Cette page n’est pas disponible dans la langue sélectionnée. Veuillez consulter les traductions disponibles dans d’autres langues
For craniological analysis and hereinafter building up documented portrait, a skull from the burial #12 (5-7 cc. AD) was given (the burial is investigated by the Town Council’s Archaeological Service, Pontoise) [24, 25, 26]
The base of our investigation found itself on the Laboratory of Anthropology (The Museum of Man, Paris)
First I’d like to express acknowledgements for every possible support and help in our work to Dr. Miya Awazu Pereira da Silva, Pr. Raoul Perrot, Pr. Аndré Langaney, Mrs. Philippe Меnnecier, Маrio Chech, Pillippe Chaplain.
The skull in question generally was in good condition (see Figure.1.2). The defects are: left os nasalis is absent, frontal processus of left os zygomaticus is absent, the big wing of os cuneiformis is damaged, on the left as well. The teeth remained can be presented by formula as follows:
0005032002305000
8705432002340000
The skull has definite marks of artificial deformation made possibly in early childhood to make the person’s head higher. On the former USSR’s territory artificially deformed skulls are spread in ancient burials of the Crimea, Caucasus, Middle Asia and Povolzhye [18] (Fig.3).
На территории бывшего СССР искусственно деформированные черепа известны из древних погребений Крыма, Кавказа, Средней Азии и Поволжья [18] (рис.4).
The like deformations are seen on the skulls of Alanians [4, 12, 13], namely one of the Aorses’ confederation’s tribes – descendants of some Sarmatian tribe that entered pre-Caucasus’s regions in the 1st c. AD and mixed with the local population [1, 10, 13].
The first mentions of Alanians in the works of ancient authors (poets, historians, geographers and philosophers) are dated by the 1st c. AD. Since then and for a long time further they became both dangerous enemies and desirable satellites for the Rome and Bysanth.
The name of Alanians had not such a horrible fame as that of the Hunnes, although beside of pre-Caucasus territories (where their descendants are living until now) they penetrated into Zakavkazye, Middle Asia, Black Sea Coast, France, Spain and Northern Africa [13, 14]. Their way to Gallia and Pannonia started from Northern Caucasus, where they had formed historically [1, 4, 13, 23]. The mid-Sarmatian tradition of artificial deformation of skulls has got widespread in late-Sarmatian period [9, 12, 22]. The Sarmatian-Alanian deformation is rather characteristic; brain bones got flattened in both front and back directions equally by means of head’s circular bandaging, as shown in prof. R.Perrot’s work [27]. No doubt, it differs from the other types of deformations, like flattening of calvaria, which was characteristic of Peru Indians (Fig.5) [18].
The radiocarbon analysis dates the skull from the burial #12 by period between the years of 385-585 AD. By that time the late Sarmatis were changed by Alanians who borrowed from the former the fasion of skull’s artificial deformation. This, it gives reasons to consider the skull in question as that belonging to the representative of Alanian ethnos.
Tight rhaphe cranialis[3] and rubbed teeth crowns prove the person’s age of 40-45.
General graciality of facialis cranium bones, weakly developed processi mastoidei, the obtuse angle of attachment of ramus mandibulae[16], even taking into account the developed enough jaw’s bottom, – it all proves that the skull is female one. Nevertheless one shoud notice that the jaw’s rami broadened in male way [16] harden the lower part of the face making it look more male-like.
Together with Prof. R.Perrot and Dr. M.Pereira da Silva we also examined the rest of the skeleton’s bones from the burial #12. The form of pelvis, the oval form of pelvis parvus, the obtuse angle between os pubes , – it all has proved our view [17].
Judging by bowed os cruralis bones and the noticeable rough surface of thighbones, which is characteristic of people dealing with horse-riding, it’s possible to suppose that the considered person was a professional horse-rider.
While examining the skeleton, we’ve managed to find out that corpus pineale distalis of elbow bone on the left articulatio carpalis was broken and healed later.
Thus, the examined skull was that of a woman, age 40-45, by Alanian origin, professional rider having her left articulatio carpalis broken and later healed.
While reconstructing the sculptural portrait of this person, the methods by M.M.Gerasimov [11] and their newest improvements worked out in the Laboratory of Plastic reconstruction (The Miklukho-Maklay Anthropology Institute, Moscow; director G.V.Lebedinskaya)[5] were used.
First, basing upon the methods by M.M.Gerasimov, the future portrait’s description was made. The description then was completed with the help of the scale of descriptive features practiced in Ukrainian criminalistics.
The Portrait’s Description
General Characteristics of the Skull
Because of artificial circular deformation, it’s impossible to precisely defy the skull’s shape in horizontal projection. One can just affirm for sure that the skull is high and brachycranian, but it also must be marked that these features are the results of artificial deformation, hence we have no strong enough proofs for natural brachycranity or hypsicranity. Processi mastoidei are rather weak (mark 1 –[2]), gracial, of small size, tuber parietalis are well-developed, occiput is flattened.
General Shape of Face
Horizontal and vertical relief of face is moderate. The face’s shape is tetragonal.
Forehead
The height of forehead is much enlarged – again because of artificial deformation. The forehead’s relief is weak. The forehead’s profile corner (nasion-metopion, according to the Frankfurt Scale) is 59°, i.e. the forehead is sloping [19]. Lobus frontalis are weak as well.
Arcus superciliaris
They are weak – mark 1. It provides soft shapes of the bottom part of forehead, what is actually shown on the ready portrait.
Regio nasion (glabella)is moderately developed – mark ІІІ according to the six-mark scale.
Orbita
Eyes are small – 10,59, by the criminalistic scale [6].
The orbita form is of a middle position between that of the round and angular shape. Together with a moved forward fossa lacrimalis, it testifies, on the one hand, Mongoloid construction with small epicanthus; on the other hand, certain angularity, which is characteristic of Europeoid orbita, softens those Mongoloid components. Orbita is referred to closed type. As M.M.Gerasimov proves [11], orbita of such a shape is mostly encountered among Europeans, but then again among the Mongoloids, for which open orbita is more characteristicThe orbita’s end is obtusened. The orbita’s horizontal profile is of vertical type; that coincides with Mongol-type morphological structure of the skull’s bones [11]. Thus, it’s possible to talk about the mixed European-Mongoloid type of orbita’s construction, what is proved by both author’s and Prof. R.Perrot’s reconstructions (Figures 6, 7).
Nose
It must be noticed that the primal restoration of the nose was carried out incorrectly. The right nasal bone (the only one) was moved behind in frontal plane and in sagittal plane towards medial direction. In presence of the Laboratory of Biological Anthropology’s collaborators (The Museum of Man, Paris), Dr M. Pereira da Silva and Prof. R.Perrot, the director of the K.Bernard’s Lion University’s Laboratory of Anthropology and Anatomy and the leading specialist of plastic reconstruction in France, the second restoration of the right nasal bone, according to the lines of nasal frontal rhaphe on the right and the line of sutura frontonasalis. Thus, as it got obvious after the second restoration, the skull’s dorsum nasalis is much more higher, so that the very nose must have had waved shape (type SF-4 [6], according to USSR criminalistic scale), and that’s what can be seen on the reconstructed portrait (pic…). In this particular case a unique opportunity appeared to examine the very skull itself, and that’s what let to discover the mistake which is usually automatically copied on skull’s moulages during the bones’ restorations.
Any specialist in anthropological reconstruction, when dealing with such a kind of moulage and hence not having an opportunity of checking out the quality of his work because of the lack of a genuine skull, is always risky to make mistakes during face reconstruction, even if it is carried out correctly. He just could follow wrong bone’s features of the skull, i.e. moulage, which is inevitable with mistakes in skull’s restoration.
So, after the second restoration of nasal bones, the very nose could be described as follows: the nose is rhynophyma, dorsum nasalis is round, ostium piriformis is moderate-sized
Mouth
Judging by dens caninus and dens premolaris remained, the person’s higher and lower front teeth’s edges stuck close to each other (прикус щипцеобразный).This produces a lower lip somewhat moved forward, as it’s shown on the ready portrait. The mouth is big – index 15,08. Absolute length is 5,2 sm. The upper lip is moderately-broad with narrow filtrum, line between the lips is winding, lips’ corners are up-turned. The lower lip is waving.
The Face’s Lower Part
The oval of face’s lower part meets the average index [6], the jaw is round and moderately broad.
The ears are of moderate size, close to the head.
The hair growth line is round, 88 mm long. fm-fm=15,52 – broad a little, tuber frontale are joint.
It must be added that due to the skull’s artificial deformation via increasing its natural height, forehead’s height, the height of os temporalis and os parietalis, we suppose that hair growth line of the woman was much more higher in regio frontalis, regio temporalis and regio occipitalis, than that of the people with normal skulls. This guess we drive out of traditional haircuts characteristic of the mediaeval Poland (Rzeczpospolita) (Figures 9-16.)[8, 20]. As one can see from portraits included (the 17-18 cc.), the representatives of Polish, Lithuanian and Ukrainian gentry (szlachta) of the 16th – first half of the 18th cc had a way to shave hair above forehead, on regio temporalis and occiput. It’s interesting that such a fashion used to be called “Sarmatian”[21]. By that means the then gentry marked their supposed origin from the Sarmatian aristocracy of the first centuries AD. It’s known well that since the second quarter of the 16th c, “Sarmatian ideology” was being established in the Polish kingdom (Rzeczpospolita). According to this ideology, all the gentry considered to be the descendants of ancient Sarmats. “Szlachta meant to be “knights” whose task was to defend the country and rule it and thought only them to have right to be named “Sarmatian folks”. The szlachta’s exclusive status was grounded genetically – they called themselves the descendants of ancient Sarmatian tribes, who used to live on the territory of Northern Black Sea Coast and partially of Ukraine”[21].”…It’s sure and clear that it’s us who are Sarmats, – such was an affirmation in Marcin Belski’s “Chronicles”, – and hence, what was written about Sarmats is fair to be related to our ancestors”[21].
Taking into consideration the fact that Polish, Lithuanian and Ukrainian gentry followed the “Sarmatian fashion” thoroughly in the course of nearly two centuries, what was reflected both in clothes and a special male haircut style, as it can be seen on Polish and Ukrainian portraits (Fig.9-12), one can suppose that it was the very type of haircut model that szlachta considered to be of Sarmatian origin. The author by now has no facts about whether Sarmatism partisans in Rzeczpospolita had any specimen of contemporary to the ancient Sarmats portrait of Sarmatian aristocrat with his head uncovered. However, comparison of szlachta’s Sarmatian haircut’s conception with the data of investigation of the Alanian woman’s skull from Pontoise, with artificial lengthening of head as a whole and forehead bone (?) in particular, gives us reasons to suggest that such a kind of operation raised obviously hair growth line among Sarmats and their descendants. Later it could find continuation in artificial shaving forehead, regio temporalis and occiput by those who followed Sarmatian fashion. Thus, people with normal skulls looked after having their heads shaved in that very special way, like those with higher hair growth line because of skull’s artificial deformation. Comparing the restored portrait of the Alanian woman from Pontoise with Polish «Sarmatian» portraits, it’s possible to see (pic.) [20]. Taking into consideration all above-mentioned “Sarmatian” aspects, we restored the woman’s hair-do in our work, having the “Sarmatian” fashion’s features in mind (Figures 17-20)
The “Sarmatian fashion” of Rzeczpospolita and Ukraine. The 16th- first half of the 18th cc.
Alanians, in their turn, have direct descendants. Most scientists think it’s modern Osetins of The Northern Caucasus[23]. Like Alanians, the Osetins have some Mongoloid-like features because of their ethnic contacts with Turkish tribes [15]. It can be seen in both orbita’s construction and dark colour of hair. So, it’s also possible to suggest that the Alanian woman’s hair’s colour was black.
However, as on can judge by the works of native archaeologists and anthropologists [9, 12, 22], not all Alanian burials include deformed skulls. Hence, the manner of deforming skulls was actually spread mostly among Alanian aristocrats. Male deformed skulls are encountered much more often than female ones. Thus, the deformed skull of this woman could prove not only her Alanian ethnic origin, but also her high social position in some Alanian tribe. This opinion does not contradict to the fact that Pontoise archaeologists had found the burial #12 within the necropolis of joint Roman-Gallian regiment of Pontoise. The fact can be compared to native archaeologists’ finds when excavating the ancient and mediaeval Khersones (The Crimea, Ukraine) in the places where Roman necropolises lie. Among the burials there were those of local population and Sarmats. It is known that in Khersones, in the 5th c.AD, there was a troop consisting of the 5th Macedonian legion’s soldiers (Mesia province), later replaced by Italian legion[7].
Judging by Sarmat’s military power, experience and mobility (Figures. 21, 22), it’s possible to think that in the first centuries AD Sarmats, and later Alanians took part in the Roman troops of border provinces. The like burials of Sarmats and Alanians together with those of Romans and Gallo-Romans prove this viewpoint.
Conclusion
Thus, after having finished examining the remains from female burial #12 in Pontoise, some conclusions can be driven. A woman, age 40-45, buried within the necropolis of Roman-Gallic soldiers, belonged to tribal gentry and was on service for local Roman-Gallic administration. Morphology of face proves the woman’s mixed Europeoid-Mongoloid origin. Mongoloid features are testified by orbita’s structure, broad nose, frontal higher and lower teeth’s edges stuck to each other [11]), European ones by narrowness of face and noticeable humpness of nose.
References
1. Абрамова М.П. Вопросы историографии и проблемы археологии Центрального Предкавказья сарматского времени (XVI Крупновские чтения по археологии Северного Кавказа (Ставрополь, 1990)// Советская археология №3. Москва: Наука, 1991- С.297.
2. Алексеев В.П., Дебец Г.Ф. Краниометрия. Методика антропологических исследований. – Москва: Наука, 1964.- С. 81-82.
3. Алексеев В.П., Дебец Г.Ф. Определение пола и возраста по черепу// Краниометрия. Методика антропологических исследований. – Москва: Наука, 1964.- С.34-37.
4. Алексеева Е.П. Памятники меотской и сармато-аланской культуры Карачаево-Черкесии// Тр. КЧНИИ. 1966. Вып.5.
5. Балуева Т.С., Лебединская Г.В. Антропологическая реконструкция. Методика исследования взаимосвязи между морфологическими признаками и их костной основой. – Москва, 1991.- 189 с.
6.Балуева Т.С., Лебединская Г.В. Антропологическая реконструкция. Методика исследования взаимосвязи между морфологическими признаками и их костной основой. – Москва, 1991.- С.151, 155, 157.
7. Бессонова С.С., Гаврилюк Н.О., Зубар В.М. Херсонес Таврійський у другій половині І ст. до н.е. – третій чверті ІІІст.: . Скіфо-антична доба. // Давня історія України, Том 2. Київ, 1998 – С. 370-371, 388-389, 392-393.
8. Білецький П. Український портретний живопис XVII-XVIII ст. — К.: Мистецтво, 1968. — С. 237.
9. Блаватский В.Д. Раскопки Фанагории в 1938-1939 гг. ВДИ, 1940, 3-4. – С. 293.
10. Вязьмитина М.И.. Введение. Сарматские памятники на территории Украинской ССР. (Скифо-сарматский период)// Археология Украинской ССР в 3-томах под ред. И.И. Артеменко, том 2, Киев: Наукова думка, 1986. – С. 188, 189, 218-219,194-195, 238-239.
11. Герасимов М.М. Материалы к созданию метода реконструкции лица по черепу// Основы восстановления лица по черепу. – Москва: Сов. наука, 1949.- С. 5-58.
12. Десятчиков Ю.М. Сарматы на Таманском полуострове// Советская археология №4. Москва: Наука, 1973 – С.72-73.
13. Ковалевская В.Б. Центральное Предкавказье. Северокавказские древности //Археология СССР. Степи Евразии в эпоху средневековья. Под редакцией Плетневой С.А. – Москва: Наука, 1981- С. 83-97.
14. Ковалевская В.Б. Сармато-аланы в Западной Европе IV-V вв. н.э. (XVI Крупновские чтения по археологии Северного Кавказа (Ставрополь, 1990)// Советская археология №3. Москва: Наука, 1991- С. 296-297.
15. Лайпанов К.Т. О тюркском элементе в этногенезе осетин// Происхождение осетинского народа. Орджоникидзе, 1967.
16. Пашкова В.И. Определение пола по черепу: Размеры черепа//Очерки судебно-медицинской остеологии. Определение пола, возраста и роста по костям скелета человека. -Москва: Медгиз, 1963.- С. 23, 24, 28-30.- Табл.5.
17. Пашкова В.И. Определение пола по костям таза: Определение пола по костям скелета//Очерки судебно-медицинской остеологии. Определение пола, возраста и роста по костям скелета человека. -Москва: Медгиз, 1963.- С. 102-104.
18. Рогинский Я.Я., Левин М.Г. Антропология: Учебник для студентов ун-тов. – 3-е изд.- Москва: Высшая школа, 1978.- С. 97.
19. Рогинский Я.Я., Левин М.Г. Отдельные кости мозгового черепа. Череп// Антропология: Учебник для студентов ун-тов. – 3-е изд.- Москва: Высшая школа, 1978.- С. 98.
20. Тананаева Л.И. Сарматский портрет. Из истории польского портрета эпохи барокко. Москва: Наука, 1979. – 302 с.
21. Тананаева Л.И. Сарматский портрет. Из истории польского портрета эпохи барокко. Москва: Наука, 1979. – С. 15 .
22. Шилов В.П. Калиновский курганный могильник. МИА, 60, 1959.- С. 492-494.
23. Яценко С.А. Сарматские погребальные ритуалы и осетинская этнография// Российская археология № 3. Москва, 1998-С. 67-69.
24. Bernard Poirier . Le macrocéphale de Pontoise, le site et la fouille// Anthropologiques (déformations crâniennes artificielles: histoire, recherches et hypothèses), La Frette-sur-Seine, 1997 – P. 31.
25. Miya Awazu Pereira da Silva. Crânes artificiellement déformés du pqtrimoine du Musee de L’omme . Paris, 1999. – 8 P.
26. Miya Awazu Pereira da Silva et Bernard Poirier . Conclusion// Anthropologiques (déformations crâniennes artificielles: histoire, recherches et hypothèses), La Frette-sur-Seine, 1997 – P. 31.
27. Raoul Perrot . Proposition de reconstitution faciale du macrocéphale de Pontoise. Métodologie// Anthropologiques (déformations crâniennes artificielles: histoire, recherches et hypothèses), La Frette-sur-Seine, 1997 – P.29-30.
