Bioarchaeology of East Asia: Movement, Contact, Health

4. Mongolian Origins and Cranio-Morphometric Variability: Neolithic to Mongolian Period

4 Mongolian Origins and Cranio-Morphometric Variability Neolithic to Mongolian Period TUMEN DASHTSEVEG Thischapterexploresthe issueofcranio-morphologicalvariabilityinsamples from the Neolithic, Bronze and Iron Ages, and Xiongnu to Mongolian periods , as well as examining the question of the origins and genetic relationships of these ancient populations. In Mongolia, the Neolithic is known from abundant surface finds in the proximity of present or former watercourses and lakes, characterized by microblades and other small tools associated with pottery. It is generally divided into three chronological stages. The earliest ostensible evidence for Neolithic occupation in eastern Mongolia is found at the sixth millennium BC Tamsagbulag site in Dornod aimag (Gunchinsuren 2000).Traditionally,the firststage of the MongolianNeolithicbelongsto the fourth millennium BC, the second to the third millennium BC, and the third stage belongs to the end of the second millennium BC. Mongolian Neolithic populations are thought to have been seminomadic and nomadic hunters (Okladnikov 1963, 1964; Dorj 1971). Archaeological studies reveal that during the Bronze and Early Iron Age (third millennium through third century BC) there were significant cultural differences between the western and eastern parts of Mongolia (Volkov 1967, 1981; Novgorodova 1987; Erdenebaatar 2002). In western Mongolia, a culture associated with stone kurgans, deerstone monuments, and rock art was widely distributed. The western Mongolian Bronze and Early Iron Age culture belongs to the Altai-Sayan variant of the southern Siberian Bronze and Iron Age culture. During this period there was intensive cultural admixture between the western and eastern regions of Mongolia. However, remains dated to the Bronze and Early Iron Age in eastern and central Mongolia are 86 Tumen Dashtseveg characteristicof the so-calledSlab Grave culture:rectangular enclosuresbuilt using stone slabs set on edge, sometimes grouped in cemeteries. The Slab Grave culture was widely distributed, not only all over eastern and central Mongolia but also in surrounding areas, from the Lake Baikal region in the north to the Ordos in the south, as well as from the Khangai Mountains in the west to Manchuria in the east. In spite of its wide distribution , remains of the Slab Grave culture are homogeneous in terms of surface and subsurface construction techniques and the range of associated material culture (Navaan 1975; Tsybekhtarov 1998; Erdenebaatar 2002). Mongolian archaeologists suggest that the people associated with the Slab Grave culture were the direct ancestors of the Xiongnu (Sukhbaatar 1980). In recent years, hitherto unknown monuments belonging to the Early Bronze Age were discovered in the Altai Mountain region of western Mongolia as a result of work by members of the joint Mongolian-Russian Central Asian Archaeology 2002–7 project. Construction of these monuments is attributed to peoples successively affiliated with the Afanasevo (Афанасьево) culture (2800–2500 BC) of southern Siberia and the Chemurchek culture (2500–1800 BC) of northwestern China, followed by the local Munkh Khairkhan culture (1800–1500 BC), Baitag culture (1500–1200 BC), and Tevsh culture (1300–1100 BC) (Erdenebaatar and Kovalev 2006, 2007). Xiongnu (c. 3rd century BC–2nd century AD) played an important role in the ethnic as well as the political history and culture of Eurasia (Bernshtam 1951;Gumilev1960).IntermsofMongolianarchaeology,theXiongnuperiod is one of the most thoroughly investigated, although the ethnic identity of the Xiongnuisstillaproblematicissue.Therearethreemainhypothesesregarding the identity of the Xiongnu: (1) Xiongnu = the Turkic tribal confederation; (2) Xiongnu = a confederacy of Mongolian tribes; and (3) Xiongnu represented a confederacy of Mongolian, Turkic, and Tungus-Manchurian tribes. In fact, the history of debate over the ethnic origins of the Xiongnu has not been resolved (a useful overview of the debate [Western, Chinese, and Mongolian ] and opposing theories can be found in Di Cosmo 2002: 163–66). Archaeological investigation has shown that Xiongnu monuments or graves varied considerably in terms of size, surface and subsurface grave construction, and associated grave goods. These differences have been interpreted as reflecting a pronounced gradient in social status (high status versus commoners)(Tseveendorj 1987; Batsaikhan2002; Turbat2004).Davydova (1995, 1996) suggests that Xiongnu grave construction can be divided into seven types: (1) burial without intraburial construction; (2) flat graves without coffins; (3) frame coffins made of thin logs; (4) stone cists; (5) coffins; (6) whole log coffins; and (7) double chamber burials. Mongolian Origins and Cranio-Morphometric Variability 87 Most archaeologists and historians propose that the Xiongnu were the direct ancestors of early, medieval, and contemporary Mongolians (Dorjsuren 1961; Navaan 1975; Sukhbaatar 1980; Tseveendorj 1987; Batsaikhan 2002; Turbat 2004). According to Chinese historical sources, during the first millennium AD, or...