On the Origin of the Armenians (In the Light of Non-Metric Cranial Traits Data)

Author(s): Alla Movsesian and Nvard Kochar

Source: Iran & the Caucasus, Vol. 8, No. 2 (2004), pp. 183-197
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4030991 .
Accessed: 06/04/2011 11:28

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Iran & the Caucasus.

http://www.jstor.org
 ON THE ORIGIN OF THE ARMENIANS
(IN THE LIGHT OF NON-METRIC CRANIALTRAITS DATA)

ALLAMOVSESIAN

LomonosovState University,Moscow

NVARD KOCHAR

Instituteof Archaeologyand Ethnography,

ArmenianAcademyof Sciences,Yerevan

The problem of the origin of the Armenian ethnicity has been high-
lighted in numerous scholarly publications. Many archaeological data
corroborate the cultural continuity between the current and ancient
populations of Armenia extending at least down to the period of early
Iron Age. 1
In effect, the formation of the physical type of Armenians had been
deeply rooted in a grey antiquity and is closely associated with the
formation of the Armenoid anthropological type embracing many
populations of the Near East and the Caucasus, as well as the majority
of the Armenian nation. The Armenoid type is characterised by a
slightly wavy hair, a developed tertiary integument, with abundant fa-
cial hair, dark complexion, dark eyes and hair, a peculiarly shaped
nose with a dropped tip, wide and elevated nose wings, moderately
thick lips, narrowly cut eyes, medium-size rather elevated face,
brachycranial, very elevated skull, often with a very inclined forehead
and a flat back of the head.
The origin of the Armenoid type is very interesting with regard to
complicated ethno-genetic processes within the Near East and the
Caucasus, as well as to the historical antiquity of the peoples of these
regions and their proximity to the centres of the world civilisation. Ac-
cording to Debec: "... there can be no serious ethno-genetic study of
the European and Near Eastern peoples that would skip references to
the peoples of the Caucasus".2

' B. B. Piotrovskij,Arxeologiya
Zakavkazya,
Leningrad,1949.
2
G. F. Debec, "PaleoantropologiyaSSSR", TrudyInstituta n.s.t. IV, Moscow-Lenin-
Etnografii,
grad, 1948.

K Brill,Leiden, 2004 Iran and the Caucasus,8.2

184 ALLAMOVSESIAN, NVARD KOCHAR

Bunak who had made an inestimable contribution into the anthro-

pology of Armenians indicated the very early origin and extensive dis-
tribution of the Armenoid type as far back as 1927. Examining the
iconographic material and comparing it with the craniological data, he
wrote that "the formation of this type had been completed prior to the
emergence in the Near Eastern region of the European and Asiatic
tribes (Phrygians, Greeks, Iranians, Turks, etc.), which had been dis-
solved in the already crystallised Armenoid race rather than apprecia-
bly affected the anthropological type of the population".3
The morphological characteristics of the contemporary Armenian
groups have been studied in detail by Abdushelishvili.4 Examining the
dental material, he concluded on the undoubted resemblance and in-
ternal unity of the Armenian sub-ethnic groups. This type of unity has
also been detected while studying the population genetics of the der-
matological indications showing, as in case of the dental and crani-
ological analyses, a distinct Europeoidal Near-Eastern (Armenoid) ra-
cial diagnostic complex.5 The dermatoglyphics and family structure
studies have also yielded the differentiation time of the Armenian sub-
populations from the initial proto-population amounting to 8-9 thou-
sand years. This enables an assumption to be made that it was already
in the Neolithic time that the initial type was formed giving rise to the
Armenian gene pool.
However, neither archaeological, nor linguistic, nor population-ge-
netic reconstructions of the ethno-genetic processes can be regarded as
completed without the paleoanthropological data being considered as
historical sources. Unfortunately, it is exactly the lack of paleoanthro-
poligical materials that explains the annoying blanks in the study of
the ancient population of Armenia.
Substantial contributions to the paleoanthropology of Armenia
were the works by Abdushelishvili6 and Alexeev.7 A basic research

3 V. V. Bunak,"CraniaArmenica",Trudy Nil antropologii

priMGU,vol. II, Moscow, 1927.
4 M. G. Abduseligvili,"Ob antropologiceskomsostave sovremennogo naseleniya Armenii",
Antropologiceskij
sbornik
IV, Trudy InstitutaetnografliAN SSSR, vol. 82, Moscow, 1963.
5 N. R. Kocar, Antropologiyaarmyan. i populyacionnaya
Dermatoglfika struktura,Erevan, 1989; N. R.
Kocar, V. A. Seremet'eva,Yu. G. Ryckov, "Dermatoglifikav izucenii geneticeskixprocessovpo-
pulyaciiceloveka(na primerenaseleniyaArmenii)",Genetika, vol. XVII, N 8, 1981.
6 M. G. Abduselisvili,op. cit.;idem, "Materialyk kraniologiiKavkaza", Trudy Institutaeksperi-
mental'nojmorfologiiAN GSSR,vol. V, Tbilisi, 1955; idem, "Ob antropologiceskomsostave sovre-
mennogo naseleniyaArmenii",Antropologieeskij sbomikIV, TrudyInstituta etnografiiAX SSSR,vol. 82,
Moscow, 1963;idem, Kkraniologii sovremennogo
i dremnegonaselenyaKavkaza, Tbilisi, 1966.
7 V. P. Alexeev, ProisxozdenienarodovKavkaza,Moscow, 1974; V. P. Alexeev, I. I. Goxman, An-
tropologyaaziatskoj
castiSSSR,Moscow, 1984.
 ON THE ORIGIN OF THE ARMENIANS 185

done by Alexeev8 on the paleoanthropology of the Caucasus includes

all craniological series on the Armenian territory known by that time
deducing that the Armenoid complex of traits had existed here since
the Eneolithic time at least. However, as has been rightfully concluded
by the author, the identity of types between the ancient and contem-
porary populations of Armenia is not yet a proof of their genetic con-
tinuity. Indeed, the typological approach widely used for systematic
arrangement of the anthropological traits is not too productive in
identifying the nature and trend of the ethno-genetic processes.
Moreover, the attempts to identify the differing sustainable morpho-
logical complexes within a single population unit more often than not
will counter the concepts of modern genetics on the causes and
mechanisms of intra- and inter-population variation. In contrast to the
typological one, the population-genetic approach enables the tracing
to be made of genetic variability and epochal continuity; however, its
usage becomes possible only for the cases of very representative sam-
pling. Until recently, the paleo-anthropological material on the terri-
tory of Armenia had not been suited for the population-genetic analy-
sis by virtue of its paucity and dispersion. The fragmentary nature of
the osteological material resulted from a poor preservation of the cra-
nia due to specific local climate.
Nonetheless, the vigorous excavations by the Armenian archaeolo-
gists have by now resulted in a more or less representative craniologi-
cal collection embracing the periods of the middle and late Bronze,
early Iron Age, as well as the antique time.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We have studied 484 crania from the territory of Armenia, their data
being partially published,9 as well as approximately the same quantity
of comparative material.

TheMiddleBronzePeriod(Secondhaifof theII MillenniumB. C.)

By the archaeological data, the culture of earlier periods of the Bronze

Age is based upon and directly results from the Copper Age culture,
showing a great cultural advancement and solid links between Trans-
caucasia and the old Near Eastern culture.'0 This epoch is character-

8 Alexeev, op.cit.
9 A. A. Movsesian,"K paleoantropologiibronzovogoveka Armenii",Biologiceskij
z'umalArmenii,
4, 1990.
10
Piotrovskij,op.cit.
186 ALLAMOVSESIAN, NVARD KOCHAR

ised by the emergence of red pottery with black emblazonment located

in many areas of Armenia, to be replaced with the multicoloured light-
background pottery. The growth of cattle breeding results in the prop-
erty differentiation of tribes, to continuous confrontation for catde and
grazing grounds, to incessant military scuffles and to the emergence,
consequently, of the fortified town-fortresses. The weapons have al-
ready been manufactured using bronze, sometimes silver. There are
frequent occurrences of articles of precious metals showing high de-
gree of goldsmithery. The highly developed local culture shows clear
links with the Ancient Orient, with the Hittite Kingdom, in particular.
This period, or rather its final stage is represented by the crani-
ological series from the Lchashen and Getashen burial grounds. The
excavations in Lchashen located on the southwest shore of the lake
Sevan have been carried on for several years by A. Mnatsakanian. The
site is dated by a long period: since the second half of the third millen-
nium B. C. to the 12th century A. D.; however, the most part of the
osteological material is related to the late middle and early-developed
Bronze Age, i.e. second half of the second millennium B. C. (126
skulls). The archaeological complexes of Lchashen link the Old Arme-
nia with the cultural centres of Mesopotamia, Persia, and other adja-
cent countries.11Alexeev describes the crania of Lchashen as large and
massive, elongated, with a rather high, medium-width face. From the
Eneolithic ones they can be differentiated by an extremely obvious
protrusion of the nasal bones and an orthognathic profile of the facial
skeleton. 12
The characteristic features of the Lchashen series induced Alexeev
to raise the issue on a possible role of the incoming elements in the
formation of the Lchashen population. The burial ground near Nerkin
Getashen village uncovered by 0. Khnkikian and A. Piliposian, is of a
special interest, since the uncovered burials were related to different
stages of the Bronze Age. Based upon the archaeological inventory,
three groups of burials are identified: group one (13 skulls) is related to
the transitory stage between the middle and late Bronze; group two
(27 skulls) is related to the late Bronze Age; group three (23 skulls) is
related to the early Iron Age. Thus, the residing population is pre-
sented in a longitudinal chronological section, enabling a tracing to be
made of the epochal variability within a single population.

" A. 0.
Mnacakanian,"Osnovnyeetapy razvitiyamaterial'nojkul'turyLcasena",Istoriko-filo-
logichekij
Zumal,N2, 1965.
12
Alexeev, op.cit.
 ON THE ORIGIN OF THE ARMENIANS 187

A craniological research of a part of skulls from this burial'3 showed

the dolichocephaly and large magnitudes of all basic measurements.
Like the skulls from Lchashen, the facial part is of medium width,
heavily profiled in the horizontal plane. The orbits are not high, nose
narrow, protruding. All crania are characterised by pronounced
European features.

LateBronzePeriod
7The
In the late second millennium, the culture of the South Caucasus goes
over into the Developed Bronze Age. At this time, the Transcaucasian
area undergoes substantial changes. The rapid development of animal
husbandry and agriculture results in the social division of labour,
emergence of cattle breeding tribes. Handicrafts develop like pottery,
weaving, as well as metallurgy based upon the abundant copper de-
posits of Transcaucasia. The bronze articles are very diverse, very high
quality, being the main media of intertribal exchange. There is a
growing number of settlements-fortresses with walls piled up of huge
stone blocks (Cyclopean masonry).
This period is represented by the second group of crania from the
Nerkin Getashen burial, crania from the burial near the village of
Akunk on the south-east shore of the lake Sevan (28 crania), as well as
by the craniological series of burials in the environs of Karashamb
village (excavations by E. Khanzadian, V. Hovhannisian, F. Mura-
dian) dated late second to early first millennium B.C. (31 crania).
Dated about the same time is the craniological material from the
North-West Armenia, on the western slope of Aragats, Artik village
(36 crania). The burial ground was excavated by T. Khachatrian and
dated around 13th to 10th century B. C. Archaeological material from
the Artik burial is close to the Lchashen, indicating extensive inter-
population associations.'4 The Artik burial crania are distinguished for
heavily profiled facial bones, great protrusion of the nasal bones, ele-
vated and relatively wide facial bones approximating them to the
Lchashen series, as well as for the long, narrow and high cranium
characteristics for the entire population of Ancient Armenia."5 Ac-
cording to Alexeev, the population having left this burial ground re-
sulted from the mixture of the Eneolithic and the incoming groups
from around the lake Sevan.

13 A. K. Palikian, "Novye paleoantropologiceskie

materialy s territoriiArmenii",Biologi6esk#
zurnalAmmenii,4, 1990.
14 T. S. Khachatrian,
Material'naya
kul'tura
drevnego
Artika,Erevan, 1963.
5 Alexeev, op.cit.
188 ALLAMOVSESIAN, NVARD KOCHAR

Age
IronDeployment

In the early first millennium B. C., the Transcaucasia's southern areas

were joined the Kingdom of Van, thus making the entire Caucasus
closely connected with the ancient Near Eastern states, with their cul-
tures leading the bronze-to-iron transition in Transcaucasia. In all
likelihood, clearly observed in the Transcaucasian culture of 7th-6th
centuries B. C. are three elements: the local Transcaucasian inherited
from the bronze-time culture, Old Oriental and Scythian".
The burials related to the early Iron Age were dug out by A. Pilipo-
sian at the Sevan lake shore (villages of Karmir, Artsvakar and Saruk-
han, 34 crania). Related therein is also the third group of crania from
the Nerkin Getashen burial ground.

AntiquePeriod
7The

Relics of late third century B. C.-second century A. D. were discov-

ered on the southern bank of the lake Sevan, near the village of Kar-
chaghbyur (19 crania), as well as Shirakavan, district Ani (18 crania).
The crania from Karchaghbyur were measured by A. Palikian,16 show-
ing some reduction of the upper facial elevation (from 86.2 in the late
Bronze to 64.6 in the antique period).
All listed craniological series are being preserved in the State His-
torical Museum of Armenia and in the Institute of Archaeology and
Ethnography, Armenian Academy of Sciences, Yerevan.

Armenia
Contemporary

The contemporary Armenians are represented by a craniological se-

ries of 129 crania collected by Bunak, being preserved in the Anthro-
pological Museum of the State University of Moscow. Their sole dif-
ference from the ancient ones is in the ratios of the horizontal diame-
ters of the crania.'7
Used as comparative material were the following craniological se-
ries preserved in the Anthropological Museum of the Moscow State
University: the Ossetians (125 crania); the Adyghs (48 crania); the
Abkhazians (55 crania); the Turks (31 crania), the Bulgarians (30 cra-
nia), the Italians (43 crania). Examination also has been made of the
Bronze-period populations from the territory of the Middle Dnieper

6 Palilian, op. cit.

1
Alexeev, op. cit.
 ON THE ORIGIN OF THE ARMENIANS 189

basin: Yamnaya culture (31 crania), Katakombnaya culture (47 cra-

nia), Srubnaya culture (29 crania), as well as the group of Scythians (31
crania) from the same region.
Research was done under a programme made up of 37 non-metric
cranial traits. The data were analysed using the methods of multidi-
mensional statistics.

ANALYSISANDRESULTS

Phylogenetic
TreeAnalysis

The phylogenetic tree or cluster analysis is a very convenient and de-

monstrable technique of classifying the populations having a large
number of independent characteristics. A serious fault of this method
is the inevitable fact that growing with the number of populations is
the number of possible versions of trees, since whatever tree is only
one of the possible projections upon a plane of points reflecting the
mutual positions of populations in the multidimensional space of dis-
tances. One way to minimise the errors is to use the bootstrap method
and to compare trees obtained after resampling the set of data em-
ployed in the analysis for a sufficient number of times. The use of
bootstrapping for testing the stability of trees was introduced by Fel-
senstein.'8 This approach was used by Cavalli-Sforza et al. for recon-
struction of the genetic tree of human populations.19
The clusterisation of the examined populations was done using the
PHYLIP (version 3.5)-the Phylogeny Inference Package,20 having
quite extensive capabilities. Methods that are available in the package
include bootstrapping, distant matrices and consensus trees construc-
tion. For more objective evaluation of the authenticity of the results
1000 bootstrapped data sets were produced from the original data
matrix. Whereupon from each of the replicate data sets two kinds of
distance matrices, using Cavalli-Sforza's chord distance2' and Nei's
genetic distance22have been calculated. By neighbour-joining method

18
J. Felsenstein,"ConfidenceLimitson Phylogenies:an Approachusing the Bootstrap",Evo-
lution39, 1985: 783-791.
19 L. L. Cavalli-Sforza,P. Menozzi, A. Piazza, The
HistogyandGeography of HumanGenes,Prin-
ston UniversityPress, 1994.
20
J. Felsenstein, "PHYLIP-PhylogenyInference Package (Version 3.2)", Cladistics5, 1989:
164-166.
21
L. L. Cavalli-Sforza,A. W. F. Edwards,"PhylogeneticAnalysis:Models and EstimationPro-
cedures",Evolution 32, 1967: 550-570.
22
M. Nei, "GeneticDistancebetween Populations",American Naturalist106, 1972: 283-292.
190 ALLAMOVSESIAN, NVARD KOCHAR

from each distant matrix by successive clustering of lineages a tree was

constructed. And finally, consensus trees based on most frequent clus-
ters were obtained (Fig. 1, 2).
This procedure has enabled us to identify four rather compact
clusters: the Armenian, the Caucasian, the Balkan-Mediterranean
groups, and ancient populations of the Dnieper basin. Thus, the clas-
sification reflects the territorial group division. It is remarkable that
both trees join the ancient and contemporary Armenian populations,
with the exception of the Antique group occupying a separate position
(cf. Fig. 2).
Moreover, independently of methods of tree reconstruction, the
mutual location of the ancient and contemporary Armenian popula-
tions reflecting their epochal sequence remains invariable. That may
indicate definite genetic interrelations and continuous genetic succes-
sion in this region. The isolated location of the Antique group can
show both the expansion of genetic contacts in antique time, i. e. a
mixed composition of the Karchaghbyur and Shirakavan modula-
tions, as well as the incoming, alien nature of the residents. Indeed, ac-
cording to craniometrical data, the Karchaghbyur series is distin-
guished among others.23 Besides, as shown by Cavalli-Sforza and Pi-
azza,24 mixed populations are distinguished by distorting all genetic
distances, so that a potential mixing can be discovered by using differ-
ent methods of clusterisation, since in different types of trees the cross-
breed populations will display a tendency towards separation from
their cluster and joining others, which was found in the case with the
Antique group. So, while assuming that the basic genetic substrate
here was of local origin, we have to admit as very probable the role of
an alien, incoming component in forming the antique, perhaps even
the pre-antique, population of this region.
Examining the other clusters it is to be noted that they also reflect
the genetic connections between populations. For example, the inte-
gration between the Ossetians and the Caucasian groups is evidently
not accidental, showing the role of the Caucasian substrate in the
ethno-genesis of the Ossetians, relating clearly not only typologically
but also genetically to the Caucasian group of populations.25Both trees
show an association of Yamnaya, Srubnaya and Katakombnaya cul-

23 Palikian,op.cit.
24
L. L. Cavalli-Sforza,A. Piazza, "Analysisof Evolution: EvolutionaryRates, Indepenence
and Treeness",Theogy ofPopulation
Biology8, 1975.
25 Alexeev, op.cit.
 ON THE ORIGIN OF THE ARMENIANS 191

tures and Scythians, which is in agreement with the assumption on

their genetic affinity.26

Analysisof PrincipalComponents
(FactorAnalysis)

In fact, the analysis of principal components correlates with the cluster

analysis. Moreover, as shown by Cavalli-Sforza and Piazza,27using the
independent and neutral traits and the number of populations in each
identified cluster being nearly the same, the population separation by
the first principal component will match the first level of branching on
the tree. Another component will indicate the second level, etc. How-
ever, those conditions are not usually executable, so that to obtain an
impartial picture of inter-population relations will, perhaps, require a
comparison between the outcomes of the cluster and factor analysis.
Analysis of principal components has been done using the STA-
TISTICA 6 package; results are shown on Figs. 3, 4, 5, as well as in
Table 1.
The first five factors describe 64,3% of group dispersion. Table 1
giving the loads of factors upon traits, shows that the discriminatory
capacity is proper not only to the common traits but also to the rare
ones, such as os Wormiisut.coronale, os zygomaticum os Incae,etc.
bipartitum,
It is to be noted that the factor I differentiates the groups mainly as
to the inserted bones and irregular sutures;the heaviest load of factor II
falls upon non-permanent foramens. The positioning of groups in the
map of I and II principal components is given in Fig. 3 (all examined
groups) and Fig. 4 (without the Dnieper region groups). As seen in Fig.
3, all Armenian groups are concentrated in top right-hand part of the
map, according to the positive values of the first and second principal
components. Thus, identification of these groups in an individual
cluster is corroborated by analysing the principal components. A
rather compact group is formed by the populations of the Dnieper ba-
sin. Thus, the component analysis has evidently corroborated the ge-
netic links between them. Moreover, the II principal component
clearly divides the contemporary and ancient groups. Except the Ar-
menians showing a striking resemblance with the ancient groups, all
the rest of the contemporary populations have occupied the lower
parts of the principal component map. Individual groups were formed
by the Turks, the Ossetians, and the Adyghs, the Italians, Bulgarians

26 T. S. Konduktorova,Antropologiya naselenyaUkrainymezolita,neolitai epoxibronzy,Moscow,

1973.
27 L. L. Cavalli-Sforza,A. Piazza, op.cit.
192 ALLAMOVSESIAN, NVARD KOCHAR

and the Abkhazians. It is quite probable that shown here were some
stages of the ethno-genesis of these peoples, however, discussing this
problem is not the target of this text. Fig. 4 shows the Armenian
groups as distinct from others, occupying the entire right-hand side of
the map, the dividing factor here being the first principal component.
It is important that there is a sustainable disposition of Antique
group towards the ancient Armenian populations. As we remember,
the results of cluster analysis indicated a possibility of a foreign com-
ponent to be present within examined antique populations. Does it
mean that the assumptions on the mixed structure of the Antique
group were invalid, and its characteristic disposition on the trees was
only an accidental error?
To check this we have carried out a component analysis at a lower
level, by comparing the series from different burial sites (Fig. 5). By
virtue of the small number of crania from Karmir, Sarukhan and
Artsvakar, these series were integrated into a single group. The results
were quite remarkable: it was at the level of individual burial grounds,
i. e. somewhat at the level of elementary populations extended along
the chronological scale, that the analysis of the principal components
uncovered both the genetic proximity and the differences between the
groups. The populations of Karchaghbyur and Shirakavan are dis-
tinctly different from other groups, which form a compact grouping
within the positive part of the first principal component. Thus, we can
suppose that the antique inhabitants of Karchaghbyur and Shira-
kavan, while retaining genetic links with the previous population, had
mixed structure, being subjected to a certain influence from the in-
coming groups. It is understood that without a complementary mate-
rial we cannot extend this conclusion to the entire antique population
of Armenia, although, quite naturally, the expanding cultural links had
to increase migrations from adjacent regions and boost genetic con-
tacts not only in antique but also at an earlier time. As already men-
tioned, according to the archaeological data, the culture of the 7th-6th
centuries B. C., being closely linked with the preceding Bronze period,
bears clear evidence of contacts with the adjacent, Urartian and
Scythian, cultures. Regrettably, the material at our disposal will not
yield the character of genetic links of the population of Armenia in the
late first millennium B. C. Only new craniological materials can eluci-
date one of the most exciting pages of the ancient history of Arme-
nia-the emergence of the Urartians and Scythians in Transcaucasia.
Thus, we have to offer the following conclusions:
 ON THE ORIGIN OF THE ARMENIANS 193

1) We can now postulate the genetic integrity of the contempo-

-
rary and ancient populations of Armenia, starting from the Bronze pe-
riod at least. This is corroborated by the data of craniometry, differ-
entiating the contemporary and ancient groups only by value of the
cephalic index. Alexeev and Gokhman, assuming that brachicephaly is
one of the crucial criteria of the Armenian craniological complex, still
maintain "there are no grounds of morphological nature to negate the
genetic link of the brachicranial series of the Armenian plateau with
the comparatively narrow-faced series of the Bronze period-Lcha-
shen, Artik, etc. Their dolichocrany in this case does not impede the
establishment of genetic links through the late development of bra-
chicephalisation".28 The genetic ties between epochs become even
more evident when we examine the data on the discrete varying traits,
subject to neither the epochal variation nor to the influence of the en-
vironmental factors.
- 2) Our data show, in particular, that during the Bronze period in
Armenia existed extensive inter-population relations, connecting the
population of the lake Sevan basin with the remote regions of Arme-
nia. This is also mentioned by Alexeev29 while explaining the emer-
gence of mixed craniological complexes by extensive matrimonial
contacts.
- 3) And, finally, some differences in the Antique group from other
ancient populations confirm the assumptions that, apart from Hurri-
Urartian and the autochthonous elements, taking part in the ethno-
genesis of the Armenian nation were other tribes and peoples. Future
research will show if they were representatives of a northern race30or
originated from Asia Minor and the Near East. We shall ascertain,
perhaps, if the gene pool of the Armenians contains the genes of the
Cimmerian or the Scythians who put an end to the Urartian domina-
tion in Transcaucasia. However, even now one can suppose, with a
considerable degree of certainty that the discovered differences be-
tween populations mainly result either from gene drift or by migration
within adjacent areas. The substantiation of this hypothesis is the
above-cited comparative analysis, with the Antique group occupying a
solid place in the "Armenian cluster". This arrangement definitely
shows a sustained kinship of antique Armenians with all other epochal
groups of the Armenian ethnicity.

28V. P. Alexeev, I. I. Gokhman,op. cit.: 89.

29
Alexeev, op. cit.
'
Bunak,op. cit.
194 ALLAMOVSESIAN, NVARD KOCHAR

Table 1. Load of the firstfive identifiedfactorsupon the traits

Traits I II III IV V

Suturafrontalis 0,161 0,142 0,279 0,232 -0,078

For. supraorbitale 0,054 0,765 -0,276 -,0113 -0,009
For. frontale 0,418 0,663 -0,076 -0,031 -0,324
Spina trochlearis -0,050 0,568 -0,259 0,001 0,194
For. infraorb.acc. 0,023 0,453 0,526 0,402 0,239
Os zygomat.bip. 0,624 -0,306 -,0122 -0,530 0,057
Spinaproc. front. 0,548 0,193 0,563 0,208 -0,170
Os bregmale -0,023 0,347 0,719 0,449 -0,224
Os W. sut. coron. 0,788 -0,096 0,126 -0,09 1 0,114
Stenocrotaphia 0,249 0,417 0,492 -0,523 -0,238
Os epiptericum 0,874 -0,034 0,001 0,018 -0,282
Proc. front.sq.temp. 0,261 -0,581 0,240 0,390 -0,219
Os W. sut. squam. 0,599 -0,199 -0,100 -0,320 0,206
Os postsquamosum 0,661 0,451 -0,185 0,007 -0,146
Os asterion 0,427 0,115 -0,128 0,207 -0,110
For. parietale 0,517 0,333 0,131 0,418 0,375
Os Incae -0,665 0,559 -0,064 0,394 -0,098
Os triquetrum -0,170 -0,283 0,725 0,046 0,111
Os apicisLambdae 0,495 0,221 0,066 0,204 0,260
Os W. sut. Lambd. 0,693 -0,012 0,333 0,207 0,095
Sut. mendosa 0,593 0,095 0,40 0,310 -0,067
For. mastoid(abs.) 0,380 -0,687 -0,025 0,202 -0,272
For. mastoid.(exsut.) -0,628 0,525 0,387 -0,161 0,112
Os W. sut. occ.-mast. 0,327 0,216 0,208 -0,222' 0,062
Proc. interparietalis 0,041 0,599 -0,094 -0,091 0,002
Canaliscondylaris -0,413 -0,379 0,032 0,120 0,348
Canal. hypogl.(bip.) 0,341 0,105 -0,182 0,502 0,134
Fac. condyl.bipart. 0,036 0,817 0,147 0,169 -0,042
Tuberc.praecond. 0,154 0,167 -0,531 -0,494 -0,016
For. tympanicum 0,663 -0,430 -0,336 0,192 -0,104
For. spinos.apert. -0,165 -0,305 0,417 0,181 0,494
For. spinos.bipart. 0,095 -0,649 0,004 -0,483 0,175
Proc. spinosum 0,079 0,240 0,038 -0,397 -0,175
For. pterygospinsum 0,345 -0,247 -0,116 -0,019 0,636
For. pterygoalare 0,018 -0,007 0,844 -0,277 0,058
Sut. palat. curv. 0,526 0,352 -0,10 -0,265 0,300
Torus palatinus -0,351 0,429 -0,314 0,273 0,473
 ON THE ORIGIN OF THE ARMENIANS 195

Fig. 1. Consensustree based on Cavalli-Sforza'schord distances

Antique
M. Bronze

L. Bronze

IronAge

Armenians
Yamnaya
Katakomb.

Srubnaya

Scythians
Italians
Bulgarians

Turks
Adyghs
Abkhazians
Ossetians

Fig. 2. Consensustree based on Nei's genetic distances

Antique
IronAge

L. Bronze

M. Bronze
Armenians
Adyghs
Abkhazians

Ossetians
Italians
Bulgarians

Turks
Katakomb.

Yamnaya

Srubnaya
Scythians
196 ALIA MlOVSESIAN,NTVARDKOCHAR

Fig. 3. Principal component map (all groups)

4*.

a r-IF--44 o

Fig. 4. Principal component map (without Dnieper region groups)

C-

.1 t I1-

,A&
~t
4 0VA
vS. 4Qi;t.*.*~~~~#W,vw s.::I-*
 ON THE ORIGIN OF THE ARMENIANS 197

Fig. 5. Principalcomponentmap (localgroups)

2.0

...... ........
...Kar.aghb.. r
A;

teaosheni

0.5
| ....... *+ . . ................
. >~~~~~~'Lchashdn

a . Kereshtmb

S,irek ave

25 20 1.5 .0 . 0.5
IPrincpal
cotponr