feet to the west.
Qawrighul type II tombs account for six burials, and
they appear stratigraphically later than type I
tombs. Type II tombs are identical to type I tombs
with respect to the use of small wooden boards to
line the burial pit and placement of the body, but
differ by featuring an elaborate arrangement of
wooden poles embedded in the ground surface. The
most elaborate of these type II tombs featured seven
concentric rings of wooden stakes that radiate outward in what some (Wang, 1983, 1984) interpreted
as a solar pattern from the center of the burial
chamber, to encompass an area 50 60 m in diameter.
Individuals interred in the Qawrighul cemetery
wore no clothing apart from leather shoes and cloaks
made of plain woven textiles fastened at the front
with bone pins. Felt hats were placed on the head,
and in several instances, small bags containing
twigs of Ephedra sp. were found on their chests
(Barber, 1999; Chen and Hiebert, 1995, p. 253). No
ceramics accompany any of the burials, but one bone
and ve wooden anthropomorphic gurines, some
still wearing fragments of textiles, were recovered. A
few jade beads and fragments of either copper or
bronze represent the extent of additional burial accoutrements (Wang, 1982, 1983, 1984). All 18 adult
crania recovered from this site (11 male, 7 female)

were identied by Han (1986a, 1994a, 1998) as
proto-European and possessing closest afnities to
crania recovered from southern Siberia, Kazakhstan, and the Volga River region of southern Russia
(Han, 1998, p. 559 560; Mair, 1995, p. 290; Mallory
and Mair, 2000, p. 241). Han (2001, p. 234) suggested that the earliest (type I) burials were most
closely related to the Afanasievo type, while later
burials bore greater similarity to Andronovo populations.
The cemetery of Alwighul is located near the Ordos grasslands along the southern slopes of the Tian
Shan mountains (Han, 1998; Ma and Wang, 1994, p.
213). Featuring a series of radiocarbon dates that
cluster between 800 200 B.C., the Alwighul cemetery dates to the Late Bronze Age, a period that is
marked by an increase in the frequency of bronze
objects and, in some regions of Xinjiang, the initial
appearance of large bronze objects (An, 1998, p. 58;
Ma and Wang, 1994, p. 213).
Three major inhumation types were observed at
Alwighul. The rst two feature distinctive burial
chambers in which the perimeter walls are lined
with pebbles. The early pebble graves (type I) feature multiple interments of at least 10 20 individuals piled atop one another in a supine position,
with the head to the west and the feet to the east.
Late pebble graves (type II) are similar in construction to those of type I, but feature an additional
wooden bench supported by four pillars and contain
the remains of only 12 individuals. Type III graves
appear as heaps of stones at ground level beneath
which there is a large vertical pit that leads to a
wooden cofn-chamber.
In total, 58 adult crania (33 males, 25 females)
were recovered from Alwighul. All of these remains
were recovered from a single type I mass interment
grave and were associated with a wide array of
burial goods, including hand-made gray-red ceramic
vessels decorated with triangular, net, whorl and
pine-needle motifs painted in light black; a considerable number of bronze plates and knives; many
strings of beads made from bone, shell, agate, and
jade; and earrings of both bronze and gold (Ma and
Wang, 1994, p. 213215). The craniometric analysis
by Han (1994b, 1998, p. 560 561, 2001, p. 231232)
of these remains revealed the presence of at least
three different racial types, including two different
forms of Caucasoids (Pamir-Ferghana type and
Eastern Mediterranean type) and a single form of
Mongoloid. Han (1990, 1998) suggested that the
apparent lack of conformity of some of the crania to
these racial types indicated some degree of mixture between the two Caucasoid types as well as
between Caucasoids and Mongoloids.
The cemetery of Kroran is located in one of the
southeastern group of oases on the southern bank of
the Konchi River near the outskirts of Loulan, the
capital of the Shan-Shan state during the rst century B.C. (Ma and Wang, 1994, p. 211). There is
205
TABLE 1. Samples considered in study
Maximum sample
size
Males
Females
ADM
AFA
AFM
AND
ALT
Code
22
17
18
25
40
11
7
11
31
42
Andronovo/Minusinsk
Afanasievo/Altai
Afanasievo/Minusinsk
Andronovo/Kazakhstan
Altyn depe/Turkmenistan
Site/region
Late Bronze Age

Early Bronze Age
Early Bronze Age
Late Bronze Age
Namazga V
Period
2100900 B.C.
35002500 B.C.
35002500 B.C.
2100900 B.C.
25002200 B.C.
ALW
CEMH
DJR
GKS
33
10
17
38
25
18
33
32
Alwighul/Xinjiang, China
Harappa/Indus Valley
Djarkutan/North Bactria
Geoksyur/Turkmenistan
Late Bronze Age

Late Harappan
Djarkutan phase
Namazga III
650200 B.C.
19001600 B.C.
20001800 B.C.
35003000 B.C.
HAI
HAR
45
23
38
41
Hainan/South China
Harappa/Indus Valley
Living
Mature Harappan
Living
25002000 B.C.
KAM
KAR
133
14
118
13
Karasuk/Minusinsk
Kara depe/Turkmenistan
Late Bronze Age

Namazga III
35003000 B.C.
KOK
KRO
KUZ
KUZ
MOL
QAW
SAMB
SAP
SHS
14
4
13
13
18
11
14
13
45
10
2
14
14
28
7
13
28
43
Kokcha III/Turkmenistan
Kroran/Xinjiang, China
Qawrighul/Xinjiang, China
Samtavro/Caucasus
Sapalli tepe/North Bactria
Shahr-i Sokhta/Eastern Iran
Late Bronze Age

Bronze/Iron Age
Kuzali Phase
Kuzali phase
Molali phase
Early Bronze Age
Late Bronze Age
Sapalli phase
SHS I, II, III
18001500 B.C.
202 B.C.A.D. 150
18001650 B.C.
18001650 B.C.
16501500 B.C.
1800 B.C.
1400800 B.C.
22002000 B.C.
30002200 B.C.
TH2
TH3
TMG
9
102
9
7
36
11
Tepe Hissar/Northern Iran

Tepe Hissar/Northern Iran
Timargarha/Indus Valley
33002500 B.C.
25001700 B.C.
1400800 B.C.
TMM
26
21
Tigrovaja-Makoni Mor/
Tajikistan
Tepe Hissar II
Tepe Hissar III
Late Bronze/Early
Iron Age
Molali phase
Alexeev (1961)
Alexeev (1961)
Alexeev (1961)
Alekseev (1967)
Kiiatkina (1967);
Hemphill (1999)
Han (1998)
Gupta et al. (1962)
Hemphill (1998)
Kiiatkina (1987);
Hemphill (1999)
Howells (1989)
Gupta et al. (1962);
Hemphill et al. (1991)
Rykusina (1976)
Ginzberg and Tromova
(1972)
Tromova (1961)
Han (1998)
Hemphill (1998)
Hemphill (1998)
Hemphill (1998)
Han (1998)
Abduselisvili (1954)
Hemphill (1998)
Pardini and SarvariNegahban (1976)
Pardini (1977, 1979
1980)
Krogman (1940)
Krogman (1940)
Bernhard (1967)
16501500 B.C.
Kiiatkina (1976)
considerable controversy over the correct dates for

the human remains from this cemetery. According to
some researchers, the six adult crania recovered
from this cemetery derive from the Western Han
period (202 B.C.A.D. 220; Han, 1998; Mair, 1995),
but recent Chinese excavations suggest that these
remains are associated with artifacts that span the
period between the seventh to rst centuries B.C.
(Ma and Wang, 1994, p. 211). Nevertheless, a pair of
radiocarbon dates obtained from the cemetery suggest that the Western Han period is most likely
correct (Mallory and Mair, 2000, p. 335).
Individuals recovered from the cemetery at Kroran were interred in graves featuring a chamber of
wooden planks within a shallow pit. The body was
placed in an extended position, and wrapped in a
woolen cloth. One extremely well-preserved individual was buried wearing hide boots and a peaked
brown felt hat with bird feathers. In this case, the
woolen cloth was gathered into a pouch on the upper
chest and lled with fragments of Ephedra sp. (Ma
and Wang, 1994, p. 211212). The graves also contained wooden and stone gurines with long, round
faces, but most funerary objects represent articles of
everyday use and decorative ornaments. In earlier
tombs, there is no pottery, and utensils are made of
woven grass, wood, bone, or horn. Ornaments in-
Dates
Reference
clude beads made of bone, amber, agate, or jade, and

were usually found encircling the neck or ankles.
Groups of bone tubes about 10 cm long were sometimes linked together and worn around the waist. In
addition to these locally produced items, many artifacts such as brocades, rough silk, silk oss, bronze
mirrors, lacquerware, and wuzhu coins typical of the
Han Dynasty of the middle-lower Yellow River were
also recovered.
Of the six adult crania recovered, only one, a female, was identied by Han (1986b, 1994a, 1998, p.
562563) as Mongoloid. The remaining ve individuals were identied by Han as possessing Eastern Mediterranean characteristics most similar to
those found among sixth century B.C. Saka of the
southern Pamirs (Ma and Wang, 1994, p. 212; Mair,
1995, p. 292).
Cranial series used to provide a comparative foundation for the Xinjiang remains encompass 22 samples, numbering 1271 individuals (665 males, 606
females) from the Russo-Kazakh steppe, southern
China, Central Asia, Iran, and Indus Valley. Together, all 25 skeletal samples span a timeframe
from 3500 B.C. to the present. Abbreviations, sample sizes, sources, and sample locations for all cranial samples are provided in Table 1 and Figure 1.
206
TABLE 2. Craniometric variables used to generate mahalanobis

generalized distances between samples
Variable1
Neurocranium
Maximum cranial length (GOL)
Maximum cranial breadth (BEB)
Facial skeleton
Upper facial height (NPH)
Nasal height (NH)
Nasal breadth (NB)
Orbital height (OH)
Orbital breadth (OB)
Bizygomatric breadth (BZB)
1
1
8
48
55
54
52
51
45
Numbers of variables as dened by Martin (1928)
Eight cranial variables (two for the neurocranium,

and six for the facial skeleton) of those dened by
Martin (1928) provide the metrical basis for the
current study (Table 2). While this small battery of
measurements is far from representing the ideal
array of variables for capturing the morphological
complexity of the human cranium, increases in the
number of variables do not automatically result in
greater insight into the patterning of phenetic distances (Kowalski, 1972, p. 121; Oxnard, 1973, p. 39).
In addition, when employing remains recovered
from archaeological contexts, the often fragmentary
nature of these remains leads to a concomitant decrease in sample size for every increase in variables
considered. Quite simply, these eight variables represent the best combination of those measurements
for which data were available for all of the samples
compared and those adequately represented, due to
differential preservation relative to other measurements, within each of these samples.
When utilizing data collected by other workers,
the degree of interobserver differences in assessment of these variables represents an important
source of potential error that can compromise meaningful results. In this study, the degree of interobserver error between the authors and describers of
comparative cranial series could be assessed for
Tepe Hissar (Krogman, 1940), Harappa (Cemetery
R37), Cemetery H at Harappa (Gupta et al., 1962),
Altyn depe, and Geoksyur (Ginzberg and Tromova,
1972; Tromova, 1961; Kiiatkina, 1976, 1977, 1987).
Repeated-measures analysis of variance (Hemphill,
1998, 1999; Hemphill et al., 1991) indicated no signicant measurement differences between different
observers. Although the degree of interobserver error could not be directly assessed between the authors and samples obtained from Alekseev and
Gochman (1983), these researchers incorporated
measurements taken by Tromova (1961) and Kiiatkina (1976, 1977, 1987) with those of Alexseev
(1961, 1967) and Abduselisvili (1954, 1960, 1966)
and found no signicant differences. Logically, then,
there should be no signicant differences between
measurements taken by the author and those obtained by Alexseev (1961, 1967) and Abduselisvili
(1954, 1960, 1966) as well. Interobserver error could
not be assessed for published measurements for individuals recovered from Shahr-i Sokhta, Timargarha, or Hainan (southern China).
Methods
The covariance matrix for each sample was obtained
for males and females pooled together with listwise
deletion. Although pairwise deletion permits greater
effective sample sizes within each sample, listwise deletion was used to avoid systematic biases caused by
overrepresentation and underrepresentation of individual variables (Wilkinson, 1990). A pooled covariance matrix was obtained for all samples for which
individual data were available and bias-adjusted to
accommodate differences in sample size. Hence, those
samples represented by group-level data only (Andronovo-Minusinsk (ADM), Afanasievo-Altai (AFA),
Afanasievo-Minusinsk (AFM), Andonovo-Kazakhstan
(AND), Karasuk-Minusinsk (KAM), Kara depe (KAR),
Kokcha III (KOK), Samtavro (SAMB), and Tigrovaja
Balka-Makoni Mor (TMM)) were not used to construct
the pooled covariance matrix. Variable averages were
calculated for both males and females. Sex-standardized group values for each variable were obtained by
taking the average of male and female mean values for
each sample (Table 3). The bias-adjusted pooled covariance matrix and sex-standardized group values
were used to obtain Mahalanobis generalized distances (d2) between each pair of samples. The diagonal
matrix of Mahalanobis d2 values is provided in Table
4. The signicance of pairwise d2 distance contrasts for
those samples in which individual data were available
were assessed by means of F-tests, conducted according to the method of Konigsberg et al. (1993).
The diagonal matrix of Mahalanobis d2 values was
used as input for cluster analyses. Different associating algorithms were used to provide two perspectives on the patterning of intersample phenetic afnities. These associating algorithms include the
weighted pair average linkage method (WPGMA)
(Sneath and Sokol, 1973) and the neighbor-joining
method (Felsenstein, 1989; Saitou and Nei, 1987).
The cophenetic correlation coefcient, rcs (Sneath
and Sokol, 1973), was computed with the NTSYS-pc
statistical package to measure the degree of correspondence between the obtained phenogram from
WPGMA cluster analysis and the original resemblance matrix.
The diagonal matrix of Mahalanobis d2 values was
used as input for nonmetric multidimensional scaling, to provide a third perspective on the patterning
of intersample afnities. The coefcient of alienation
of Guttman (1968) was used to calculate distances
between individual points. The goodness of t obtained by multidimensional scaling was assessed
through calculation of the degree of stress through
100 iterations. Multidimensional scaling was accomplished with the SYSTAT statistical package
(Wilkinson, 1990). Results obtained were ordinated
in three-dimensional space, and a minimum spanning tree (Hartigan, 1975) was imposed on the array
TABLE 3. Mean values of craniometric variables1
Male sample
ADM
AFA
AFM
ALT
ALW
AND
CEMH
DJR
GKS
HAI
HAR
KAM
KAR
KOK
KRO
KUZ
MOL
QAW
SAMB
SAP
SHS
TH2
TH3
TMG
TMM
Female sample
ADM
AFA
AFM
ALT
ALW
AND
CEMH
DJR
GKS
HAI
HAR
KAM
KAR
KOK
KRO
KUZ
MOL
QAW
SAMB
SAP
SHS
TH2
TH3
TMG
TMM
Sex-standardized sample
ADM
AFA
AFM
ALT
AND
ALW
CEMH
DJR
GKS
HAI
HAR
KAM
KAR
KOK
KRO
KUZ
MOL
QAW
SAMB
SAP
SHS
TH2
TH3
TMG
TMM
1
GOL
BEB
NPH
NH
NB
OH
OB
BZB
186.0
191.7
192.1
189.5
184.2
186.4
188.2
186.9
190.1
176.4
187.3
183.0
194.8
186.1
187.9
190.9
185.6
183.0
189.3
183.5
185.8
188.8
188.4
190.2
188.4
145.0
142.4
144.1
135.9
141.9
140.4
141.3
134.7
134.5
138.4
134.5
147.4
134.9
138.1
139.1
138.9
138.1
137.9
137.1
134.9
136.4
132.0
134.1
132.0
136.9
67.8
71.7
71.8
70.7
68.7
69.2
67.9
69.9
71.1
69.7
69.2
73.4
72.6
68.4
74.4
68.7
69.4
66.5
76.7
70.2
70.2
70.3
69.8
70.3
71.8
50.2
53.1
52.1
51.6
52.2
51.5
50.8
50.7
52.0
52.4
51.4
51.6
51.2
51.5
53.6
49.6
51.5
50.9
53.8
51.3
50.6
50.4
50.6
50.0
51.6
25.8
27.1
26.1
25.2
25.0
25.4
26.3
24.8
25.5
27.3
26.5
25.8
26.6
23.5
24.6
26.4
25.1
26.2
23.8
24.2
25.7
25.1
25.4
22.9
24.7
31.7
32.3
32.9
32.4
33.1
32.9
32.9
30.9
33.0
33.6
33.2
33.7
31.8
30.9
34.1
30.9
31.8
31.6
35.0
32.7
31.8
31.6
32.1
33.3
31.2
44.4
43.7
44.9
40.7
39.0
42.1
41.3
37.5
40.1
38.7
41.4
44.1
42.5
43.2
38.6
39.9
38.3
40.5
42.0
37.7
42.1
41.0
41.2
41.5
42.4
140.7
141.6
138.4
129.1
130.8
131.8
134.8
131.3
127.6
134.0
131.5
139.7
129.9
133.4
131.0
134.0
126.6
136.2
128.3
129.1
129.4
125.3
127.3
133.0
131.8
175.9
182.6
180.4
181.4
173.9
177.6
179.2
184.7
185.8
170.6
180.9
173.2
183.0
177.6
181.0
179.3
183.5
178.1
180.1
181.5
179.1
178.3
179.4
180.2
179.8
140.6
138.2
135.8
135.1
135.3
136.0
132.4
134.0
132.9
135.0
132.1
143.4
132.1
136.4
133.5
132.6
134.2
128.8
136.5
134.1
133.3
132.1
131.8
130.9
133.2
67.5
64.8
67.4
67.3
64.9
67.3
62.7
69.5
69.8
65.4
66.2
68.0
67.5
66.2
69.0
65.1
70.6
62.6
69.5
67.5
67.6
67.6
66.1
66.6
69.2
48.9
47.8
49.5
49.6
49.4
48.4
46.0
50.2
50.9
49.3
48.3
48.4
47.9
49.4
50.6
46.8
49.7
47.4
48.4
49.2
50.0
48.3
48.3
48.1
49.2
23.9
25.4
25.6
24.2
24.2
24.6
24.4
25.6
25.2
26.0
24.2
24.6
24.7
23.8
24.1
23.6
25.0
24.5
23.4
24.8
24.5
23.7
23.9
22.9
23.7
33.0
31.1
33.1
32.7
32.0
32.2
33.3
33.0
32.9
32.8
34.1
32.9
32.0
31.8
33.2
30.7
32.6
32.3
32.1
33.0
31.9
33.6
31.7
33.1
31.9
42.5
46.5
44.3
38.9
37.5
41.8
39.9
38.5
39.0
37.6
40.6
42.1
41.6
41.2
36.8
36.3
38.8
38.9
39.3
37.2
40.7
38.7
39.6
40.0
40.9
127.4
129.8
131.8
121.4
124.4
128.2
119.5
123.9
123.4
125.6
123.9
131.8
123.8
128.5
129.5
122.4
126.5
125.0
122.5
124.4
122.7
118.7
120.2
122.3
124.5
181.0
187.3
186.3
185.5
182.0
179.0
183.7
185.8
190.1
173.5
184.1
178.1
188.9
181.9
184.4
185.1
184.5
180.5
184.7
182.5
182.5
183.5
183.9
185.2
184.1
142.8
140.3
140.0
135.5
138.2
138.6
136.8
134.3
134.5
136.7
133.3
145.4
133.5
137.3
136.3
135.7
136.1
133.3
136.8
134.5
134.8
132.1
133.0
131.5
135.1
67.7
68.3
69.6
69.0
68.3
66.8
65.3
69.7
71.1
67.5
67.7
70.7
70.1
67.3
71.7
66.9
70.0
64.5
73.1
68.8
68.9
69.0
69.9
68.4
70.5
49.6
50.5
50.8
50.6
50.0
50.8
48.4
50.5
52.0
50.8
49.9
50.0
49.6
50.5
52.1
48.2
50.6
49.1
51.1
50.2
50.3
49.4
49.4
49.1
50.4
24.9
26.3
25.9
24.7
25.0
24.6
25.3
25.2
25.5
26.7
25.4
25.2
25.7
23.7
24.4
25.0
25.1
25.3
23.6
24.5
25.1
24.4
24.7
22.9
24.2
32.4
31.7
33.0
32.6
32.2
32.6
33.1
32.0
33.0
33.2
33.6
33.3
31.9
31.4
33.7
30.8
32.2
32.0
33.6
32.9
31.8
32.6
31.9
33.2
31.6
43.5
45.1
44.6
39.8
42.6
38.3
40.6
38.0
40.1
38.1
41.0
43.1
42.1
42.2
37.7
38.1
38.6
39.7
40.7
37.5
41.4
39.9
40.4
40.8
41.7
134.1
135.7
135.1
125.3
132.4
127.6
127.1
127.6
127.6
129.8
127.7
135.8
126.9
131.0
130.2
128.2
126.5
130.6
125.4
126.7
126.0
122.0
123.8
127.7
128.2
Abbreviations for craniometric variables are from Table 2. Abbreviations for samples are from Table 1.
208
0.0
12.042
4.187
6.375
5.530
4.176
3.979
2.069
6.149
3.544
3.893
3.077
2.941
2.211
4.880
0.0
12.367
6.724
13.567
12.471
11.105
10.941
9.208
13.146
8.204
12.896
14.296
12.344
8.076
0.0
6.035
9.922
5.182
4.189
7.091
3.535
7.571
1.521
1.573
1.152
4.028
1.675
0.0
9.700 0.0
6.472 3.445
6.280 1.954
4.269 5.783
2.158 9.440
8.194 0.597
2.439 7.851
5.886 6.162
2.811 10.382
4.318 5.786
6.790 7.567
0.0
1.342
3.558
5.838
1.812
4.700
4.035
3.426
4.666
4.565
0.0
4.544
2.676
0.962
2.952
2.019
2.122
4.459
3.367
0.0
9.440
3.814
4.579
6.049
4.669
4.688
5.782
0.0
4.895
2.854
1.873
5.995
3.790
2.403
0.0
5.733
4.016
4.387
4.593
6.126
0.0
1.427
0.586
3.940
0.754
0.0
0.384
2.828
2.121
0.0
5.276
0.689
0.0
2.863
0.0
of data points to ease interpretation of the patterning of intersample associations.

Principal coordinates analysis was used to provide
a fourth perspective on intersample craniometric
variation (Hair et al., 1971). The symmetric matrix
of Mahalanobis d2 values was double-centered prior
to entry into NTSYS-pc statistical software (Rohlf,
2000). The rst three principal coordinate axes were
retained, group scores were calculated along these
axes, and ordinated into three-dimensional space.
As with results from multidimensional scaling, a
minimum spanning tree was imposed on the array of
principal coordinate scores to ease interpretation of
intersample associations. The cophenetic correlation
coefcient was computed to assess the goodness of t
of the obtained eigenvectors with the matrix of Mahalanobis d2 values. This latter step is especially
important, because the cophenetic correlation coefcient provides more information on the patterning
of relative phenetic distances among samples than
the absolute distance (as indicated by the percentage
of total variation explained by the rst three eigenvectors) (Rohlf, 1972, 2000), and it is the patterning
of these relative distances that is most useful for
understanding processes of past population interactions.
As a nal step in assessment of the nature of
intersample craniometric variation, spatial distance
and temporal distance matrices were computed
among all sample pairs. Congruence between the
Mahalanobis d2 matrix and these latter two matrices was assessed by means of the Mantel test (Mantel, 1967) and Mantel correlation coefcient (Smouse
et al., 1986). These procedures provide a test to
determine if differences between samples may simply be a product of geographical propinquity or differences in antiquity. The signicance of these associations was obtained through 1,000 permutations
at random by rows and columns.
0.0
9.582
3.435
14.601
2.576
6.834
3.804
3.154
1.296
5.180
3.313
2.731
2.866
1.617
1.656
3.696
3.535
RESULTS
Abbreviations for samples are from Table 1.

1
0.0
2.879
3.870
2.006
1.671
0.969
7.800
3.114
10.608
2.526
4.381
3.878
2.519
0.759
4.270
2.009
2.298
1.296
0.726
0.608
3.044
2.106
0.0
0.651
8.216
11.187
1.900
5.942
12.879
9.969
14.863
8.921
6.396
5.592
3.160
16.850
10.922
10.987
7.599
10.378
14.700
4.366
9.497
6.399
9.195
4.800
0.0
6.208
8.787
0.953
4.134
10.467
7.823
11.760
6.318
4.352
4.677
2.804
12.914
9.408
8.567
6.263
7.277
11.396
3.326
7.309
7.828
6.706
3.713
0.0
4.961
3.396
3.169
4.836
3.043
5.479
9.040
9.317
5.416
2.903
3.537
2.327
3.055
6.324
1.963
4.932
5.768
6.390
6.898
6.273
0.0
2.864
6.790
6.037
7.931
4.355
3.695
4.242
1.076
8.714
5.703
5.304
3.435
5.297
7.188
1.865
5.137
4.106
4.411
2.000
0.0
4.367
3.465
6.800
2.029
8.526
4.002
4.722
6.607
3.748
3.399
2.581
5.477
4.240
2.815
3.163
2.410
4.033
4.564
0.0
1.429
6.824
3.727
14.107
5.058
7.647
1.593
0.952
0.428
4.154
4.431
0.669
4.432
2.963
3.045
4.462
4.608
0.0
6.989
9.924
14.058
10.962
11.857
7.896
6.218
4.693
5.297
4.981
8.819
10.480
12.592
12.528
11.403
KUZ
KRO
KOK
KAR
KAM
HAR
HAI
GKS
DJP
AND CEMH
ALW
ALT
AFM
AFA
ADM
0.0
2.146
1.423
7.482
7.237
1.094
5.033
11.681
10.844
10.554
8.735
1.752
8.138
2.481
13.039
9.531
9.209
6.914
8.160
11.583
4.751
9.455
8.245
8.486
4.901
ADM
AFA
AFM
ALT
ALW
AND
CEMH
DJR
GKS
HAI
HAR
KAM
KAR
KOK
KRO
KUZ
MOL
QAW
SAMB
SAP
SHS
TH2
TH3
TMG
TMM
TABLE 4. Matrix of mahalanobis d2 generalized distances1
MOL
QAW SAMB
SAP
SHS
TH2
TH3
TMG TMM
The bias-adjusted matrix of Mahalanobis d2 values was calculated according to the procedures outlined above (Table 4). F-tests for those 16 samples in
which individual data are available (Table 5) reveal
that the majority of d2 values between samples are
signicant (98/120; 81.7%). Of the 98 pairwise contrasts exhibiting a signicant difference, 7 (7.1%)
are signicant at the 0.05 level, while 91 (92.9%) are
signicant at the 0.01 level.
WPGMA cluster analysis
The dendrogram obtained by means of the
WPGMA associating algorithm (Fig. 2) indicates
that the Hainan sample (HAI) from south China
represents the most divergent of all samples considered. The major division among remaining samples
occurs between steppe samples (except SAMB and
TMM) and all other samples. Bactrian samples are
segregated from samples obtained from Iran, Turk-
209
TABLE 5. F-tests and probability values of pairwise mahalanobis d2 generalized distances1
ALT
ALW
CEMH
DJR
GKS
HAI
HAR
KRO
KUZ
MOL
QAW
SAP
SHS
TH2
TH3
TMG
ALT
ALW
CEMH
DJR
GKS
HAI
HAR
KRO
KUZ
MOL
QAW
SAP
SHS
TH2
TH3
TMG
0.000
9.423
3.254
4.512
3.443
31.612
9.300
1.975
4.251
1.839
6.043
4.585
4.919
1.027
2.948
4.308
0.003
0.000
5.378
8.280
16.507
11.799
15.797
1.457
5.825
5.467
4.228
3.812
17.950
7.983
29.446
9.547
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.007
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.067
0.197
0.086
0.660
0.066
0.000
0.018
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.228
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.359
0.081
0.000
0.001
0.554
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.564
0.102
0.000
0.000
0.061
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.014
0.187
0.012
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.358
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.980
0.061
0.183
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.425
0.000
0.026
0.002
0.027
0.000
0.014
0.162
0.006
0.038
0.002
0.002
0.041
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.733
0.000
0.000
0.008
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.009
0.187
0.003
0.000
0.008
0.001
0.000
0.070
0.000
6.102
5.769
12.222
3.031
2.229
3.701
4.406
2.208
4.768
4.874
2.706
4.768
3.450
4.002
21.312
9.003
0.735
1.380
0.861
5.113
1.130
13.115
3.647
10.984
5.492
40.812
10.669
1.969
5.468
3.247
7.511
5.613
11.404
2.345
8.508
5.359
24.431
6.421
14.805
17.226
7.301
11.172
40.557
16.304
77.572
19.491
2.672
6.481
8.291
2.712
6.447
12.834
4.033
12.042
2.898
1.198
0.854
1.739
0.233
4.160
1.853
5.928
1.740
1.802
3.139
2.107
8.480
3.560
7.091
4.117
5.209
1.497
7.782
2.314
6.702
5.111
3.816
6.883
4.638
7.929
3.594
12.318
4.019
11.006
4.596
2.145
3.294
5.922
0.652
2.168
8.960
F-values are below diagonal. Probability values (P-values) are above diagonal. Abbreviations for samples are from Table 1. Only those
samples with individual data are included. This resulted in elimination of Andronovo-Minusinsk (ADM), Afanasievo-Altai (AFA),
Afanasievo-Minusinsk (AFM), Andronovo-Kazakhstan (AND), Karasuk-Minusinsk (KAM), Kara depe (KAR), Kokcha III (KOK),
Samtavro (SAMB), and Tigrovija Balka-Makoni Mor (TMM).
samples form a loose cluster composed of sedentary

agricultural groups from Iran (TH2, TH3, and SHS)
and Turkmenistan (GKS, ALT, and KAR), as well as
steppe samples from the Caucasus (SAMB) and Tajikistan (TMM). Afnities are closest between the
two northern Iranian samples from Tepe Hissar
(TH2 and TH3), followed by the latest sample from
Turkmenistan (ALT). The eastern Iranian sample
(SHS) and the steppe Bronze Age sample from Tajikistan (TMM) exhibit close afnities to one another, and moderate afnities to the two samples
from Tepe Hissar (TH2 and TH3) and Altyn depe
(ALT). The two earlier samples from Turkmenistan
(KAR and GKS) join these samples at a more distant
remove. The steppe Bronze Age sample from the
Caucasus (SAMB) exhibits a peripheral association
with these Iranian, Turkmenian, and Tajik samples.
Neighbor-joining cluster analysis
Fig. 2. WPGMA cluster analysis of Mahalanobis d2 values.

Branch points are Euclidean distances. Sample abbreviations
from Table 1.
menistan, and the Indus Valley. The two later samples from Xinjiang (ALW and KRO) are associated
with the Bactrian samples. Kroran (KRO) features a
very close afnity with the earliest of the Bactrian
samples (SAP), while Alwighul (ALW) joins the later
Bactrian samples (DJR, KUZ, and MOL) at a more
distant remove. Indus Valley samples are identied
as sharing slightly closer afnity to samples from
Iran and Turkmenistan than to Bactrian samples.
Afnities among Indus Valley samples are rather
diffuse. In fact, the early sample from western
China, Qawrighul (QAW), is identied as possessing
closer afnities to the two samples from Harappa
(HAR and CEMH) than exhibited by the third Indus
Valley sample, Timargarha (TMG). The remaining
Neighbor-joining cluster analysis (Fig. 3) provides

a different representation of the distance matrix
than that provided by WPGMA cluster analysis, because it is an unrooted tree whose branches have
different lengths. Long branch lengths may be interpreted as an indicator of a large degree of morphological separation, while short branch lengths are
indicative of a small degree of morphological separation between samples.
The neighbor-joining tree provides an array of
intersample associations that are largely in agreement with those depicted by WPGMA (Fig. 2). Once
again, the south China sample from Hainan (HAI) is
identied as the most divergent of all samples considered. All three western Chinese samples exhibit
closest afnities to samples from Bactria. The two
later western Chinese samples, Kroran (KRO) and
Alwighul (ALW), feature closest afnities with the
earliest of the Bactrian samples, Sapalli (SAP),
while the earliest western Chinese sample, Qawrighul (QAW), is identied as possessing closer afnities to later Bactrian samples (DJR, KUZ, and
MOL).
210
Fig. 3.
Neighbor-joining tree based on Mahalanobis d2 values. Sample abbreviations from Table 1.
Turkmenian samples from Geoksyur (GKS) and

Altyn depe (ALT) serve as a phenetic link between
Indus Valley samples (HAR, TMG, and CEMH) that
feature the closest afnities to one another. In a
departure from the results obtained by WPGMA
analysis, the sample from Kara depe (KAR) occupies
a unique position among Turkmenian samples by
exhibiting much closer afnities to Iranian samples
(especially TH3 and SHS) than to samples from
Bactria.
Andronovo and Afanasievo steppe samples occupy
the left side of the array. Steppe samples from
Tigrovaja Balka/Makoni Mor (TMM), Samtavro
(SAMB), and Kokcha III (KOK) occupy an intermediate phenetic position; these samples, especially
TMM, manifest some afnities to Iranian samples.
Afanasievo samples (AFA and AFM) are identied
as possessing the closest afnities to one another,
and exhibit afnities to the Andronovo samples
(AND and ADM) as well. The Karasuk sample from
the Minusinsk region (KAM) stands apart as the
most divergent of the steppe samples considered.
Cophenetic correlation coefficients
The cophenetic correlation coefcient for the degree of correspondence between the phenogram obtained by WPGMA cluster analysis and the biasadjusted matrix of Mahalanobis d2 values is low
(rcs 0.496). This suggests that a fair amount of
distortion is encountered when attempting to arrange intersample differences in craniometric variation in a hierarchical fashion through cluster analysis (Rohlf, 2000). Sneath and Sokol (1973)
recommended that alternative methods of data reduction be used in cases where cophenetic correlations indicate that a fair amount of distortion of the
original data matrix is incurred by hierarchical cluster analyses. Specically, Sneath and Sokol (1973)
recommended the use of multidimensional scaling
and principal coordinates analysis.
Multidimensional scaling
Multidimensional scaling of the bias-adjusted diagonal matrix of d2 values into three dimensions
with the coefcient of alienation of Guttman (1968)
is accomplished with a stress value of 0.097 after
100 iterations. This value falls within acceptable
limits, and indicates that multidimensional scaling
of these data into three dimensions provides an array of intersample associations only mildly affected
by distortion. A plot of multidimensionally scaled
values, with a minimum spanning tree imposed
between individual data points, is provided in Figure 4.
An examination of this array conrms the patterns of interregional afnities identied by neighbor-joining cluster analysis (Fig. 3). Hainan (HAI)
reects the most divergent sample. The two later
western Chinese samples, Kroran (KRO) and Alwighul (ALW), feature the closest afnities to Sapalli
(SAP), the earliest of the Bactrian samples. Two of
the samples from Turkmenistan (Altyn depe (ALT)
and Geoksyur (GKS)) span the phenetic space between Iranian samples and Bactrian samples, with
Geoksyur exhibiting closer phenetic afnities to
Bactrians (especially the latest sample, Molali
(MOL)), while Altyn depe shares closer phenetic afnities to Iranians. The steppe Bronze Age sample
from the Caucasus (SAMB) represents a phenetic
outlier to all other samples, exhibiting only a very
distant afnity to the sample from Altyn depe. Indus
Valley samples share rather close afnities to one
another but are strongly segregated from all other
samples, except the early western Chinese sample
from Qawrighul (QAW).
All steppe Bronze Age samples, except Samtavro
(SAMB), are found on the left side of the array.
Intersample afnities among the Karasuk (KAM),
Afanasievo (AFA and AFM), and Andronovo (AND
and ADM) samples are relatively close. However,
211
Fig. 4. Minimally spanned plot of sample values for rst three multidimensionally scaled dimensions. Sample abbreviations from
Table 1. Xinjiang samples (QAW, ALW, and KRO) and Chinese sample from Hainan (HAI) are represented by asterisks; North
Bactrian samples, by stars; Iranian samples, by pentagons; Turkmenian, Caucasus, and Tajik samples, by triangles; Indus Valley
samples, by circles; and Russo-Kazakh samples, by squares.
steppe Bronze Age samples from Turkmenistan

(KOK) and Tajikistan (TMM), while exhibiting distant afnities to other steppe Bronze Age samples,
appear more closely aligned to sedentary agricultural samples from Turkmenistan (Kara depe
(KAR)) and, to a lesser degree, eastern Iran (Shahr-i
Sokhta (SHS)).
Principal coordinates analysis
A principal coordinates analysis of the doublecentered Mahalanobis d2 matrix yields three coordinate axes that combine to explain 89.9% of the total
variance. Comparison of the eigenvector matrix with
the d2 matrix yields a cophenetic correlation coefcient whose value (rcs 0.948) indicates that the
rst three eigenvectors provide an excellent t of the
data (Rohlf, 2000). An ordination of group scores for
the rst three coordinate axes is provided in Figure
5, and a minimum spanning tree was imposed on
this array to clarify associations between samples.
The pattern of intersample variation provided by

this analysis conrms many of the major features
previously identied by neighbor-joining cluster
analysis (Fig. 3) and multidimensional scaling (Fig.
4). Once again, the two later western Chinese samples, Kroran (KRO) and Alwighul (ALW), exhibit the
closest afnities to the earliest Bactrian sample,
Sapalli (SAP). Bactrian samples (SAP, DJR, KUZ,
and MOL) exhibit the closest afnities to one another. The two Turkmenian samples from Geoksyur
and Altyn depe occupy an intermediate phenetic
position between Bactrians and northern Iranians,
in which the former (GKS) shares the closest afnities with the latest Bactrian sample (MOL), while
the latter (ALT) shares the closest afnities with the
earlier northern Iranian sample (TH2). Indus Valley
samples (HAR, CEMH, and TMG) are located in the
lower left of this array and, once again, the earliest
western Chinese sample, Qawrighul (QAW), is identied as possessing closer afnities to Indus Valley
212
Fig. 5. Minimally spanned ordination of sample scores for rst three principal coordinate axes. Sample abbreviations from Table
1. Xinjiang samples (QAW, ALW, and KRO) and Chinese sample from Hainan (HAI) are represented by asterisks; North Bactrian
samples, by stars; Iranian samples, by pentagons; Turkmenian, Caucasus, and Tajik samples, by triangles; Indus Valley samples, by
circles; and Russo-Kazakh samples, by squares.
samples than to samples from any other region.

Standing somewhat in contrast to results obtained
by other analyses, principal coordinates analysis
identies an especially close afnity between the
Late Bronze-Early Iron Age sample from the Swat
Valley of Pakistan (TMG) and the early northern
Iranian sample (TH2). As with other analyses, this
array also indicates that the Turkmenian sample
from Kara depe (KAR) is strongly separated from
other sedentary Turkmenistan samples, but unlike
other analyses, principal coordinates analysis indicates that this sample possesses no close afnities
with any of the other samples considered.
All steppe Bronze Age samples, regardless of geographic location, occupy the right side of this array.
In agreement with other analyses, the Afanasievo
samples (AFA and AFM) exhibit the closest afnities to one another. However, unlike other analyses,
the patterning of afnities yielded by principal coordinates analysis suggests a moderate degree of distinctiveness between Afanasievo samples and An-
dronovo samples (AND and ADM). The sample from

Tajikistan (TMM) is identied as the steppe sample
with closest afnities to nonsteppe samples in general, and with the eastern Iranian sample from
Shahr-i Sokhta (SHS) in particular.
Mantel tests
The normalized Mantel statistic, which is equivalent to a correlation coefcient (r), obtained between
the Mahalanobis d2 matrix and the matrix of chronological differences between samples, is 0.294. The
permutational probability to observe a higher or
equal correlation based on 1,000 permutations is
P 0.827. This value suggests that differences in
antiquity, ranging from 3500 B.C. to the present, do
not contribute signicantly to the patterning of
craniometric differentiation among these samples.
Given ample opportunity for responses to changes in
selection pressures due to exposure to agricultural
diets and more sophisticated food preparation techniques during passage of the more than ve millen-
nia encompassed by these comparative samples, the

absence of any chronological effect on the patterning
of phenetic distances suggests that either these selective pressures led to an alteration of craniognathic dimensions prior to 3500 B.C. or that this
battery of measurements is not affected in any appreciable way by changes in masticatory pressures.
A comparison between the Mahalanobis d2 matrix
and the matrix of geographical distances between
samples yields a correlation coefcient of r 0.560.
The permutational probability to observe a higher or
equal correlation is also not signicant, with a value
of P 0.330. Contrary to standard expectations of
isolation by distance (Barbujani, 1987; CavalliSforza et al., 1994; Fix, 1999; Kimura and Weiss,
1964; Malecot, 1967; Morton et al., 1982; Piazza and
Menozzi, 1983; Sokol et al., 1986; Sokal and Wartenburg, 1983; Wright, 1943, 1946, 1951), these results
indicate that the amount of geographic distance between individual samples does not provide an important contributing factor behind the patterning of
craniometric differentiation among these samples.
DISCUSSION
Numerous specic hypotheses have been advanced to account for the initial appearance of
Bronze Age populations found at a series of oases
skirting the margins of the Taklamakan Desert
within the Tarim Basin of Xinjiang, western China,
during the nal two millennia B.C. These individual
hypotheses can be grouped into two general models,
and the model currently favored by a small majority
of archaeologists working in Central Asia and western China is the steppe hypothesis (Han, 1998;
Kuzmina, 1998; Mair, 1995; Mallory and Mair, 2000;
Parpola, 1998). As a general model, this hypothesis
holds that for reasons as yet unknown, Afanasievorelated steppe populations from the north and
northwest began to emigrate southward, either directly into the Tarim Basin (Kuzmina, 1998), or
subsequent to contact with more settled agricultural
populations in Central Asia (Mallory and Mair,
2000). These immigrants are thought to be represented by the human remains recovered from such
early Bronze Age sites as Qawrighul (Kuzmina,
1998; Mallory, 1995; Mallory and Mair, 2000). Later,
beginning around 1200 B.C., the archaeological
record of Xinjiang reveals a series of changes in
textile manufacture and clothing design. Although
there are always problems in equating changes in
material culture with population movements, proponents of the steppe hypothesis suggest that these
changes signal the appearance of a second wave of
immigration to the Tarim Basin from the RussoKazakh steppe. In this latter case, these immigrants
are held to be members of the widespread Andronovo culture complex that appears throughout
the south Russian steppe, Kazakhstan, and western
Central Asia during the middle of the second millennium B.C.
213
Given both the archaeological (Kuzmina, 1998)

and craniometric (Han, 1998) arguments, remains
recovered from the earliest sample, Qawrighul,
should exhibit broad phenetic similarities to Afanasievo samples from the Altai and Minusinsk,
while later Tarim Basin samples from Xinjiang (Alwighul and Kroran) should exhibit closer phenetic
afnities to the later Andronovo samples from Kazakhstan and Minusinsk. Since most proponents of
the steppe hypothesis envision the immigration of
Andronovo populations as limited to several centuries spanning the end of the second and the beginning of the rst millennia B.C., late Bronze Age
populations of the Tarim Basin are expected to be
sequentially more divergent from their Andronovo
source populations over time due to genetic drift.
Hence, the Alwighul sample (ca. 800 200 B.C.), if it
truly predates the sample from Kroran (ca. 202
B.C.A.D. 220), should exhibit closer afnities to
Andronovo samples, while the Kroran sample
should be more divergent. Bactrian, Iranian, and
Indus Valley populations are thought to have played
little to no role in the origins of Bronze Age inhabitants of the Tarim Basin of Xinjiang; therefore,
samples from these latter regions should be markedly divergent phenetically.
Most advocates of the steppe hypothesis recognize
an East Asian contribution to the Xinjiang gene pool
subsequent to that provided by Afanasievo-related
steppe populations, but contemporaneous with that
provided by the later inux of Andronovo steppe
populations (Han, 1998; Mallory and Mair, 2000).
Han (1998, 2001, p. 237239) maintained that this
inuence is largely restricted to such eastern Tarim
Basin samples as Yanbulaq (Han, 1990), but identied seven of the crania from the earlier graves at
Alwighul (Han, 1998) and a single female from Kroran (Han, 1986b) as Mongoloid. If Han (1998) is
correct that East Asian populations contributed to
eastern Tarim Basin populations in general and account for a minority of individuals encompassed by
Alwighul (12%) and Kroran (17%) samples, these
later Tarim Basin samples should be marked by a
reduction in phenetic distance from the Han Chinese sample (HAI) relative to that found for the
earlier sample from Qawrighul.
The results of all analyses provide abundant evidence in support of a migration of pastoralist populations across the Russo-Kazakh steppe. This is reected by the degree of phenetic cohesion found
among steppe samples, regardless of the geographic
distances that separate them. Further, once steppe
samples are removed from consideration, a Mantel
test of the correlation between the Mahalanobis d2
matrix and the matrix of geographical distances between samples yields a highly signicant (P 0.001)
correlation coefcient (r 0.871). Thus, the apparent departure of the patterning of phenetic distance
from expectations of an isolation-by-distance model
appears to be due to a spread of steppe pastoralist
populations across an enormous distance from the
214
trans-Ural region in the west to the Minusinsk Basin in the east. In this case, the close similarities in
archaeological assemblages attributed to Andronovo
and Afanasievo archaeological horizons do appear to
document an eastward and southward population
expansion.
Nevertheless, there is no support for the hypothesis that steppe populations contributed signicantly to Bronze Age populations of the Tarim Basin. Despite numerous similarities between
Afanasievo and Andronovo artifacts and Bronze Age
artifacts from Xinjiang (Bunker, 1998; Chen and
Hiebert, 1995; Kuzmina, 1998; Mei and Shell, 1998;
Peng, 1998), all analyses of phenetic relationships
consistently reveal a profound phenetic separation
between steppe samples and the samples from the
Tarim Basin (Qawrighul, Alwighul, and Kroran).
Further, neither of the later Tarim Basin samples
from Alwighul or Kroran appears phenetically closer
to the Han Chinese sample from Hainan, thereby
indicating an absence of East Asian inuence in
these samples.
The second model offered to account for the origins
of the Bronze Age inhabitants of the Tarim Basin is
the Bactrian oasis hypothesis (Askarov, 1973, 1981,
1988; Barber, 1999). Proponents of this model emphasize the similarity in environmental conditions
between the oases skirting the Taklamakan Desert
and those found in Bactria and Margiana to the
west. Proponents of the Bactrian oasis model argue
that the very skills developed by the founders and
occupants of the urban centers of the Oxus civilization (irrigation agriculture, development of extensive trade networks between locally resource-impoverished oases, and domestication of sheep and goats)
are exactly those that accompany the initial appearance of Bronze Age populations in the Tarim Basin
(Barber, 1999; Chen and Hiebert, 1995). To explain
the changes in textile manufacture, clothing styles,
and metallurgical technology found in the Tarim
Basin beginning around 1200 B.C., some proponents
of the oasis model concur with the steppe hypothesis
and envisage a second inux of colonists from the
steppelands (Barber, 1999)
If this model is true, the earliest Tarim Basin
populations, such as Qawrighul, should possess
close similarities to samples from Bactria. Given
that the nature of this interaction is thought to have
been unidirectional, from Bactria to the Tarim Basin, and limited in duration, phenetic afnities between populations of the two regions should initially
be close and then progressively decrease over time
as the two gene pools became increasingly distinct
due to genetic drift. Tarim Basin inhabitants that
postdate 1200 B.C. should represent the impact of
Andronovo immigrants from the Russo-Kazakh
steppe. Later Bronze Age inhabitants of the Tarim
Basin should be marked by a reduction in phenetic
distance to steppe populations in general, and to
Andronovo samples in particular. Phenetic afnities
possessed by the samples from Alwighul and Kroran
should be markedly closer to those of steppe samples

than those possessed by the earlier sample from
Qawrighul.
The results obtained offer little support for the
Bactrian oasis hypothesis. While Tarim Basin samples do exhibit closer afnities to samples from the
urban centers of the Oxus civilization than to steppe
samples, three aspects of the patterning of interregional phenetic afnities run counter to the expectations of this model. First, rather than identifying
that closest afnities occur between early Tarim
Basin (Qawrighul) and earlier or contemporaneous
Oxus civilization samples that antedate or are contemporaneous (Sapalli and Djarkutan), the closest
afnities actually occur between the earliest of the
Oxus civilization samples, Sapalli, and the latest of
the Tarim Basin samples, Kroran, followed by the
late sample from Alwighul. Second, none of the Tarim Basin samples, not even those that postdate
1200 B.C., exhibit any phenetic afnities to any of
the steppe samples included in this analysis. Third,
while neighbor-joining cluster analysis (Fig. 3) suggests a distant afnity between Qarwighul, the earliest Tarim Basin sample, and the Oxus civilization
samples, this is not conrmed by any other analysis.
While a case could be made for greater involvement
of Bactrian oasis peoples in the population history of
the Tarim Basin during the Bronze Age than by
steppe populations, the nature of this involvement is
not predicted by the Bactrian oasis hypothesis.
The results fail to demonstrate close phenetic afnities between the early inhabitants of Qawrighul
and any of the proposed sources for immigrants to
the Tarim Basin. The absence of close afnities to
outside populations renders it unlikely that the human remains recovered from Qawrighul represent
the unadmixed remains of colonists from the Afanasievo or Andronovo cultures of the steppelands, or
inhabitants of the urban centers of the Oxus civilization of Bactria.
Three alternative possibilities remain once simple
large-scale emigration from a known source population is ruled out. First, the human remains from
Qawrighul may be those of a local, indigenous population from the Tarim Basin itself or the surrounding highlands. Second, the human remains from
Qawrighul may be the product of emigration from a
source area other than the Russo-Kazakh steppelands or Oxus civilization urban centers. Third, the
human remains from Qawrighul may derive from
one of the suggested source areas, but the separation
of this emigrant population from the host population
involved fewer founding individuals or occurred earlier than currently thought by proponents of either
the steppe or Bactrian oasis hypotheses. Under such
conditions, a founder effect, coupled with subsequent genetic drift, may have resulted in amelioration of phenetic similarities detectable through
craniometric analyses.
The rst alternative is certainly possible, for advocates of both the steppe and Bactrian oasis hy-
potheses admit the presence, albeit scarce, of a series of Neolithic sites in the basin that antedate the
initial Bronze Age (An, 1992a; Bergman, 1939;
Chang, 1977; Chen and Hiebert, 1995; Chen, 1990;
IAX, 1989; Mallory, 1995; Olsen et al., 1988; Teilhard de Chardin and Young, 1932; Wang, 1985; Xu,
1995). The recovery of microliths on the surface in
association with painted ceramics at Yierkabake
and with plain red wares at Xingeer led Wang
(1985) to suggest that the transition from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age, in at least the eastern
portion of the Tarim Basin, was one of cultural continuity rather than an unprecedented introduction
of a foreign Bronze Age cultural complex.
If a resident population, regardless of ultimate
derivation, was present in the Tarim Basin at the
emergence of the Bronze Age, initiation of the
Bronze Age in this region may have been the product
of a more subtle interaction between this local population and groups from adjacent regions. From a
biological perspective, such interactions may have
involved limited levels of unidirectional or bidirectional gene ow. Under such conditions, the biological impact of emigrants from outside would likely
be muted relative to the impact of outright wholesale colonization of an essentially unpopulated, or
minimally populated, region (Ayala, 1982; Bodmer
and Cavalli-Sforza, 1975; Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994;
Cummings, 1997; Fix, 1999; Weiss, 1988; Wijsman
and Cavalli-Sforza, 1984). Unless by some fortuitous
circumstance the remains recovered from Qawrighul are those of some foreign entrepot, these remains should reect the impact of such gene ow by
moderate to low afnities to those adjacent, nonTarim Basin populations with whom they were in
contact.
The results, however, fail to demonstrate even a
low-level phenetic afnity between Qawrighul and
either steppe samples or samples from Oxus civilization urban centers. Not only is there no evidence
for substantial immigration into the Tarim Basin by
populations of these two adjacent regions; it also
appears unlikely that either steppe populations or
Oxus civilization populations served as a source of
any signicant gene ow commensurate with the
appearance of the Bronze Age occupation of Qawrighul. Given the paucity of contemporaneous skeletal
remains from other parts of the Tarim Basin, the
presence of immigrants from either the steppelands
or the urban centers of the Oxus civilization cannot
be denitively ruled out.
The second alternative explanation to account for
the human remains from Qawrighul is that they are
the product of emigration from a source area other
than the Russo-Kazakh steppelands or Oxus civilization urban centers. While the results obtained
indicate that there is no evidence that gene ow
from either steppe or Oxus civilization populations
led to the establishment of the Qawrighul population, all analyses, except neighbor-joining cluster
analysis (Fig. 3), disclose a low-level afnity be-
215
tween the Qawrighul and Indus Valley samples.

Such afnities could be indicative of some early interaction between the populations of these two regions. The implications of such early interaction are
potentially profound.
In a reversal of mainstream thought on a western
Asian homeland (Urheimat) and eastward dispersal
of Indo-European languages into Central Asia and
India (Burrow, 1973; Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, 1990;
Mallory, 1989; Renfrew, 1988), there is a body of
scholars who have vigorously argued for an IndoEuropean homeland in the Indus Valley of India and
Pakistan (surveyed at length in Bryant, 2001), or
that Indo-European languages disseminated from a
locus somewhere in the vicinity of ancient BactriaSogdiana (Nichols, 1997, p. 137; see also Sargent,
1997). If true, the dispersal of these Indo-European
languages may have been accompanied by immigration and some gene ow from the Indus Valley
homeland to the various historical seats of the IndoEuropean languages. In this way, Tocharian languages found in the Tarim Basin would be attributed to the inux of populations from Bactria whose
ultimate derivation may be traced to the Indus Valley of India and Pakistan.
The results of this study offer little support for
such a scenario. The problems are threefold. First,
WPGMA cluster analysis (Fig. 2) identies Qawrighul as possessing closer afnities to the two samples from Harappa than are possessed by the Late
Bronze-Early Iron Age sample from Timargarha. It
is difcult to see any archaeological support for such
a connection, as there are no material artifacts of
mature Harappan or even late Harappan attribution found at Qawrighul (Chen and Hiebert, 1995;
Wang, 1982, 1983). Likewise, there are no artifacts
reective of Tarim Basin derivation at either mature
Harappan (HAR) or late Harappan (CEMH) levels
at Harappa (Allchin and Allchin, 1982; Kenoyer,
1998). Second, if Indo-European-speaking populations entered the Tarim Basin from Bactria, Bactrian populations should also show evidence of gene
ow from the Indus Valley. None of the analyses
presented here or in previous assessments (Hemphill, 1998, 1999; Hemphill et al., 1998) provide any
evidence of signicant interaction between Bactrian
and Indus Valley populations prior to the latter half
of the rst millennium B.C. Finally, greater insight
into the relationship between Indus Valley and Tarim Basin populations is provided by multidimensional scaling (Fig. 4) and principal coordinate analysis (Fig. 5). Both merely identify Qawrighul as
occupying a peripheral and opposite phenetic position to whatever Indus Valley sample is least separated from other regional samples. Such positioning
is best interpreted as evidence of outlier status to all
samples considered in this multidimensional array,
rather than of any peripheral association to Indus
Valley samples per se.
With neither biological nor archaeological support, there is no compelling evidence to uphold the
216
idea that Indo-European languages were introduced

into the Tarim Basin from populations emigrating
from the Indus Valley commensurate with the initiation of the Xinjiang Bronze Age. Given the information currently available, it is most likely that the
early Tarim Basin sample from Qawrighul occupies
an isolated phenetic position, because this sample
represents a population of western China to which
none of the potential regional contributors represented in this analysis (Russo-Kazakh steppe, Bactria, Indus Valley, and south China) contributed
substantially.
Yet while the cranial series from Qawrighul exhibits no distinct afnities to any of the other samples included in this analysis, this is not the case for
the later Tarim Basin samples from Alwighul and
Kroran. Although results differ as to whether Kroran has closer afnities to the inhabitants of the
earliest of the north Bactrian urban centers (Sapalli)
than does Alwighul (Figs. 2, 3), or whether afnities
to the inhabitants of Sapalli are equally close (Figs.
4, 5), all results indicate that these later inhabitants
of the Tarim Basin manifest a unique afnity to
Bactrians. None of the results revealed afnities
between Tarim Basin samples and samples from the
Russo-Kazakh steppelands, the Indus Valley, or the
Han Chinese sample from Hainan.
It appears that neither Han Chinese nor steppe
populations played any detectable role in the initial
establishment or subsequent interregional biological interactions of Bronze Age Tarim Basin populations. This conclusion, however, must be tempered
with a pair of caveats. First, East Asian populations
may have played a late role in the eastern oases of
the Tarim Basin (Han, 1994b, 1998). Until adequate
samples from such eastern Tarim Basin sites as
Yanbulaq (Han, 1990, 1998) and from temporally
and geographically more appropriate Han Chinese
contexts become available, this possibility must remain open. Second, while Russo-Kazakh steppe populations appear to have played no role in the establishment of southern (KRO and QAW) and northern
Tarim Basin oasis populations (ALW) for which data
are available, this does not rule out a role for steppe
populations in Xinjiang during the Bronze Age all
together. It is possible that Afanasievo populations,
Andronovo populations, or both may have played an
important role in the development of Bronze Age
cultures of the Zhungeer Basin and the Yili Valley,
located north of the Tian Shan Mountains in northern Xinjiang.
This research conrms that populations from the
urban centers of the Oxus civilization of Bactria
played a role in the population history of the Bronze
Age inhabitants of the Tarim Basin. Yet these Bactrian populations were not the direct, early colonizers envisioned by advocates of the Bactrian oasis
hypothesis (Barber, 1999). None of the analyses document the immediate and profoundly close afnities
between colonizers and the colonized expected if the
Tarim Basin experienced substantial direct settlement by Bactrian agriculturalists.

Likewise, the pattern of afnities between the
Tarim Basin and Bactrian samples also fails to support a model in which a sizable extant resident population within the Tarim Basin prarticipated in
long-standing, bidirectional gene ow with urban
populations of the BMAC. If such were the case,
phenetic distances between Bactrian populations
and Tarim Basin populations should initially show
no afnities to one another, while later samples
should demonstrate a progressive reduction in the
phenetic distance that separates them over time.
None of the analyses document this relationship.
Rather, the closest afnities occur between Sapalli,
the earliest of the Bactrian samples, and the two
later Tarim Basin samples from Alwighul and Kroran. Diametrically opposed to these expectations, all
analyses, apart from WPGMA cluster analysis, reveal that remaining the Bactrian samples are
marked by decreasing, rather than increasing, phenetic afnities to Tarim Basin samples with the
passage of time.
If the relationship between Tarim Basin populations and Oxus civilization populations was neither
one of colonization, nor of long-standing bidirectional interaction, what was the nature of the relationship between these two regional populations?
Many authorities assert that the dramatic changes
in textiles, clothing styles, and metallurgical technology found in the Tarim Basin soon after 1200
B.C. may be associated with a wave of immigration
of Iranian-speaking peoples (Barber, 1999;
Kuzmina, 1998; Mair and Mallory, 2000). Many
identify these immigrants as Andronovo steppe nomads from the north and northwest (Barber, 1999;
Kuzmina, 1998; Vinogradova and Kuzmina, 1996).
Others, however, suggest that they may represent
the Saka (Debaine-Francfort, 1990; Parpola, 1998,
p. 135), a historically known Iranian-speaking population found in the Pamirs dividing western and
eastern Central Asia by the sixth century B.C.
Most researchers view the Saka as either direct
lineal descendants of a steppe Andronovo population
(Kuzmina, 1998) or a steppe Andronovo population
that experienced admixture with local highland populations in western Tajikistan, the Ferghana Valley,
and perhaps the upper reaches of the Tian Shan
mountains of Xinjiang (e.g., Chen and Hiebert, 1995,
p. 285; Hiebert and Shishlina, 1996). Previous analyses by Han (1994, 1998), however, provide no support for the assertion that Saka populations are
ultimately of Russo-Kazakh steppe derivation.
Rather, Han (1998, p. 556 558) concluded that a
Saka presence may be detected across the southern
Tarim oases in a temporal sequence indicative of an
initial entrance from the west prior to 1000 B.C.,
with a subsequent spread eastward to Kroran (see
also Mair, 1995, p. 292; Mallory and Mair, 2000, p.
243). Further, the analyses by Han (1994, 1998)
suggest that the Saka found in and along the south-
217
ern margin of the Taklamakan Desert are of the

Eastern Mediterranean type, while those found at
the northern Tarim Basis oasis of Alwighul are
placed in the Pamir-Ferghana type (Mallory and
Mair, 2000, p. 238). Han (1998) explained that the
Eastern Mediterranean type may be traced to
western Central Asia, while the Pamir-Ferghana
type may represent admixture between Eastern
Mediterraneans and the local, resident population
of the Tarim Basin. He concluded that all of the
anthropological materials mentioned above seem to
indicate that the opening of the ancient Silk Road
from Xinjiang to Central Asia supported an eastward migration of the early Mediterranean population of Central Asia across the Pamir region (Han,
1998, p. 568).
This study conrms the assertion of Han (1998)
that the occupants of Alwighul and Kroran are not
derived from proto-European steppe populations,
but share closest afnities with Eastern Mediterranean populations. Further, the results demonstrate
that such Eastern Mediterraneans may also be
found at the urban centers of the Oxus civilization
located in the north Bactrian oasis to the west. Afnities are especially close between Kroran, the latest of the Xinjiang samples, and Sapalli, the earliest
of the Bactrian samples, while Alwighul and later
samples from Bactria exhibit more distant phenetic
afnities. This pattern may reect a possible major
shift in interregional contacts in Central Asia in the
early centuries of the second millennium B.C.
Hemphill (1999) argued that the populations that
lived in the Oxus civilization urban centers of the
north Bactrian oasis were the product of largely
unidirectional gene ow between the descendents of
refugees eeing the desiccated Tedjen River delta of
Turkmenistan and a local Neolithic population
whose artifactual remains are designated as the
Hissar Culture (Mandelshtam, 1968; Masson and
Sarianidi, 1972; Pyankova, 1986, 1994; Ranov,
1982; Tosi, 1988). Patterns of phenetic afnities possessed by north Bactrian Oxus civilization samples
suggest a profound change in interregional contacts
near the beginning of the second millennium B.C.
After 2000 B.C., the population history of these
Bronze Age north Bactrian urban centers is one of
ever-increasing rapprochement in phenetic distances with populations to the west (Turkmenistan
and Iran) over time. However, the earliest sample in
this sequence, Sapalli, stood apart from all others,
and the suggestion was made that, in light of discoveries of silk and millet seeds (cf. Askarov, 1973,
1977, 1981) at this site, as well as compartmented
bronze seals similar to those found in the Ordos
region of western China (Hambis, 1956; Kohl, 1981;
Pelliot, 19311932), earlier contacts may have been
oriented to the east: to the Ferghana Valley, and
perhaps western China.
This study supports a connection between the
early Oxus civilization inhabitants of the north Bactrian oasis and populations of the Tarim Basin, but
the relationship was neither temporally immediate

nor direct. If such contacts were of such a nature, the
sample from Sapalli should be phenetically most
similar to the early Tarim Basin sample from Qawrighul. Since these interactions were believed to end
with the shift in interregional contacts heralded by
myriad cultural changes at the beginning of the
Djarkutan phase (Abdullaev, 1979; Askarov and Abdullaev, 1983; Askarov and Shirinov, 1991), afnities between Sapalli and later Tarim Basin samples
should become increasingly diffuse with the passage
of time, due to genetic drift. Neither of these expectations is borne out. Rather, the relationship between north Bactrian populations and populations
of the Tarim Basin appears more subtle and complex.
Given the patterns of phenetic afnities found in
this and previous studies (Hemphill, 1998, 1999;
Hemphill et al., 1998), it is possible that the sample
from Sapalli derives from an indigenous north Bactrian population, largely unaffected by extraregional
gene ow, which represents the direct lineal descendants of the manufacturers of the Neolithic Hissar
culture. Yet the Hissar culture did not disappear
from areas adjoining the north Bactrian oasis with
the appearance of the Oxus civilization. Rather, the
Hissar culture continued in the mountains of southern Tajikistan (Pyankova, 1994, 1996), and the
many microliths found in Hissar culture assemblages share similarities with Neolithic assemblages
found in the Ferghana Valley (Kairak-Kum culture:
Pyankova, 1994). Later, near the middle of the second millennium B.C., the archaeological assemblages of these regions attest to contacts with Molali-phase inhabitants of the Oxus civilization urban
centers and steppe Andronovo populations in southern Tajikistan (Vakhsh/Beshkent cultures: Litvinski, 1964, 1973, 1981; Litvinski and Pyankova,
1992; Pyankova, 1981, 1994, 1996; Vinogradova,
1994) and steppe Andronovo populations in the
Ferghana Valley (Chust culture: Askarov, 1992;
Barber, 1999, p. 166; Shui, 1998, p. 166; Zadneprovsky, 1978). It may be these local, resident
populations of the north Bactrian oases (prior to
2000 B.C.), southern Tajikistan, and the Ferghana
Valley (prior to ca. 1500 B.C.) who later came to be
known as the Saka (Shui, 1998, p. 168). If so, the
afnities found between Sapalli, Alwighul, and Kroran are reective of genetic exchange between East
and West through an intermediaryan intermediary that may have had control over one of the most
important commodities of the Bronze Age in this
region of the world, the tin deposits of the Ferghana
Valley (Gupta, 1979; Kohl, 1984; Masson, 1992a;
Pyankova, 1994, p. 368; Tosi, 1973194) and the
western Tian Shan Mountains (Hiebert and Shishlina, 1996, p. 11).
CONCLUSIONS
The Great Silk Road served for many years as a
vital artery linking the worlds of East and West.
218
Recent genetic studies conrmed that this avenue

served not only as a conduit for commerce and cultural diffusion, but also for the exchange of genes
(Comas et al., 1998; Yao et al., 2000). Yet while such
studies are valuable for documenting the passage of
genes, their reliance upon living populations provides little insight as to when and under what circumstances this gene ow occurred. Such knowledge
is of primary importance, given recent archaeological evidence for eastern artifacts (silk) in the West
and western artifacts (wool, bronze) in the East
some 2,000 years earlier than the traditional date
(132 B.C.) for the opening of the Great Silk Road.
Many scholars have compared the material cultural remains recovered from Bronze Age sites in
Xinjiang to those associated with Afanasievo and
Andronovo pastoralist populations of the Eurasian
steppe. Others, such as Mair (1995, p. 281), noted
that the mummied human remains appear Caucasoid or Europoid. From these artifacts and observations, proponents of the steppe hypothesis
have argued that some of the earliest known Bronze
Age populations of Xinjiang owe their origins to
migrations from the Russo-Kazakh steppe.
The results of this study provide little support for
the steppe hypothesis, for none of the statistical
procedures yields the close phenetic distances expected between colonizers (steppe samples) and the
colonized (Tarim Basin samples). Similarly, none of
the analyses revealed any afnity between the
Bronze Age inhabitants of the Tarim Basin and Han
Chinese. Thus, it appears that neither steppe populations nor Han Chinese populations played any signicant role in the establishment of those Bronze
Age populations of the Tarim Basin for which samples were available. Nevertheless, given the paucity
of available evidence and appropriate comparative
samples, contributions by these two regional populations in the establishment and subsequent interactions of Bronze Age Tarim Basin populations cannot be ruled out entirely.
Other researchers emphasize the similarities in
environment and economy between western (Bactria and Margiana) and eastern Central Asia (Xinjiang), and suggest that the very skills in irrigation
technology, networks of long-distance exchange, and
ovicaprid domestication characteristic of the Bronze
Age Oxus civilization of west Central Asia provided
the ideal preparation for initial settlement of the
Tarim Basin. Proponents of the Bactrian oasis hypothesis maintain that the Bronze Age populations
of Xinjiang owe their origins to colonization from the
Oxus civilization from the north Bactrian oasis. This
study provides no support for this contention. While
the earliest Oxus civilization sample, Sapalli, represents the non-Xinjiang sample with closest afnities
to Tarim Basin samples, these afnities are with
later inhabitants of the basin, not the earliest and
temporally most proximate sample, Qawrighul.
Thus, Oxus civilization populations of the north Bactrian oasis may have had some form of contact with
Bronze Age populations of the Tarim Basin, but this

contact does not appear to have been one of colonization.
The earliest Bronze Age sample from the Tarim
Basin (Qawrighul) exhibits no close afnities to any
non-Xinjiang sample, and hence the origins of this
population remain, as yet, unknown. The Qawrighul
remains may be those of a local, indigenous population from the Tarim Basin itself or the surrounding
highlands, they may represent emigrants from a
source area not included in this analysis, or they
may actually derive from one of the suggested source
areas, but whose separation from the host population may have occurred earlier in time or involved
fewer founding individuals than currently envisioned by proponents of either the steppe or Bactrian oasis hypotheses. Later Tarim Basin samples
from Alwighul and Kroran are more closely afliated with the early Oxus civilization sample from
Sapalli than with the earlier Tarim Basin sample
from Qawrighul. A possible explanation for this association, despite temporal differences of 1,800 and
1,200 years, respectively, is that these afnities are
a consequence of a long-standing local population,
interposed between the Tarim Basin and the north
Bactrian oasis, that facilitated interactions between
the populations of East and West through their control of a vital economic resource (tin) and territory
(the Pamirs and the Ferghana Valley).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Timor Shirinov, Director of the
Institute of Archaeology, Uzbek Academy of Sciences, for granting access to the Djarkutan and Sapalli tepe skeletal series. Thanks also go to Viktor
Sarianidi and Denis Pezhemsky of the Russian
Academy of Sciences in Moscow for granting access
to Geoksyur and Altyn depe skeletal series. Thanks
go to Victor Mair, Chris Thornton, and two anonymous reviewers for many helpful comments on an
earlier draft of this paper. Special thanks are due to
Jaymie L. Brauer for numerous helpful editorial
comments and insights throughout all stages of this
research, and to M. Cassandra Hill and John Rodriguez for preparation of Figure 1.
LITERATURE CITED
Abdullaev B. 1979. Mogilnik Dzharkutan. Istorija Materialnoj
Kultury Uzbekistana 15:122.
Abduselisvili MG. 1954. K Paleoantropology Samtavrskogo
Mogilnika. Tbilisi: FAN.
Abduselisvili MG. 1960. Paleoantropologichesky material iz pozdnich pogrebenij Samtavrskogo moilnika. Trudy Inso. Eks Morf
AN Grusinskoy SSr 8:281303.
Abduselisvili MG. 1966. K Kraniology Drevnego i Sovremennogo
Naselenija Kavkasa. Tbilisi: FAN.
Adams DQ. 1984. The position of Tocharian among the other
Indo-European languages. J Am Oriental Soc 104:395 402.
Alexeev VP. 1961. Paleoanthropology of the Altai-Saian mountains in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Antropol Sbornik 3:107
206.
Alekseev VP. 1967. Antropologia Andronovskoj kultury. Sov Archaeol 1:2226.
Alekseev VP, Gochman II. 1983. Rassengeschichte der Menscheit. Asien II: Sowjet-Asien. Munich: R. Oldenbourg Verlag.
Allchin B, Allchin R. 1982. The rise of civilization in India and
Pakistan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
An Z. 1992a. Neolithic communities in eastern parts of Central
Asia. In: Dani AH, Masson VM, editors. History of civilizations
of Central Asia, volume I. Paris: UNESCO. p 153189.
An Z. 1992b. Bronze Age communities in eastern parts of Central
Asia. In: Dani AH, Masson VM, editors. History of civilizations
of Central Asia, volume I. Paris: UNESCO. p 319 336.
An Z. 1998. Cultural complexes of the Bronze Age in the Tarim
Basin and surrounding areas. In: Mair VH, editor. The Bronze
Age and early Iron Age peoples of eastern Central Asia. Volume
1. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum Publications. p 45 62.
Anthony DW. 1998. The opening of the Eurasian steppe at 2000
BCE. In: Mair VH, editor. The Bronze Age and early Iron Age
peoples of eastern Central Asia. Volume 1. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum Publications. p 94 113.
Anthony DW, Vinogradova NB. 1995. Birth of the chariot. Archaeology 48:36 41.
Askarov AA. 1973. Sapallitepa. Tashkent: FEN.
Askarov AA. 1974. K voprosu o vydelenii kultury Sapalli. In:
Masson VM, editor. Drevnyaya Baktriya. Leningrad: Nauka. p
26 32.
Askarov AA. 1977. Drevnezemledelcheskaya kultura Epokhi
Bronzi Iuga Uzbekistana. Tashkent: FEN.
Askarov AA. 1981. Southern Uzbekistan in the second millennium B.C. In: Kohl PL, editor. The Bronze Age civilization of
Central Asia: recent Soviet discoveries. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.
p 256 272.
Askarov AA. 1988. LUzbekistan a` lage du Bronze: exploitation
des resources naturelles en rapports aves les regions Voisines.
In: Gardin JC, editor. LAsie Centrale et ses rapports avec les
civilizasions orientales des origines a` lAge du Fer. Paris: de
Boccard. p 103107.
Askarov AA. 1992. The beginning of the Iron Age in Transoxiana.
In: Dani AH, Masson VM, editors. History of civilizations of
Central Asia. Volume I. The dawn of civilization: earliest times
to 700 B.C. Paris: UNESCO. p 441 458.
Askarov AA, Abdullaev BN. 1983. Dzharkutan. Tashkent: FAN.
Askarov AA, Shirinov T. 1991. Le temple du feu de Djarkutan, le
plus ancien centre cultuel de la Bactriane septentrionale. In:
Francfort HP, editor. Histoire et cultes de lAsie Centrale pre ditions du Centre National de la Recherche
islamique. Paris: E
Scientique. p 129 136.
Ayala FJ .1982. Population and evolutionary genetics: a primer.
Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.
rumchi. New York: Norton.
Barber EW. 1999. The mummies of U
Barbujani G. 1987. Autocorrelation of gene frequencies under
isolation by distance. Genetics 117:777782.
Beals KL. 1972. Head form and climatic stress. Am J Phys Anthropol 37:8592.
Bergman F. 1939. Archaeological researchers in Sinkiang. Stockholm: Bokforlags Aktiebolaget Thule.
Bernhard W. 1967. Human skeletal remains from the cemetery of
Timargarha. Pakistan Archaeol 3:291 407.
Bodmer WF, Cavalli-Sforza LL. 1975. Genetics, evolution, and
man. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Co.
Bryant E. 2001. The quest for the origins of Vedic culture: the
Indo-Aryan migration debate. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Bunker E. 1998. Cultural diversity in the Tarim Basin vicinity
and its impact on Chinese culture. In: Mair VH, editor. The
Bronze Age and early Iron Age peoples of eastern Central Asia.
Volume 2. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum
Publications. p 604 618.
Burrow T. 1973. The Sanskrit language. London: Farber & Farber.
Carlson DS, Van Gerven DP. 1977. Masticatory function and
post-Pleistocene evolution in Nubia. Am J Phys Anthropol 46:
495506.
Cavalli-Sforza LL. 2000. Genes, peoples, and languages. New
York: North Point Press/Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
219
Cavalli-Sforza LL, Bodmer WF. 1971. The genetics of human

populations. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
Cavalli-Sforza LL, Menozzi P, Piazza A. 1994. The history and
geography of human genes. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Chang KC. 1977. The archaeology of ancient China. New Haven:
Yale Univesity Press.
Chen G. 1990. On the cultures of the Bronze and early Iron Ages
in the Xinjiang area. Kaogu 4:366 374.
Chen K, Hiebert FT. 1995. The late prehistory of Xinjiang in
relation to its neighbors. J World Prehist 9:243300.
Chernykh EN. 1992. Ancient metallurgy in the USSR. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chlenova NL. 1983. Prehistory of Herodotus trade road. Sov
Archaeol 1:47 66.
Clark PJ. 1956. The heritability of certain anthropometric characters as ascertained from measurements of twins. Am J Hum
Genet 8:49 59.
Comas D, Clafell F, Mateu E, Perez-Lezaun A, Bosch E, Martnez-Arias R, Clarimon J, Facchini F, Fiori G, Luiselli D,
Pettener D, Bertranpetit J. 1998. Trading genes along the Silk
Road: mtDNA sequences and the origin of Central Asian populations. Am J Hum Genet 63:1824 1838.
Cummings MR. 1997. Human heredity: principles and issues.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Debaine-Francfort C. 1988. Archaeologie du Xinjiang des origines
aux Han. I. Paleorient 14:529.
Debaine-Francfort C. 1990. Le Saka du Xinjiang avant les Han
(206 BCE220 AD): crite`res didentication. In: Francfort HP,
editor. Nomades et sedentaires en Asie Centrale: rapports de
ditions du Centre Nalarcheologie et de lethnologie. Paris: E
tional de la Recherche Scientique. p 8195.
Devor EJ. 1987. Transmission of human craniofacial dimensions.
J Craniofac Genet Dev Biol 7:95106.
Di Cosmo N. 1996. Ancient Xinjiang between Central Asia and
China: the nomadic factor. Anthropol Archaeol Eurasia 34:87
101.
Falconer DS. 1981. Introduction to quantitative genetics. 2nd ed.
New York: Wiley.
Felsenstein J. 1989. PHYLIPphylogeny inference package (version 3.2). Cladistics 5:164 166.
Fix A. 1999. Migration and colonization in human microevolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Francalacci P. 1995. DNA analysis of ancient desiccated corpses
from Xinjiang. J Indo Eur Stud 23:385398.
Gamkrelidze TV, Ivanov VV. 1990. The early history of IndoEuropean languages. Sci Am 262:110 116.
Ginzberg VV, Tromova TA. 1972. Paleoantropologia Srednej
Azii. Moscow: FAN.
Good I. 1995. Notes on a Bronze Age textile from Hami, Xinjiang
with comments on the signicance of twill. J Indo Eur Stud
23:319 345.
Gryaznov MP, Vadezkaya EB. 1968. Afanasievskaya kultura.
Istoriya Sibiri 1:159 165.
Guglielmino-Matessi CR, Gluckman P, Cavalli-Sforza LL. 1979.
Climate and the evolution of skull metrics in man. Am J Phys
Anthropol 50:549 564.
Gupta P, Dutta PC, Basu A. 1962. Human skeletal remains from
Harappa. Mem Anthropol Surv India 9:3186.
Gupta SP. 1979. Archaeology of Soviet Central Asia and the
Iranian borderlands. Delhi: B.R. Publishing Corp.
Guttman L. 1968. A general nonmetric technique for nding the
smallest coordinate space for a conguration of points. Psychometrika 33:469 506.
Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Grablowsky BJ. 1971. Multivariate data analysis. Tulsa: PPC Books.
Hambis L. 1956. A propos des ceaux-amulettes Nestoriens. Arts
Asiatiq 3:279 286.
Hamp ES. 1998. Who were the Tocharians?Linguistic subgrouping and diagnostic idiosyncrasy. In: Mair VH, editor. The
Bronze Age and early Iron Age peoples of eastern Central Asia.
Volume 1. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum
Publications. p 307346.
220
Han K. 1986a. Anthropological characteristics of the human

skulls from the ancient cemetery at Qawrighul (Gumugou),
Xinjiang. Acta Archaeol Sin 3:361384.
Han K. 1986b. Anthropological characteristics of the human crania from Kroran (Loulan) site, Xinjiang. Acta Anthropol Sin
3:227242.
Han K. 1990. The study of racial elements of bones from the
Yanbulaq site of Qumul, Xinjiang. Acta Anthropol Sin 5:371
390.
Han K. 1994a. The study of ancient human skeletons from Xinjiang, China. Sino-Platonic papers no. 51. Philadelphia: Department of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, University of
Pennsylvania.
Han K. 1994b. The racial anthropological study of the ancient
Inhabitants of Xinjiang. Urumchi: Peoples Press of Xinjiang.
Han K. 1998. The physical anthropology of the ancient populations of the Tarim Basin and surrounding areas. In: Mair VH,
editor. The Bronze Age and early Iron Age peoples of eastern
Central Asia. Volume 2. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum Publications. p 558 570.
Han K. 2001. Physical anthropological studies on the racial afnities of the inhabitants of ancient Xinjiang. In: Wang B,
editor. The ancient corpses of Xinjiang: the peoples of ancient
Xinjiang and their culture. Urumchi: Xinjiang Renmin Chubanshe. p 224 241.
Haritgan JH. 1975. Clustering alogrithms. New York: Wiley.
Hartl DL, Clark AG. 1997. Principles of population genetics. 3rd
ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
Hedrick PW. 2000. Genetics of populations. 2nd ed. Sudbury, MA:
Jones and Bartlett.
Hemphill BE. 1998. Biological adaptations and afnities of
Bronze Age Bactrians: III. An initial craniometric assessment.
Am J Phys Anthropol 106:329 348.
Hemphill BE. 1999. Biological adaptations and afnities of
Bronze Age Bactrians: IV. a craniometric examination of the
origins of Oxus civilization populations. Am J Phys Anthropol
108:173192.
Hemphill BE, Christensen AF, Mustafakulov SI. 1998. Biological
adaptations and afnities of Bronze Age Bactrians: II. Dental
morphology. In: Lukacs JR, editor. Human dental development, morphology, and pathology. University of Oregon anthropological papers no. 54. Eugene: University of Oregon. p 5177.
Hemphill BE, Lukacs JR, Kennedy KAR. 1991. Biological adaptations and afnities of Bronze Age Harappans. In: Meadow R,
editor. Harappa excavations 1986 1990: a multidisciplinary
approach to third millennium urbanism. Madison: Prehistory
Press. p 137182.
Hiebert FT. 1994. Origins of the Bronze Age oasis civilization in
Central Asia. American School of Prehistoric Research, bulletin
no. 42. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hiebert FT, Shishlina NI. 1996. Introduction to between lapis
and jade: ancient cultures of Central Asia. Anthropol Archaeol
Eurasia 34:512.
Howells WW. 1966. Variability in family lines versus population
variability. Trans NY Acad Sci 134:624 631.
Howells WW. 1973. Cranial variation in man: a multivariate
analysis of patterns of difference among recent human populations. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, volume 67. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Howells WW. 1989. Skull shapes and the map: craniometric analyses in the dispersion of modern Homo. Papers of the Peabody
Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography, volume 79. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
IAX (Institute of Archaeology of the Xinjiang Academy of Social
Sciences). 1989. Report on the survey of the microlithic sites at
the Caiwobao Lake, Xinjiang. Kaogu Yu Wenwu 1989:10 16.
Jettmar K. 1992. Archaologie in Xinjiang und ihre Bedeutung fur
Sudsibirien. Beitr Allg Vergleich Archaol 12:139 153.
Jettmar K. 1998. Early migrations in Central Asia. In: Mair VH,
editor. The Bronze Age and early Iron Age peoples of eastern
Central Asia. Volume 1. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum Publications. p 215221.
Kenoyer JM. 1998. Ancient cities of the Indus Civilization. Karachi: Oxford University Press.
Kiiatkina TP. 1976. Materialy po paleoantropologii Tajikistana.

Dushanbe: FAN.
Kiiatkina TP. 1977. Kraniologiceski material iz Altyn-Depe (1971
g.). Karakum Drevnosti Aschabar 5:170 175.
Kiiatkina TP. 1987. Paleoantropologiya zanadnikh rayonov
Tsentralnoy Azii Epoki Bronzi. Dushanbe: Akademiya Hauk
Tajikistan.
Kimura M, Weiss GH. 1964. The stepping-stone model of population structure and the decrease of genetic correlation with
distance. Genetics 49:561576.
Kohl PL. 1981. The Namazga civilization: an overview. In: Kohl
PL, editor. The Bronze Age civilizations of Central Asia: recent
Soviet discoveries. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe. p viixxxviii.
Kohl PL. 1984. Central Asia: Palaeolithic beginnings to the Iron
Age. Editions recherche sur les civilisations, synthe`se no. 14.
Paris: CNRS.
Kohl PL. 1992. Central Asia (western Turkestan): Neolithic to the
Early Iron Age. In: Ehrich RW, editor. Chronologies in Old
World archaeology, volume I. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. p 179 195.
Komroff M. 1930. Introduction. In: Komroff M, editor. The travels
of Marco Polo. New York: Boni and Liveright. p vxxxii.
Konigsberg LW, Kohn LAP, Cheverud JM. 1993. Cranial deformation and nonmetric trait variation. Am J Phys Anthropol
90:35 48.
Kowalski CJ. 1972. A commentary on the use of multivariate
statistical methods in anthropometric research. Am J Phys
Krogman WM. 1940. Racial types from Tepe Hissar, Iran from
the late fth to the early second millennium B.C. Verh K Ned
Akad Wet Afeel Nat (Tweedie Sectie) 39:1 87.
Kuchera S. 1988. Novoe dostizhenie archeologov I antropologov
KNR. Obschestvo I Gosudarstvo Kitae 19:314.
Kussov S. 1993. White rooms in the temples of Margiana. Inf
Bull Int Assoc Stud Cult Cent Asia 19:128 135.
Kuzmina EE. 1994. Otkuda prishli Indoarii? Moscow: M.G.P.
Kalina.
Kuzmina EE. 1998. Cultural connections of the Tarim Basin
people and pastoralists of the Asian steppes in the Bronze Age.
In: Mair VH, editor. The Bronze Age and early Iron Age peoples
of eastern Central Asia. Volume 1. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Museum Publications. p 6393.
Litvinski BA. 1964. Tajikistan i India (premeri drevnikh svyazey
i kontaktov). Moscow: Nauka.
Litvinski BA. 1973. Arkheologicheskiye raboti v Tajikistane v
19621977. Arkheol Raboti Tajikistane 10:5 41.
Litvinski BA. 1981. Problemi etnicheskoy istorii Sredney Azii
vo II tisyacheletii do n.e. Etnicheskiye problemi istorii
Tsentralnoy Azii v drevnosti II tiyacheletiye do n.e. Moscow:
Nauka.
Litvinski BA, Pyankova LT. 1992. Pastoral tribes of the Bronze
Age in the Oxus Valley (Bactria). In: Dani AH, Masson VM,
editors. History of civilizations of Central Asia. Volume I. The
dawn of civilization: earliest times to 700 B.C. Paris: UNESCO.
p 379 394.
Lundstrom A. 1954. The importance of genetic and non-genetic
factors in the prole of the facial skeleton studies in 100 pairs
of twins. Rep 30th Congr Eur Orthodont Soc 30:92107.
Ma Y, Wang B. 1994. The culture of the Xinjiang region. In:
Harmatta J, Puri BN, Etemadi GF, editors. History of civilizations of Central Asia, volume II. The development of sedentary
and nomadic civilizations: 700 B.C. to A.D. 250. Paris:
UNESCO. p 209 225.
Mair VH. 1995. Prehistoric Caucasoid corpses of the Tarim Basin.
J Indo Eur Stud 23:281307.
Mair VH. 1998. Priorities. In: Mair VH, editor. The Bronze Age
and early Iron Age peoples of eastern Central Asia. Volume 1.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum Publications. p 4 41.
Malecot G. 1967. Identical loci relationships. Proc Fifth Berkeley
Symp Math Stat Probl 4:317332.
Mallory JP. 1989. In search of the Indo-Europeans: language,
archaeology and myth. London: Thames and Hudson.
Mallory JP. 1995. Speculations on the Xinjiang mummies. J Indo
Eur Stud 23:371384.
Mallory JP. 1998. A European perspective on Indo-Europeans in
Asia. In: Mair VH, editor. The Bronze Age and early Iron Age
peoples of eastern Central Asia. Volume 1. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum Publications. p 175201.
Mallory JP, Mair VH. 2000. The Tarim mummies. London:
Thames and Hudson.
Mandelshtam AM. 1968. Pamyatniki Epokhi Bronzi v Iuzhnom
Tadzhikistane. Moscow: Nauka.
Mantel N. 1967. The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Res 27:209 220.
Martin R. 1928. Lehrbuch der Anthropologie. Zweiter Band:
Kraniologie, Osteologie. Jena: Gustav Fischer Verlag.
Masson VM. 1992a. The Bronze Age in Khorasan and Transoxiana. In: Dani AH, Masson VM, editors. History of civilizations
of Central Asia. Volume I. The dawn of civilization: earliest
times to 700 B.C. Paris: UNESCO. p 225245.
Masson VM. 1992b. The decline of the Bronze Age civilization and
movements of the tribes. In: Dani AH, Masson VM, editors.
History of civilization of Central Asia. Volume I. The dawn of
civilization: earliest times to 700 B.C. Paris: UNESCO. p 337
356.
Masson VM, Sarianidi VI. 1972. Central Asia: Turkmenia before
the Achaemenids. London: Thames and Hudson.
Mei J. 2000. Copper and bronze metallurgy in late prehistoric
Xinjiang. British archaeological report no. 865. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Mei J, Shell C. 1998. Copper and bronze metallurgy in late
prehistoric Xinjiang. In: Mair VH, editor. The Bronze Age and
early Iron Age peoples of eastern Central Asia. Volume 2.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum Publications. p 581 603.
Meyer-Melikyan NR. 1998. Analysis of oral remains from Togolok 21. In: Sarianidi V, editor. Margiana and Protozoroastrism. Athens: Kapon Editions. p 178 179.
Meyer-Melikyan NR, Avetov NA. 1998. Analysis of oral remains
in the ceramic vessel from the Gonur temenos. In: Sarianidi V,
editor. Margiana and Protozoroastrism. Athens: Kapon Editions. p 176 177.
Morton NE, Kenett R, Yee S, Lew R. 1982. Bioassay of kinship in
populations of Middle Eastern and controls. Curr Anthropol
23:157167.
Nakata M, Yu P-L, Nance WE. 1974a. Multivariate analysis of
craniofacial measurements in twin and family data. Am J Phys
Nakata M, Yu P-L, Davis B, Nance WE. 1974b. Genetic determinants of cranio-facial morphology: a twin study. Am J Hum
Genet 37:431 443.
Nichols J. 1997. The epicenter of the Indo-European linguistic
spread and the Eurasian spread zone. In: Blench R, Spriggs M,
editors. Archaeology and language. Volume 1: combining archaeological and linguistic aspects of the past. London: Routledge. p 122148.
Nyberg H. 1995. The problem of Aryans and the soma: the botanical evidence. In: Erdosy G, editor. Language, material culture
and ethnicity: the Indo-Aryans of ancient South Asia. Berlin: de
Gruyter. p 382 406.
Olsen JW, Reeves RW, Miller-Antonio S, Jiaqiang L. 1988. New
discoveries of stone artifacts on the southern edge of the Tarim
Basin. Acta Anthropol Sin 7:294 301.
Orczykowska-Swiatkowska Z, Lebioda H. 1975. Variability of
cranial shape in twins. Stud Phys Anthropol 1:2130.
Oxnard C. 1973. Form and pattern in human evolution. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Pardini E. 1977. Gli inumati di Shahr-i Sokhta (Sistan, Iran):
studio osteologico preliminare-II parte. Ist Anthropol Univ
Firenze Estratto Arch Anthrpol Etnol 107:159 235.
Pardini E. 1979 1980. Gli inumati di Shahr-i Sokhta (Sistan,
Iran). Ist Anthropol Univ Firenze Estratto Arch Anthrpol Etnol
109 110:521 608.
Pardini E, Sarvari-Negahban AA. 1976. Craniologia degli Inumati di Shahr-i Sokhta (Sistan, Iran)studio preliminare. Ist
221
Anthropol Univ Firenze Estratto Arch Anthrpol Etnol 106:1

49.
Parpola A. 1995. The problem of the Aryans and the soma: textual-linguistic and archaeological evidence. In: Erdosy G, editor. Language, material culture and ethnicity: the Indo-Aryans
of ancient South Asia. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. p 353381.
Parpola A. 1998. Aryan languages, archaeological cultures, and
Sinkiang: where did proto-Iranian come into being, and how did
it spread? In: Mair VH, editor. The Bronze Age and early Iron
Age peoples of eastern Central Asia. Volume 1. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Museum Publications. p 114 147.
Pelliot P. 19311932. Sceaux-amulettes de bronze avec croix et
colombes provenant de la boucle du euve jaune. Rev Arts
Asiatiq 7:13.
Peng K. 1998. The Andronovo bronze artifacts discovered in Toquztara county Ili, Xinjiang. In: Mair, VH, editor. The Bronze
2. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum Publications. p 573580.
Piazza A, Menozzi P. 1983. Geographic variation in human gene
frequencies. In: Felsenstein J, editor. Numerical taxonomy:
proceedings of a NATO advanced study institute. Berlin:
Springer. p 444 450.
Posrednikov VA. 1992. Pit-grave culture migration to the east
and the Afanasievo-proto-Tocharian problem. Donezky Archaeol Sbornik 17:9 20.
Pyankova LT. 1981. Bronze Age settlements of southern Tajikistan. In: Kohl PL, editor. The Bronze Age civilization of
Central Asia: recent Soviet discoveries. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.
p 287310.
Pyankova LT. 1986. Jungbronzezeitliche Grabefelder in VachsTal, Sud-Tadzhikistan. Munich: C.H. Beck.
Pyankova LT. 1994. Central Asia in the Bronze Age: sedentary
and nomadic cultures. Antiquity 68:355372.
Pyankova LT. 1996. Bronze Age cultures of the steppe and highlands in Central Asia. Anthropol Archaeol Eurasia 34:1328.
Ranov VA. 1982. Istoki, vneshnye vliania i vnutrennee razvitie
Gissarskoi kultury. In: Ranov VA, editor. Drevneishie kultury
Baktrii. Dushanbe: Donish. p 19 21.
Renfrew C. 1988. Archaeology and language: the puzzle of IndoEuropean origins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ringe D, Warnow T, Taylor A, Michailov A, Levison L. 1998.
Computational cladistics and the position of Tocharian. In:
Mair VH, editor. The Bronze Age and early Iron Age peoples of
eastern Central Asia. Volume 1. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Museum Publications. p 391 414.
Rohlf FJ. 1972. An empirical comparison of three ordination
techniques in numerical taxonomy. Syst Zool 21:271280.
Rohlf FJ. 2000. NTSYSpc numerical taxonomy and multivariate analysis system. Version 2.1. Setauket: Exeter Software.
Rykusina GV. 1976. Antropologia epochi eneolitia-bronzy Krasnojarskogo kraja. In: Rykusina GV, editor. Nektorye problemy
etnogeneza i etniceskoy istorii Narodov Mira. Moskow: FAN. p
187201.
Saitou N, Nei M. 1987. The neighbor-joining method: a new
method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol
4:406 425.
Sargent B. 1997. Gene`se de IInde. Paris: Payot.
Sarianidi VI. 1987. South-west Asia: migrations, the Aryans and
Zoroastrians. Info Bull Int Assoc Cult Cent Asia 13:44 56.
Sarianidi VI. 1990. Drevnosti strani Margush. Ashkhabad: Ylym.
Sarianidi VI. 1993a. Margiana in the ancient Orient. Inf Bull Int
Assoc Stud Cult Cent Asia 19:528.
Sarianidi VI. 1993b. Recent archaeological discoveries and the
Aryan problem. In: Gail AJ, Mevissen GJR, editors. South
Asian archaeology 1991. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. p
251264.
Sarianidi VI. 1994. Temples of Bronze Age Margiana: traditions
of ritual architecture. Antiquity 68:388 397.
Saunders SR, Popovich F, Thompson GW. 1980. A family study of
cranio-facial dimensions in the Burlington Growth Centre sample. Am J Orthod 78:394 403.
Shishlina NI, Hiebert FT. 1998. The steppe and the sown: interaction between Bronze Age Eurasian nomads and agricultur-
222
alists. In: Mair VH, editor. The Bronze Age and early Iron Age
peoples of eastern Central Asia. Monograph no. 26. Philadelphia: Journal of Indo-European Studies. p 222237.
Shui T. 1993. A comparative study of Bronze Age cultures in
Xinjiangwith a discussion of the process of early cultural
exchange between the East and the West. Stud Sinol 1:449
490.
Shui T. 1998. On the relationship between the Tarim and Fergana Basins in the Bronze Age. In: Mair VH, editor. The Bronze
1. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum Publications. p 162168.
Smouse PE, Long JC, Sokol RR. 1986. Multiple regression and
correlation extensions of the Mantel test of matrix correspondence. Syst Zool 35:627 632.
Sneath PHA, Sokol RR. 1973. Numerical taxonomy. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
Sokal RR, Wartenburg DE. 1983. A test of spatial autocorrelation
analysis using an isolation-by-distance model. Genetics 105:
219 237.
Sokal RR, Smouse PE, Neel JV. 1986. The genetic structure of a
tribal population, the Yanomama Indians. XV. Patterns inferred by autocorrelation analysis. Genetics 114:259 287.
Sulimirski T. 1970. Prehistoric Russia. London: John Baker, Ltd.
Susanne C. 1975. Genetic and environmental inuences on morphological characteristics. Ann Hum Biol 2:279 287.
Susanne C. 1977. Heritability of anthropological characters. Hum
Biol 49:573580.
Teilhard de Chardin P, Young CC. 1932. On some Neolithic (and
possibly Palaeolithic) nds in Mongolia, Sinjian and west
China. Bull Geol Soc China 12:83104.
Tosi M. 19731974. The northeastern frontier of the ancient Near
East. Mesopotamia 8 9:2176.
Tosi M. 1988. The origins of early Bactrian civilization. In: Ligabue G, Salvatori S, editors. Bactria: an ancient oasis civilization
from the sands of Afghanistan. Venice: Erizzo. p 4172.
Tromova TA. 1961. Cerepa iz Gulkinskogo mogilnika tazabagyabskoi kultury Kokca 3. In: Tromova TA, editor. Molgilnik
Bronzovogo veka Kokca 3. Moscow: FAN. p 97146.
Van Gerven DP. 1982. The contribution of time and local geography to craniofacial variation in Nubias Batn el Hajar. Am J
Phys Anthropol 59:307316.
Vinogradova NM. 1994. The farming settlement of Tangurttut
(south Tadjikistan) in the late Bronze Age. Archaeol Mitteilungen Iran 27:29 47.
Vinogradova NM, Kuzmina EE. 1996. Contacts between the

steppe and agricultural tribes of Central Asia in the Bronze
Age. Anthropol Archaeol Eurasia 34:29 54.
Wang B. 1982. The excavation and preliminary study of the
Gumugou cemetery. In: Xinjiang Academy of Social Sciences,
editors. Collections of articles of the rst meeting on social
science research. Urumchi: Xinjiang Academy of Social Sciences. p 327349.
Wang B. 1983. On several problems of the social-cultural aspects
of the Gumugou people. Xinjiang Daxue Xuebao 1983:86 90.
Wang B. 1984. New knowledge on ancient civilization in Xinjiang.
Baike Zhishi 1:19 22.
Wang B. 1985. Study of microlithic artifacts of Xinjiang. In: Wang
B, editor. Archaeological studies of the Silk Road. Urumqui:
Xinjiang Renmin. p 129 145.
Wang B. 1987. Recherches historiques preliminaries sur les Saka
du Xinjiang ancien. Arts Asiatiq 42:31 44.
Wang B. 1996. A preliminary analysis of the archaeological cultures of the Bronze Age in the region of Xinjiang. Anthropol
Archaeol Eurasia 34:67 86.
Weiss KM. 1988. In search of times past: gene ow and invasion
in the generation of human diversity. In: Mascie-Taylor CGN,
Lasker GW, editors. Biological aspects of human migration.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p 130 166.
Wijsman EM, Cavalli-Sforza LL. 1984. Migration and genetic
population structure with special reference to humans. Annu
Rev Ecol Syst 15:279 301.
Wilkinson L. 1990. SYSTAT: the system for statistics. Evanston:
SYSTAT, Inc.
Wright S. 1943. Isolation by distance. Genetics 28:114 138.
Wright S. 1946. Isolation by distance under diverse systems of
mating. Genetics 31:39 59.
Wright S. 1951. The genetical structure of populations. Ann Eugen 15:323354.
Xu W. 1995. The discovery of the Xinjiang mummies and studies
of the origins of the Tocharians. J Indo Eur Stud 23:357369.
Yao Y-G, Lu X-M, Luo H-R, Li W-H, Zhang Y-P. 2000. Gene
admixture in the Silk Road region of China: evidence from
mtDNA and melanocortin 1 receptor polymorphism. Genes
Genet Syst 75:173178.
Zadneprovsky I. 1978. Chustskaya kultura Fergani I Pamyatniki
rannezheleznogo veka Srednei Azii. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Moscow State University, Moscow.
Zdanovich G. 1988. Bronzovy vek Uralo-Kazakhstanskikh stepey.
Sverdlovsk: FAN.

A Craniometric Investigation of The Bronze Age Settlement of Xinjiang

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Craniometric Investigation of The Bronze Age Settlement of Xinjiang

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 124:199 222 (2004)

Horse-Mounted Invaders From the Russo-Kazakh

Department of Sociology and Anthropology, California State University at Bakerseld,

craniometry; phenetic distance; Tarim Basin; Bactria; China

alized distance (d2), and patterns of phenetic afnity are

Schoolchildren in the United States are taught

tacts between East and West along the Great Silk

2004 WILEY-LISS, INC.

*Correspondence to: Brian E. Hemphill, Department of Sociology

B.E. HEMPHILL AND J.P. MALLORY

the journey from China in the east to the Ferghana

from the East. These lines of evidence include the

p. 380 381, 1998, p. 189; see also Parpola, 1998).

B.E. HEMPHILL AND J.P. MALLORY

one of nine subtypes of mitochondrial lineages

idence of these two separate waves of immigration is

B.E. HEMPHILL AND J.P. MALLORY

ural selection, mutation, gene ow, and genetic drift.

crania recovered from this site (11 male, 7 female)

Late Bronze Age

Late Bronze Age

Late Bronze Age

Late Bronze Age

Tepe Hissar/Northern Iran

considerable controversy over the correct dates for

clude beads made of bone, amber, agate, or jade, and

B.E. HEMPHILL AND J.P. MALLORY

TABLE 2. Craniometric variables used to generate mahalanobis

Numbers of variables as dened by Martin (1928)

Eight cranial variables (two for the neurocranium,

TABLE 3. Mean values of craniometric variables1

of data points to ease interpretation of the patterning of intersample associations.

Abbreviations for samples are from Table 1.

TABLE 4. Matrix of mahalanobis d2 generalized distances1

B.E. HEMPHILL AND J.P. MALLORY

samples form a loose cluster composed of sedentary

Fig. 2. WPGMA cluster analysis of Mahalanobis d2 values.

Neighbor-joining cluster analysis (Fig. 3) provides

B.E. HEMPHILL AND J.P. MALLORY

Neighbor-joining tree based on Mahalanobis d2 values. Sample abbreviations from Table 1.

Turkmenian samples from Geoksyur (GKS) and

steppe Bronze Age samples from Turkmenistan

The pattern of intersample variation provided by

B.E. HEMPHILL AND J.P. MALLORY

samples than to samples from any other region.

dronovo samples (AND and ADM). The sample from

nia encompassed by these comparative samples, the

Given both the archaeological (Kuzmina, 1998)

B.E. HEMPHILL AND J.P. MALLORY

should be markedly closer to those of steppe samples

tween the Qawrighul and Indus Valley samples.

B.E. HEMPHILL AND J.P. MALLORY

idea that Indo-European languages were introduced

Tarim Basin experienced substantial direct settlement by Bactrian agriculturalists.

ern margin of the Taklamakan Desert are of the

the relationship was neither temporally immediate

B.E. HEMPHILL AND J.P. MALLORY

Recent genetic studies conrmed that this avenue

Bronze Age populations of the Tarim Basin, but this

Cavalli-Sforza LL, Bodmer WF. 1971. The genetics of human

B.E. HEMPHILL AND J.P. MALLORY

Han K. 1986a. Anthropological characteristics of the human

Kiiatkina TP. 1976. Materialy po paleoantropologii Tajikistana.