AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 88:163-182 (1992)
Dental and Cranial Affinities Among Populations of East Asia and the Pacific: The Basic Populations in East Asia, IV TSUNEHIKO HANIHARA Department of Anatomy, Sapporo Medical College, South 1, West 17, Chuo-ku, Sapporo, 060, Japan
Proto-Malay, Southeast Asia, Sundaland, Negrito, KEY WORDS Dayak, Origin of Japanese
ABSTRACT The origins of the four major geographical groups recognized as Australomelanesians, Micronesians, Polynesians, and East and Southeast Asians are still far from obvious. The earliest arrivals in Sahulland may have migrated from Sundaland about 40,000-50,000 years B.P. and begun the Australomelanesian lineage. The aboriginal populations in Southeast Asia may have originated in the tropical rain forest of Sundaland, and their direct descendants may be the modern Dayaks of Borneo and Negritos of Luzon. These populations, the so-called “Proto-Malays,’’are possible representatives of the lineage leading to not only modern Southeast Asians, but also the Neolithic Jomon populations in Japan. The present study suggests, moreover, that the Polynesians and western Micronesians have closer affinities with modern Southeast Asians than with Melanesians o r Jomonese. 0 1992 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Sundaland, a Pleistocene land mass that combined present-day Palawan, Borneo, Sumatra, Java, Indonesia-Indochina, and other small islands plus their connecting continental shelf, exposed as land when the sea level was lower than now, is thought to be the center from which all the modern human populations of Southeast Asia and Oceania originally radiated (Riesenfeld, 1956, Simmons, 1956, 1962; Bowler, 1976; Chappell, 1976; Howells, 1976; Turner, 1976, 1979, 1987, 1990a; Birdsell, 1977; Brace and Hinton, 1981; Omoto, 1984; Bellwood, 1985). I t is generally accepted that Australians and Melanesians share a basic common ancestry, despite their present differences (Pietrusewsky, 1976, 1979, 1984, 1990a; Birdsell, 1977; Howells, 1976, 1977; Omoto, 1984; Bellwood, 1985). Likewise, Chinese, Southeast Asians, Malays, Polynesians, and Micronesians are thought to derive from a common ancestral population on the mainland or islands of Southeast Asia (Bellwood, 1975, 1978, 1985; Howells, 1979, 1989, 1990; Turner, 1987, 1989, 1990a,b; Pietru0 1992 WILEY-LISS, INC.
sewsky, 1990a,b). The predominant phenotype of the modern Southeast Asians is generally thought to be a more recent acquisition, dating from historic times and resulting from the spread of populations from China that expelled or assimilated the aboriginal people of Southeast Asia (Coon, 1962; Brues, 1977; Bellwood, 1985). The aboriginal populations in Southeast Asia, the so-called “Proto-Malays,” are regarded as people with less Chinese admixture. Negritos, one of the Proto-Malay populations inhabiting the mountainous region of central Malaya, coastal and inland localities in pockets of Luzon, northern Palawan, Panay, Negros, and Mindanao, have attracted the attention of a number of physical anthropologists and prehistorians (Coon, 1962; Omoto, 1984, 1986, 1987; Bellwood, 1985). Early attempts a t explaining the
Received August 7,1990; accepted January 1,1992 Address reprint requests to Tsunehiko Hanihara, Department of Anatomy, Sapporo Medieal College, South 1, West 17, Chuoku, Sapporo, 060, Japan.
164
T. HANIHARA
physical characteristics of Negritos relied on somatological investigations (Bean, 1910; Newton, 1920; Vanoverbergh, 1925, 1937, 1938; Sebesta and Lebzelter, 1928; Wastl, 1957). Several studies of Negritos based on cranial measurements were published (Sullivan, 1921; Bonin, 1931; Genet-Varcin, 1951). Few authors, however, analyzed such data in relation to population prehistory in East Asia and the Pacific. In the past few decades, many anthropologists have looked for populations related to Australians and Melanesians, and have considered people like Negritos as being one possible representative (Birdsell, 1949, 1977; Garn, 1961; Coon, 1962; Howells, 1976; Jacob, 1976; Brues, 1977; Kennedy, 1979; Glinka, 1981; Bellwood, 1985). Omoto (1984) suggested that the Negritos evolved in late Pleistocene times, probably 20,000 to 30,000 years B.P. in the tropical rain forest of Sundaland. He went on to suggest that one of the Negrito tribes, the Aeta of Luzon, have been influenced culturally as well as physically by the hunter-gatherers intruding from the Asian mainland, some 10,00020,000 years B.P. (Omoto, 1984,1986,1987). On the basis of genetic studies, he stressed the closer relationship between the Negritos and Southeast Asians than that between the former and the Australomelanesian complex. In the analyses of the origin and affinities of Japanese and the Pacific populations, I attach great importance to the physical characteristics of the Philippine Negritos (T. Hanihara, 1989c, 1990a,b,c). On genetic and phenotypic grounds, the Proto-Malay populations should be re-examined for the light they might throw on the current hypothesis regarding the basic populations in East Asia and the peopling of the Pacific. In the present study, one more tribe commonly classified as a Proto-Malay population, the Dayaks of Borneo, was investigated in addition to the Philippine Negritos for the purpose of re-assessing the orthodox theory that a greater degree of Australoid inheritance could be seen among Proto-Malays (Coon, 1962; Bellwood, 1985).Although a number of investigators have made comparative studies of the Dayaks (Verneau, 1909; Bonin, 1931, 1936; Yokoh, 1931; Brothwell, 1960; Yamaguchi, 1967, 1982;
Tagaya and Ikeda, 19761, few have reviewed the physical traits of this population in the broad context of racial history in East Asia and Oceania. Another purpose of this study is to address the question of the origin of the Neolithic Jomon Population in Japan (ca. 2,30011,000 years B.P.). Concerning the origin and affinities of modern Japanese, it has become more and more evident that largescale migration from Northeast Asia at about 300 B.C. and during the subsequent 1,000 years (Yayoi and Kofun periods) caused rapid changes in the physical characteristics of the Jomon people (Turner, 1976, 1979,1987,1990a; K. Hanihara, 1985,1987, 1991; Ossenberg, 1986; Dodo, 1987; Dodo and Ishida, 1988, 1990; Mizoguchi, 1988; Brace et al., 1989). The remains from the Doigahama site on the west coast of Yamaguchi Prefecture, Honshu, and those from Kanenokuma, Fukuoka city, Kyushu, comprise two of the largest samples of Aeneolithic Yayoi populations from Japan. Their physical characteristics are quite similar to not only the majority of modern Japanese but also modern Northeast Asians adapted to a cold climate (K. Hanihara, 1985, 1987, 1991; Dodo and Ishida, 1988, 1990). Some investigators thought that the Neolithic Jomon populations were different from the present-day Japanese and that they were replaced by the ancestral populations of the latter (Howells, 1966a; Bowles, 1977; Brace et al., 1989). Moreover, there has been considerable speculation about the affinities of the Ainu, who have been linked to such diverse populations as Australians or early Caucasians (Bowles, 1977; Brues, 1977). However, the Ainu of Hokkaido, residents of Aogashima, Tokunoshima, and Okinawa islands, generally maintain some conservative traits which may have been inherited from the Jomon people (Turner, 1976,1979, 1987, 1989, 1990a; T. Hanihara, 1989a,b,c, 1990a,b,c). The population history of Japanese may be explained by the “dual-structure model” proposed by K. Hanihara (1991). Briefly, this model assumes that the first occupants of the Japanese Archipelago came from somewhere in Southeast Asia in the Upper Paleolithic, and that they gave rise to the people in the Neolithic Jomon
POPULATION AFFINITIES IN EAST ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
Age, or Jomonese; that a second wave of migration from Northeast Asia took place in and after the Aeneolithic Yayoi age; and that the populations of both lineages gradually mixed with each other. Thus, defining the genetic contribution of the Jomonese to modern Japanese constitutes a major basic problem in Japanese prehistory (T. Hanihara, 1989a,b,c, 1990a,b,c). This paper re-examines the prehistory of East Asia and Oceania, with special reference to the origin of the Jomonese and their lineage, based on the dental and cranial morphology. MATERIALS AND METHODS
The approximate location of the materials used and the late Pleistocene sea-surface fca. 20,000 years B.P.) are indicated in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. Table 1 presents the information of materials used for the dental analyses. As regards the metric traits, mesiodistal crown diameters of all the teeth of the male samples, except for the maxillary and mandibular third molars, were measured. Buccolingual diameters were omitted because these are less free from post-natal environmental influences than mesiodistal ones (Sofaer et al., 1971; Townsend and Brown, 1978; Kolakowski and Bailit, 1981). Recently, Matsumura (1989) analyzed geographical differences in the Jomonese dental measurements and found that most of the variance showing intergroup differences was in buccolingual diameters. From these findings, he concluded that the buccolingual diameters were more strongly affected by environmental factors than the mesiodistal ones in this population as well (Matsumura, 1989). In the non-metric dental traits, male and female samples were combined because between-sex differences in frequencies were insignificant in most of the samples observed. In regard to the criteria for classification of non-metric characters, the teeth which carry the corresponding traits were distinguished from non-carriers using the following procedures. 1. Shovel shape. Using a digimatic caliper with a pair of movable arms to measure the
165
extent of shovelling in the maxillary central incisors, teeth having lingual fossa less than 0.5 mm deep were classified as no shovel (-1, those which were deeper than 0.5 mm and less than 1.0mm were classed as moderate (+I, and those deeper than 1.0 mm as strong shovel (++I. These types correspond respectively to the categories of no and trace shovel, semi and moderate shovel, and strong shovel employed by other investigators (Hrdlicka, 1920; K. Hanihara et al., 1970). 2. Hypocone (UM2). Carriers were distinguished from non-carriers using Dahlberg’s Plaque P9 (Dahlberg, 1949). The teeth classified into category 3 are referred to here as non-carriers of this trait. 3. Carabelli’s cusp (UMl), 6th cusp, 7th cusp, deflecting wrinkle, and protostylid (LM1). These traits were classified as described by K. Hanihara (1976). 4. Distal trigonid crest. The distal trigonid crest was first described by Weidenreich (1937) in his study on the Sinanthropus dentition. Following him, I counted those mandibular first molars exhibiting the crest connecting the central ridge of the metaconid with the distal accessory ridge of the protoconid a s positive for this trait. 5. Four-cusp pattern. Mandibular second molars showing the stage IV described by Hellman (1928) were scored a s carriers of this trait. Both metric and non-metric data were collected from the right side of the dentition. When a right tooth was missing or badly damaged, the corresponding left tooth was used. Altogether, 45 population samples were included in the cranial analyses. The information on materials is summarized in Table 2. The adult male crania were measured according to the definitions given by Martin and Saller (1957). The population name used in the present study, Jomonese #1, represents the crania of individuals from the middle Jomon Period (ca. 5,300-3,600 years B.P.) and Jomonese #2 from the late and the latest Jomon period (ca. 3,600-2,300 years B.P.). The statistical methods applied to the dental and cranial measurements are the
1
...
:.
. . .::.. . . '.,
..,
,
.?
.
POPULATION AFFINITIES IN EAST ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
167
Indi
Fig. 2. Sea-surface of late Pleistocene time in East Asia and the western Pacific.
Fig. 1. Map showing the approximate provenience of the specimens used in this study.
&-mode correlation coefficients, which represent a shape component exclusively; the multidimensional scaling method (Torgerson, 1952); and principal co-ordinate analy-
168
T.HANIHARA TABLE 1 . Materials used in the dental analyses
Population
N
Dayak
12'
Negrito
22
University of Tokyo Kyoto University University of Tokyo
Japanese Chinese
483 71
University of Tokyo University of Tokyo
Ainu Tokunoshima Jomonese
99 115' 200
Source
Doigahama Yayoi
93
University of Tokyo Kagoshima University University of Tokyo National Science Museum Kyushu University
Kanenokuma Yayoi
64
Kyushu University
Guam
112
Bishop Museum
Hawaii
180
Bishop Museum
32
Bishop Museum
Marquesas
Melanesia (Fiji)
8'
Bishop Museum University of Tokyo
Information Pontianak, west of Borneo (recent) Bataan Peninsula, Luzon (recent) Main-island Japanese (recent) Manchuria, Liaoning Prefecture (19th century) Hokkaido Ainu (19th century) Tokuonshima Island (recent) Main-island J a p a n (5,300-2,300 years B.P.) Doigahama site, Yamaguchi Prefecture westernmost part of Honshu (2,300-1,700 years B.P.) Kanenokuma site, Fukuoka Prefecture northern part of Kyushu (2,300-1,700 years B.P.) Chamorros from Guam (Pre-Spanish epoch) Pre-historic (pre-contact) Mokapu site, Oahu (500-600 years B.P.) Pre-historis (pre-contact) Hane Dune site (MUH-l), Uahuka (2,000-1,700 years B.P.) Mainly from Fiji Island including a few specimens from other Melanesian
'Numbers of male samples. These three populations were used only in the metric analyses. Other populations were male and female in combination.
sis. The statistics for frequencies of the nonmetric crown characters are the B-square distance proposed by Balakrishnan and Sanghvi (1968; see also Constandse-Westermann, 1972) and the multidimensional scaling method. All the statistical computations were processed by a personal computer (NEC PC9801 Vm2) using BASIC programs coded by K. Hanihara and me. The populations properly referred to as the Neolithic Jomon population, Aeneolithic Yayoi population, residents of Okinawa, etc., will be simply referred to as Jomonese, Yayoi, Okinawa, etc., in the following descriptions. Populations with closer affinities to Jomonese, such as Aogashima, Tokunoshima, Okinawa, and Ainu, are distinguished from Yayoi and main-island Japanese and referred to as indigenous Japanese or the Jomon lineage.
RESULTS Analyses based on dental morphology
The frequencies of discrete crown characters for each sample are given in Table 3. A tabular presentation of the results of an application of B-square distance to 11 populations using 9 discrete crown characters is given in Table 4. Based on this distance matrix, a dendrogram constructed from a cluster analysis (group average method) is presented in Figure 3; Figure 4 presents a two-dimensional scattergram derived from multidimensional scaling. In the dendrogram, two major clusters are found. The first contains the modern mainisland Japanese, Yayoi, and Chinese. The second includes the Pacific populations, indigenous Japanese, and Jomonese. These subclusters fall within one cluster of the
POPULATION AFFINITIES IN EAST ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
169
TABLE 2. Materials used in the cranial analvses’ Population
N
Japan Minatogawa (Minatogawa I) Jomonese #1 Jomonese #2 Ainu Okinawa
1
15 50 53 11 16
Miyako
Southeast Asia Mainland Southeast Asia (SE-Asia) Java Sulu Lesser Sundas (L-Sundas) Borneo-Cerebes Luzon Moluccas Sumatra Cambodia Thailand Laos Burma Vietnam Australia Northern Territory (N-Territory) Northern Queensland (N-Queensland) Southern Queensland (S-Queensland) Coastal New South Wales (Coastal NSW) Murray River (Murray R) Swanport South Australia (S-Australia) Western Australia (W-Australia) Broadbeach Melanesia New Britain New Ireland So1omon New Hebrides New Caledonia Santa Cruz Fiji Mysore-Rubi Purari Delta Micronesia Guam Polynesia Tonga-Samoa Hawaii Proto-Malay Dayak #1 Dayak #2 Negrito China Liukiang Chinese
Cited from Suzuki (1982) Present study Present study Present study Tagaya and Ikeda (1976) Tagaya and Ikeda (1976) Pietrusewsky (1981, 1984)
86 73 38 45 76 28 78 43 11 10 29 16 30 Pietrusewsky (1984) 62 34 74 62 85 36 52 18 17 Pietrusewsky (1984) 85 53 50 84 85 46 32 48 71 115
Present study
10 34
Pietrusewsky (1984) Present study
12 55 33
Present study Bonin (1931) Bonin (1931)
1 71
Woo (1959) Present study
lInformation of the materials of the present study is given in Table 1.
Negritos. The clustering exhibited in Figure 4 corresponds well to that of Figure 3. A major cluster comprising modern main-island Japanese is positioned near the Yayoi and Chinese. Negritos, Jomonese, and Ainu form a separate group. The Pacific populations and Tokunoshima are scattered near the latter cluster.
The findings support the dual-structure model for the population history of Japanese. To address the affinities of Jomonese and their lineage, however, attention should be turned to events associated with the peopling of Southeast Asia and the Pacific. Because the sample size of Dayaks is relatively small, the next analyses are based on
T. HANIHARA
170
e
d
\
;
Dental and Cranial Affinities Among Populations of East Asia and the Pacific: The Basic Populations in East Asia, IV TSUNEHIKO HANIHARA Department of Anatomy, Sapporo Medical College, South 1, West 17, Chuo-ku, Sapporo, 060, Japan
Proto-Malay, Southeast Asia, Sundaland, Negrito, KEY WORDS Dayak, Origin of Japanese
ABSTRACT The origins of the four major geographical groups recognized as Australomelanesians, Micronesians, Polynesians, and East and Southeast Asians are still far from obvious. The earliest arrivals in Sahulland may have migrated from Sundaland about 40,000-50,000 years B.P. and begun the Australomelanesian lineage. The aboriginal populations in Southeast Asia may have originated in the tropical rain forest of Sundaland, and their direct descendants may be the modern Dayaks of Borneo and Negritos of Luzon. These populations, the so-called “Proto-Malays,’’are possible representatives of the lineage leading to not only modern Southeast Asians, but also the Neolithic Jomon populations in Japan. The present study suggests, moreover, that the Polynesians and western Micronesians have closer affinities with modern Southeast Asians than with Melanesians o r Jomonese. 0 1992 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Sundaland, a Pleistocene land mass that combined present-day Palawan, Borneo, Sumatra, Java, Indonesia-Indochina, and other small islands plus their connecting continental shelf, exposed as land when the sea level was lower than now, is thought to be the center from which all the modern human populations of Southeast Asia and Oceania originally radiated (Riesenfeld, 1956, Simmons, 1956, 1962; Bowler, 1976; Chappell, 1976; Howells, 1976; Turner, 1976, 1979, 1987, 1990a; Birdsell, 1977; Brace and Hinton, 1981; Omoto, 1984; Bellwood, 1985). I t is generally accepted that Australians and Melanesians share a basic common ancestry, despite their present differences (Pietrusewsky, 1976, 1979, 1984, 1990a; Birdsell, 1977; Howells, 1976, 1977; Omoto, 1984; Bellwood, 1985). Likewise, Chinese, Southeast Asians, Malays, Polynesians, and Micronesians are thought to derive from a common ancestral population on the mainland or islands of Southeast Asia (Bellwood, 1975, 1978, 1985; Howells, 1979, 1989, 1990; Turner, 1987, 1989, 1990a,b; Pietru0 1992 WILEY-LISS, INC.
sewsky, 1990a,b). The predominant phenotype of the modern Southeast Asians is generally thought to be a more recent acquisition, dating from historic times and resulting from the spread of populations from China that expelled or assimilated the aboriginal people of Southeast Asia (Coon, 1962; Brues, 1977; Bellwood, 1985). The aboriginal populations in Southeast Asia, the so-called “Proto-Malays,” are regarded as people with less Chinese admixture. Negritos, one of the Proto-Malay populations inhabiting the mountainous region of central Malaya, coastal and inland localities in pockets of Luzon, northern Palawan, Panay, Negros, and Mindanao, have attracted the attention of a number of physical anthropologists and prehistorians (Coon, 1962; Omoto, 1984, 1986, 1987; Bellwood, 1985). Early attempts a t explaining the
Received August 7,1990; accepted January 1,1992 Address reprint requests to Tsunehiko Hanihara, Department of Anatomy, Sapporo Medieal College, South 1, West 17, Chuoku, Sapporo, 060, Japan.
164
T. HANIHARA
physical characteristics of Negritos relied on somatological investigations (Bean, 1910; Newton, 1920; Vanoverbergh, 1925, 1937, 1938; Sebesta and Lebzelter, 1928; Wastl, 1957). Several studies of Negritos based on cranial measurements were published (Sullivan, 1921; Bonin, 1931; Genet-Varcin, 1951). Few authors, however, analyzed such data in relation to population prehistory in East Asia and the Pacific. In the past few decades, many anthropologists have looked for populations related to Australians and Melanesians, and have considered people like Negritos as being one possible representative (Birdsell, 1949, 1977; Garn, 1961; Coon, 1962; Howells, 1976; Jacob, 1976; Brues, 1977; Kennedy, 1979; Glinka, 1981; Bellwood, 1985). Omoto (1984) suggested that the Negritos evolved in late Pleistocene times, probably 20,000 to 30,000 years B.P. in the tropical rain forest of Sundaland. He went on to suggest that one of the Negrito tribes, the Aeta of Luzon, have been influenced culturally as well as physically by the hunter-gatherers intruding from the Asian mainland, some 10,00020,000 years B.P. (Omoto, 1984,1986,1987). On the basis of genetic studies, he stressed the closer relationship between the Negritos and Southeast Asians than that between the former and the Australomelanesian complex. In the analyses of the origin and affinities of Japanese and the Pacific populations, I attach great importance to the physical characteristics of the Philippine Negritos (T. Hanihara, 1989c, 1990a,b,c). On genetic and phenotypic grounds, the Proto-Malay populations should be re-examined for the light they might throw on the current hypothesis regarding the basic populations in East Asia and the peopling of the Pacific. In the present study, one more tribe commonly classified as a Proto-Malay population, the Dayaks of Borneo, was investigated in addition to the Philippine Negritos for the purpose of re-assessing the orthodox theory that a greater degree of Australoid inheritance could be seen among Proto-Malays (Coon, 1962; Bellwood, 1985).Although a number of investigators have made comparative studies of the Dayaks (Verneau, 1909; Bonin, 1931, 1936; Yokoh, 1931; Brothwell, 1960; Yamaguchi, 1967, 1982;
Tagaya and Ikeda, 19761, few have reviewed the physical traits of this population in the broad context of racial history in East Asia and Oceania. Another purpose of this study is to address the question of the origin of the Neolithic Jomon Population in Japan (ca. 2,30011,000 years B.P.). Concerning the origin and affinities of modern Japanese, it has become more and more evident that largescale migration from Northeast Asia at about 300 B.C. and during the subsequent 1,000 years (Yayoi and Kofun periods) caused rapid changes in the physical characteristics of the Jomon people (Turner, 1976, 1979,1987,1990a; K. Hanihara, 1985,1987, 1991; Ossenberg, 1986; Dodo, 1987; Dodo and Ishida, 1988, 1990; Mizoguchi, 1988; Brace et al., 1989). The remains from the Doigahama site on the west coast of Yamaguchi Prefecture, Honshu, and those from Kanenokuma, Fukuoka city, Kyushu, comprise two of the largest samples of Aeneolithic Yayoi populations from Japan. Their physical characteristics are quite similar to not only the majority of modern Japanese but also modern Northeast Asians adapted to a cold climate (K. Hanihara, 1985, 1987, 1991; Dodo and Ishida, 1988, 1990). Some investigators thought that the Neolithic Jomon populations were different from the present-day Japanese and that they were replaced by the ancestral populations of the latter (Howells, 1966a; Bowles, 1977; Brace et al., 1989). Moreover, there has been considerable speculation about the affinities of the Ainu, who have been linked to such diverse populations as Australians or early Caucasians (Bowles, 1977; Brues, 1977). However, the Ainu of Hokkaido, residents of Aogashima, Tokunoshima, and Okinawa islands, generally maintain some conservative traits which may have been inherited from the Jomon people (Turner, 1976,1979, 1987, 1989, 1990a; T. Hanihara, 1989a,b,c, 1990a,b,c). The population history of Japanese may be explained by the “dual-structure model” proposed by K. Hanihara (1991). Briefly, this model assumes that the first occupants of the Japanese Archipelago came from somewhere in Southeast Asia in the Upper Paleolithic, and that they gave rise to the people in the Neolithic Jomon
POPULATION AFFINITIES IN EAST ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
Age, or Jomonese; that a second wave of migration from Northeast Asia took place in and after the Aeneolithic Yayoi age; and that the populations of both lineages gradually mixed with each other. Thus, defining the genetic contribution of the Jomonese to modern Japanese constitutes a major basic problem in Japanese prehistory (T. Hanihara, 1989a,b,c, 1990a,b,c). This paper re-examines the prehistory of East Asia and Oceania, with special reference to the origin of the Jomonese and their lineage, based on the dental and cranial morphology. MATERIALS AND METHODS
The approximate location of the materials used and the late Pleistocene sea-surface fca. 20,000 years B.P.) are indicated in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. Table 1 presents the information of materials used for the dental analyses. As regards the metric traits, mesiodistal crown diameters of all the teeth of the male samples, except for the maxillary and mandibular third molars, were measured. Buccolingual diameters were omitted because these are less free from post-natal environmental influences than mesiodistal ones (Sofaer et al., 1971; Townsend and Brown, 1978; Kolakowski and Bailit, 1981). Recently, Matsumura (1989) analyzed geographical differences in the Jomonese dental measurements and found that most of the variance showing intergroup differences was in buccolingual diameters. From these findings, he concluded that the buccolingual diameters were more strongly affected by environmental factors than the mesiodistal ones in this population as well (Matsumura, 1989). In the non-metric dental traits, male and female samples were combined because between-sex differences in frequencies were insignificant in most of the samples observed. In regard to the criteria for classification of non-metric characters, the teeth which carry the corresponding traits were distinguished from non-carriers using the following procedures. 1. Shovel shape. Using a digimatic caliper with a pair of movable arms to measure the
165
extent of shovelling in the maxillary central incisors, teeth having lingual fossa less than 0.5 mm deep were classified as no shovel (-1, those which were deeper than 0.5 mm and less than 1.0mm were classed as moderate (+I, and those deeper than 1.0 mm as strong shovel (++I. These types correspond respectively to the categories of no and trace shovel, semi and moderate shovel, and strong shovel employed by other investigators (Hrdlicka, 1920; K. Hanihara et al., 1970). 2. Hypocone (UM2). Carriers were distinguished from non-carriers using Dahlberg’s Plaque P9 (Dahlberg, 1949). The teeth classified into category 3 are referred to here as non-carriers of this trait. 3. Carabelli’s cusp (UMl), 6th cusp, 7th cusp, deflecting wrinkle, and protostylid (LM1). These traits were classified as described by K. Hanihara (1976). 4. Distal trigonid crest. The distal trigonid crest was first described by Weidenreich (1937) in his study on the Sinanthropus dentition. Following him, I counted those mandibular first molars exhibiting the crest connecting the central ridge of the metaconid with the distal accessory ridge of the protoconid a s positive for this trait. 5. Four-cusp pattern. Mandibular second molars showing the stage IV described by Hellman (1928) were scored a s carriers of this trait. Both metric and non-metric data were collected from the right side of the dentition. When a right tooth was missing or badly damaged, the corresponding left tooth was used. Altogether, 45 population samples were included in the cranial analyses. The information on materials is summarized in Table 2. The adult male crania were measured according to the definitions given by Martin and Saller (1957). The population name used in the present study, Jomonese #1, represents the crania of individuals from the middle Jomon Period (ca. 5,300-3,600 years B.P.) and Jomonese #2 from the late and the latest Jomon period (ca. 3,600-2,300 years B.P.). The statistical methods applied to the dental and cranial measurements are the
1
...
:.
. . .::.. . . '.,
..,
,
.?
.
POPULATION AFFINITIES IN EAST ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
167
Indi
Fig. 2. Sea-surface of late Pleistocene time in East Asia and the western Pacific.
Fig. 1. Map showing the approximate provenience of the specimens used in this study.
&-mode correlation coefficients, which represent a shape component exclusively; the multidimensional scaling method (Torgerson, 1952); and principal co-ordinate analy-
168
T.HANIHARA TABLE 1 . Materials used in the dental analyses
Population
N
Dayak
12'
Negrito
22
University of Tokyo Kyoto University University of Tokyo
Japanese Chinese
483 71
University of Tokyo University of Tokyo
Ainu Tokunoshima Jomonese
99 115' 200
Source
Doigahama Yayoi
93
University of Tokyo Kagoshima University University of Tokyo National Science Museum Kyushu University
Kanenokuma Yayoi
64
Kyushu University
Guam
112
Bishop Museum
Hawaii
180
Bishop Museum
32
Bishop Museum
Marquesas
Melanesia (Fiji)
8'
Bishop Museum University of Tokyo
Information Pontianak, west of Borneo (recent) Bataan Peninsula, Luzon (recent) Main-island Japanese (recent) Manchuria, Liaoning Prefecture (19th century) Hokkaido Ainu (19th century) Tokuonshima Island (recent) Main-island J a p a n (5,300-2,300 years B.P.) Doigahama site, Yamaguchi Prefecture westernmost part of Honshu (2,300-1,700 years B.P.) Kanenokuma site, Fukuoka Prefecture northern part of Kyushu (2,300-1,700 years B.P.) Chamorros from Guam (Pre-Spanish epoch) Pre-historic (pre-contact) Mokapu site, Oahu (500-600 years B.P.) Pre-historis (pre-contact) Hane Dune site (MUH-l), Uahuka (2,000-1,700 years B.P.) Mainly from Fiji Island including a few specimens from other Melanesian
'Numbers of male samples. These three populations were used only in the metric analyses. Other populations were male and female in combination.
sis. The statistics for frequencies of the nonmetric crown characters are the B-square distance proposed by Balakrishnan and Sanghvi (1968; see also Constandse-Westermann, 1972) and the multidimensional scaling method. All the statistical computations were processed by a personal computer (NEC PC9801 Vm2) using BASIC programs coded by K. Hanihara and me. The populations properly referred to as the Neolithic Jomon population, Aeneolithic Yayoi population, residents of Okinawa, etc., will be simply referred to as Jomonese, Yayoi, Okinawa, etc., in the following descriptions. Populations with closer affinities to Jomonese, such as Aogashima, Tokunoshima, Okinawa, and Ainu, are distinguished from Yayoi and main-island Japanese and referred to as indigenous Japanese or the Jomon lineage.
RESULTS Analyses based on dental morphology
The frequencies of discrete crown characters for each sample are given in Table 3. A tabular presentation of the results of an application of B-square distance to 11 populations using 9 discrete crown characters is given in Table 4. Based on this distance matrix, a dendrogram constructed from a cluster analysis (group average method) is presented in Figure 3; Figure 4 presents a two-dimensional scattergram derived from multidimensional scaling. In the dendrogram, two major clusters are found. The first contains the modern mainisland Japanese, Yayoi, and Chinese. The second includes the Pacific populations, indigenous Japanese, and Jomonese. These subclusters fall within one cluster of the
POPULATION AFFINITIES IN EAST ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
169
TABLE 2. Materials used in the cranial analvses’ Population
N
Japan Minatogawa (Minatogawa I) Jomonese #1 Jomonese #2 Ainu Okinawa
1
15 50 53 11 16
Miyako
Southeast Asia Mainland Southeast Asia (SE-Asia) Java Sulu Lesser Sundas (L-Sundas) Borneo-Cerebes Luzon Moluccas Sumatra Cambodia Thailand Laos Burma Vietnam Australia Northern Territory (N-Territory) Northern Queensland (N-Queensland) Southern Queensland (S-Queensland) Coastal New South Wales (Coastal NSW) Murray River (Murray R) Swanport South Australia (S-Australia) Western Australia (W-Australia) Broadbeach Melanesia New Britain New Ireland So1omon New Hebrides New Caledonia Santa Cruz Fiji Mysore-Rubi Purari Delta Micronesia Guam Polynesia Tonga-Samoa Hawaii Proto-Malay Dayak #1 Dayak #2 Negrito China Liukiang Chinese
Cited from Suzuki (1982) Present study Present study Present study Tagaya and Ikeda (1976) Tagaya and Ikeda (1976) Pietrusewsky (1981, 1984)
86 73 38 45 76 28 78 43 11 10 29 16 30 Pietrusewsky (1984) 62 34 74 62 85 36 52 18 17 Pietrusewsky (1984) 85 53 50 84 85 46 32 48 71 115
Present study
10 34
Pietrusewsky (1984) Present study
12 55 33
Present study Bonin (1931) Bonin (1931)
1 71
Woo (1959) Present study
lInformation of the materials of the present study is given in Table 1.
Negritos. The clustering exhibited in Figure 4 corresponds well to that of Figure 3. A major cluster comprising modern main-island Japanese is positioned near the Yayoi and Chinese. Negritos, Jomonese, and Ainu form a separate group. The Pacific populations and Tokunoshima are scattered near the latter cluster.
The findings support the dual-structure model for the population history of Japanese. To address the affinities of Jomonese and their lineage, however, attention should be turned to events associated with the peopling of Southeast Asia and the Pacific. Because the sample size of Dayaks is relatively small, the next analyses are based on
T. HANIHARA
170
e
d
\
;
