· k M 2008 The modern inhabitants ofIsland Southeast Asia: a craniometric perspective. In E. Indriati (cd.) Pletrusews y,. . S h t A . Proceedings of the International Seminar on Southeast Asian Paleoanthropology: Recent Advances on out eas Sl;~ d' .

lPaleoanthropology and Archaeology, pp.185-20 I. Laborato~ of Bioanthropology and Paleoanthropo!ogy, Facu ty 0 e lcme

Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, IndonesIa.

Part III. 1. The Modern Inhabitants of Island Southeast Asia:

a Craniometric Perspective

Michael Pietrusewsky Department of Anthropology, University of Hawaii

2424 Maile Way, Saunders 346,Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 U.S.A. Tel. (808) 956-6653. Fax: (808) 956-9541

E-mail: mikep@hawaiLedu

ABSTRACT

In this study, stepwise discriminant function analysis and Mahalanobis' generalized distance are applied to 27 landmark measurements recorded in 2,595 male crania representing 56 near modern cranial series from Island Southeast Asia (ISEA), Mainland Southeast Asia (SEA), East Asia, Australia. and the Pacific. This new analysis examines models (e.g., agricultural colonization and continuity models) based on archaeological, historical linguistic, and biological data for understanding the modern inhabitants of ISEA and the adjoining regions beginning approximately 40,000 years ago.

The results, including the inspection of jackknifed classification results, canonical plots, and the construction of diagrams of relationship based on Mahalanobis' distances, indicate:

The primary division is one between Asian-Pacific and Australian-Melanesian series. With the exception of the Southern Moluccas series, cranial series from ISEA form a separate branch that is closest to Mainland SEA series. Cranial series representing East and North Asia occupy a branch well separated from Southeast Asia, an association that argues for long term continuity within these regions rather than intrusion or replacement in Southeast Asia. ISEA is the likely homeland for the ancestors of the Polynesians and other inhabitants of Remote Oceania. Several interesting associations (e.g., New Zealand Maori and Southern Moluccas) between Remote Oceania and ISEA are discussed.

This study demonstrates that human skeletal and dental remains are an important source of information for evaluating models based on archaeological and historical linguistic data and for evaluating the hotly debated LS1 hominin from Liang Sua Cave on Flores Island, Indonesia.

Key words: Southeast Asia, Pacific, East Asia. multivariate analysis, cranial measurements

INTRODUCTION

The modern day peoples and cultures of Southeast Asia have been described as representing

a human kaleidoscope (Bowles. 1977). Southeast Asia comprises two main geographic regions,

Mainland Southeast Asia (SEA) and Island Southeast Asia (ISEA). Mainland SEA includes present

day Burma (Myanmar), Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, and Peninsular Malaysia. Today, ISEA

is an area that encompasses modern Indonesia, the Philippines, and East Malaysia (the states of

Sabah and Sarawak, located on the island of Borneo). Although the human history of Mainland SEA

and ISEA is interconnected, the focus of this paper is the modern inhabitants of ISEA and their

relationships to the inhabitants of the surrounding regions that include eastern and northern Asia,

the Pacific, and Australia.

185

While the presence of the first humans in ISEA can be traced to Homo erectus in Java

approximately 1.6 to 1 million years ago, the initial colonization of this region by modern humans,

Homo sapiens, is generally agreed to have occured much later, approximately 40,000 - 60,000 years

ago (Bellwood and Glover, 2004). This latter event coincides with the human crossing of the islands of

Wallacea that lie between the Pleistocene continents of Sunda to the west (including the Malay

Peninsula, Sumatra, Borneo, Java, and Bali) and Sahul (including Australia, Tasmania, New Guinea)

and adjoining islands of the Bismarck Archipelago and Solomon Island chain [a region referred to as

Near Oceania (Green, 1991)] to the south and east. Paleoanthropologists sometimes use the term,

"Australo-Melanesians", when referring to the early inhabitants of this region.

While the presence of modern humans in ISEA, including Near Oceania has considerable

antiquity, the majority of the present day inhabitants of ISEA and beyond have been associated with a

much later, mid-Holocene, immigration, a dispersal event linked to the spread of Austronesian

languages and the development and spread of agriculture (Bellwood, 1997, 2005). In this view the

indigenous inhabitants of Southeast Asia, including those in ISEA, were replaced by an immigrant

group of people of a more northern origin, or, using his terminology, 'Australoids' were displaced by

'Mongoloids' (Bellwood, 1997:83-87). Theoretically, such a scenario should result in the presence of a

somewhat hybridized population living in this region. The work of Matsumura (1995, 2006) and

Matsumura and Hudson (2005) favors admixture models..

An alternative model to this demic expansion model is the continuity model, based largely on data

from physical anthropology, which argues that the present day inhabitants of Southeast Asia evolved

from earlier groups living within this region from the late Holocene onward (e.g., Bulbeck, 1982;

Hanihara, 1993; Pietrusewsky, 1994, 2006a;Turner, 1990).

Where the modern human inhabitants of this immense island world came from and how they got

there has long influenced research in this region. Although the vast majority of the inhabitants of the

region have been phenotypically identified as Asian or Mongoloid, the region also includes several

short-stature groups (Negritos) found, for example, in Malaysia, Philippines, and Andaman Islands, as

well as Melanesians who extend east and west of New Guinea.

The models that predict that the indigenous peoples of ISEA and Near Oceania were displaced by

later colonists and those that predict a common genetic heritage of people now living in this region, one

that bridged the technological and social transition in this region, can be tested using craniometric data.

In this study multivariate statistical procedures are applied to craniometric data recorded in

modern and near modern humans for investigating the historical-biological relationships of the

modern indigenous peoples of ISEA and adjoining regions. Comparisons of these results with those

based on genetic, archaeological, and historical linguistic data will be used to evaluate some of the

competing hypotheses that relate to the settlement and colonization of ISEA and adjacent regions as

well provide important context for evaluating the hotly debated LB1 hominin from Liang Bua Cave on

Flores Island, Indonesia.

CRANIAL MORPHOLOGY AND BIODISTANCE STUDIES

Studies of skeletal remains, especially crania, have played a central role in understanding

the biological relationships and evolution of human populations. Craniometric data remain an

important and valuable source of information for examining biological relatedness between and

within populations, past and present (see e.g., Howells, 1973, 1989; Pietrusewsky, 2000). The

186

continued interest in metric variation is the result of the precision and repeatability of measurement

techniques, the conservative nature of continuous variation, the direct link with the past, the

demonstration that craniometric traits have a genetic component (e.g., Kohn, 1991; Sj0Vold. 1984),

and the amenability of measurements to multivariate statistical procedures.

While cranial variation is subject to non-genetic or environmental influences, this category of

variation is generally viewed as reflecting genetic similarity, which is the basis for biodistance studies in

paleoanthropology (Buikstra et aI., 1990; Konigsberg and Ousley, 1995).

CRANIAL SERIES

Altogether, a total of 2,595 male crania representing fifty-six cranial series are included in this

study (Table 1, Figure 1). The cranial series represent modern and near modern indigenous

inhabitants of ISEA and Mainland SEA, East and North Asia, Australia, and the Pacific. The samples,

including their sizes and other details, are given in Table 1. Although exact dates for these specimens

are often not known, the majority were collected in the late 19- and early 20- centuries placing them in

time and context to the indigenous peoples currently living in these regions. A predominance of the

crania from ISEA, including Indonesia, were examined by the author in museums located in Germany

(Leipzig, Dresden, Berlin, Bremen, G6ttingen, and Freiburg) and in the Musee de I'Homme in Paris.

Table 1: Fifty-six male cranial series and measurements' used in the present study.

i

I Series Name (abbrev.) 1

No. of Crania

Location2

and Number of Crania

Remarks

Polynesia

1. Tonga-Samoa (TOG)

19 BER-3; AMS-2; DRE-1; PAR-1 BPB-4; AIM-2; AUK­5; SIM-1

Fourteen specimens are from Tonga and five are from Samoa. Included in the Tongan series are three skulls from Pongaimotu excavated by McKern in 1920; two from To -At­1,2 excavated by Janet Davidson in 1965; and five from To -At-36 excavated by Dirk Spennemann in 1985/6. The remaining specimens are from museums in Berlin, Paris and Sydney. Although the exact dates for a few specimens are not known, the maiority are believed to be prehistoric.

2. Easter Island (EAS)

50 BER-5; DRE-9; PAR-36

Most of the crania in Paris were collected by Pinart in 1887 at Vaihu and La Perouse Bay, Rapa Nui (Easter Island). The exact dates of these specimens are not known.

3. Hawaii (HAW)

60 BPB-20; HON-20; SIM-20

An equal number of specimens have been randomly chosen from three different skeletal series: Mokapu (Oahu), Honokahua (Maui), and Kauai. All specimens are presumed to be prehistoric (pre-1778).

4. Marquesas (MRQ)

63 PAR-49; LEP-1; BLU-1; BPB-12

Crania are from four islands, Fatu Hiva, Tahuata, Nuku Hiva and Hiva Oa. The exact dates of these specimens are not known.

5. New Zealand (NZ)

50 BRE-3; PAR -21 ; SAM-1;AIM-13; GOT-1; ZUR-5; DRE-6

A representative sample of New Zealand Maori crania from the North and South Islands of New Zealand. The exact dates of these specimens are not known.

187

Series Name (abbrev.) 1

No. of Crania

location2

and Number of Crania

Remarks

6. Chatham Island (CHT)

45 . DUN-8; OTM-2 WEl-4; CAN-10 AIM-3; DRE-5 AMS­2; DAS-3 GOT-4; PAR-4

Moriori crania from the Chatham Island, New Zealand. The exact dates of these specimens are not known.

7. Society Islands (SOC)

44 PAR-33; BPB-11 Crania are from the island of Tahiti, Society Islands. The exact dates of these specimens are not known.

8. Tuamotu Archipelago (TUA)

18 PAR-18 The majority of the specimens are from Makatea in the Tuamotu Archipelago. The exact dates of these specimens are not known.

Island Melanesia

9. Fiji (FIJ)

42 BER-1; SAM-3; QMB-1; DRE-4 FRE-3; CHA-1; BPB-11; PAR-7 AMS-3; DUN-6; SIM-2

Crania are from all major islands including the lau Group in the Fiji Islands. The exact dates of these specimens are not known.

10. Vanuatu (VAN)

47 BAS-47 Most of the specimens were collected by Felix Speiser in 1912 from Malo, Pentecost and Espirtu Santo Islands. Vanuatu. The exact dates of these specimens are not known.

11. loyalty Islands (lOY)

50 BAS-43; PAR-7 Crania are from Mare, Lifou, and Ouvea Island Groups, loyalty Islands The exact dates of these specimens are not known.

12. New Caledonia (NCl)

50 BAS-34; PAR -16 Crania are from several coastal and inland locations on New Caledonia. The majority of these specimens were collected in the late 19th century. The exact dates of these specimens are not known.

13. Santa Cruz Islands (SCR)

46 SAM-4; AMS-2; BAS-40

The crania in Basel were collected by Felix Speiser in 1912 (Speiser, 1928). The exact dates of these specimens are not known.

14. Solomon Islands (Sal)

49 DRE-3; BER-1; NMV-1; QMB-3; AMS-16; DAS-10; BAS-14; GOT-1

Crania are from New Georgia (5), Guadalcanal (9), San Cristobal Island (7), and other locations in the Solomon Islands. The exact dates of these specimens are not known.

15. New Britain (NBR)

50 CHA-20; DRE-30 The specimens from New Britain in Dresden were collected by A. Baessler in 1900 and those in Berlin were collected by R. Parkinson in 1911.These specimens were collected from trading posts near Rabul in the Gazelle Peninsula and most likely represent Tolai crania (see Pietrusewsky, 1990b:236 -237; Howells, 1973:24-25). The exact dates of these specimens are not known.

16. New Ireland (NIR)

53 AMS-4; BER-2; BlU-6; DRE-18; GOT-15; QMB-1; SAM-6; TUB-1

Most of the crania in Dresden were collected by Pi:ihl in 1887-1888 from the northern end of the island; the specimens in Gi:ittingen were collected during the SOdsee Expedition in 1908. The exact dates of these specimens are not known.

188

Series Name (abbrev.) 1

No. of Crania

Location2

and Number of Crania

Remarks

17. Admiralty Islands (ADR)

50 DRE-20; GOT-9; CHA-6; TUB-15;

Specimens from Hermit, Kaniet and Manus Islands of the Admiralty Islands. The exact dates of these specimens are not known.

New Guinea

18. Sepik R. (SEP)

50 DRE-33; GOT-10; TUB-7

The specimens in Dresden were collected by Otto Schlaginhaufen in 1909 from various locations along the Sepik River, Papua New Guinea. The ex act dates of these specimens are not known.

19. Biak Island (BIK)

48 DRE-48 Most (45) of the specimens were collected by A.S. Meyer in 1873 on Biak Island (Mysore), Geelvink Bay, Irian Jaya. The exact dates of these specimens are not known.

20. Purari Delta (PUR)

50 DRE-50 Decorated (engraved) skulls obtained by Gerard and Webster between 1900 and 1902 are from along the Purari River and Purari Delta regions, Papua New Guinea. The exact dates of these specimens are not known.

Australial Tasmania

21. Murray R. (MRB)

50 AIA-39; DAM-11 Australian Aboriginal crania were collected by G.M. Black along the Murray River (Chowilla to Coobool) in New South Wales between 1929-1950. The exact dates of these specimens are not known.

22. New South Wales (NSW)

62 AMS-21; DAS-41 Australian Aboriginal crania from the coastal locations in New South Wales. The exact dates of these specimens are not known.

23. Queensland (QLD)

54 AMS-21; DAS-3; QMB-30

Australian Aboriginal crania from the southeastern and middle-eastern regions of Queensland. The exact dates of these specimens are not known.

24. Northern Territory (NT)

50 AIA-4; AMS-3; MMS-1; NMV-38; QMB-1; SAM-3

Australian Aboriginal crania from Port Darwin (39) and Arnhemland (36) in the Northern Territory, Australia. The exact dates of these specimens are not known.

25. Swanport, SA (SAS)

36 SAM-36 Australian Aboriginal crania representing the Tarildekald and Warki-Korowalde tribes in the lower Murray River basin. The specimens were collected by F. R. Zeitz in 1911 from an aboriginal cemetery located approximately 10 km southeast of the Murray Bridge in South Australia (Howells, 1973:21). The exact dates of these specimens are not known.

26. Western Australia (WA)

47 WAM-47 Australian Aboriginal crania from central (20), eastern (4), northern (14), and southern (9) regions of Western Australia. The exact dates of these specimens are not known.

27. Tasmania (TAS)

26 THM-22; CHA-1; SAM-2; NMV-1

The crania represent Tasmanian Aborigines. The exact dates of these specimens are not known.

Micronesia

28. Guam (GUA)

46 BPB-42; PAR -4 Pre-Spanish Chamorro crania associated with latte structures .collected in the 1920's by Hans Hornbostel along Tumon Beach, Tumon Bay, Guam. The majority of these specimens represent prehistoric (pre-1521) Chamorro.

189

Series Name (abbrevV

No. of Crania I

Location2

and Number of Crania

Remarks

Island Soulheast Asia •

29. Sumatra (SUM)

39 BER-1; BRE-1; DRE-5; LEP-4; PAR-3; ZUR-25

The specimens in Zurich are designated "Battak", specific locations within the island of Sumatra are not known. The exact dates of these specimens are not known.

30. Java (JAV)

50 BER-1; BLU-8; CHA-9; DRE-1; LEP-24; PAR-7

Crania were collected from several different localities in Java. The exact dates of these specimens are not known.

31. Borneo (BOR)

34 BER-2; BRE-2; DRE-6; FRE-4; LEP-8; PAR-12

A great many of the specimens are indicated as representing Dayak tribes, some have elaborate decorations. The exact dates of these specimens are not known.

32. Sulawesi (SLW)

41 BAS-7; BER-10; DRE-4; FRE-7; LEP-5; PAR-8

An exact location is known for many of these specimens. The exact dates of these specimens are not known.

33. Lesser Sunda Islands (LSN)

61 BAS-5; BER-15; BLU-2; CHA-1; DRE-24; LEP-1; PAR-6; ZUR-7

Crania from Bali (13), Flores (9), Sumba (1), Lomblem (2), Alor (2), Timor (11), Wetar (2), Leti (4), Barbar (1), Tanimbar (13), Kai (2) and Aru (1) Islands of the Lesser Sunda Islands. The exact dates of these specimens are not known.

34. Southern Moluccas Islands (SML)

65 FRE-48; DRE-17 Crania are from Seram (48) and Buru (17) Islands of the Southern Molucca Islands. The exact dates of these specimens are not known.

35. Sulu (SUL)

38 LEP-1: PAR -37 The specimens in Paris were collected by Montano-Rey circa 1900. The exact dates of these specimens are not known.

36. Philippines

I (PHL)

28 BER-9; DRE-19 Most specimens are from Luzon Island. The exact dates of these specimens are not known.

Mainland Southeast Asia I

37. Vietnam (VTN)

49 HCM-49 Near modern crania from Hanoi (Van Dien Cemetery) and Ho Chi Minh City.

38. Bachuc Village, (BAC)

51 BAC-51 Victims of the 1978 Khmer Rouge massacre in Bachuc Village in western Angiang Province, Vietnam.

39. Cambodia & Laos (CML)

40 PAR-40 A combined sample of crania from various locations in Cambodia and Laos collected between 1877 and 1920. The exact dates of these specimens are not known.

40. Thailand (THI)

50 SIR-50 Most of the specimens represent dissecting room cases from Bangkok.

41. Burma (BUR)

16 ZUR-16 The crania in Zurich are from a series (Cat. Nos. 93 -125) of skulls collected in Mandalay, Myanmar (Burma), described in a catalogue dated circa 1900. The exact dates of these specimens are not known.

190

Series Name (abbrev.)'

~astAsia

No. of Crania

Location2

and Number of Crania

•

Remarks

42. Kanto (KAN)

50 CHB-50 A dissecting room population of modern Japanese from the Kanto District of eastern Honshu. The majority of the individuals were born during the Meiji period (1868-1911) and died well before 1940.

43. Tohoku (TOH)

53 SEN-53 Dissecting room specimens of modern Japanese from the Tohoku District in northern Honshu Island.

44. Kyushu (KYU)

51 KYU-51 Modern Japanese which derive mostly from Fukuoka Prefecture in Kyushu Island. Other specimens are from Yamaguchi, Saga, Nagasaki and adjoining prefectures. I

45. Ainu (AIN)

1

50 SAP-18; TKM -5; TKO-27

Modern to near modern skeletons collected by Koganei in 1888-89 from abandoned Ainu cemeteries in HOkkaido (Koganei, 1893-1894).

46. Ryukyu Islands (RYU)

60 KYO-18; KAN-21; RYU-8; KYU-5; TKO-8

Eighteen near modern crania are from Tokunoshima Island of the Amami Islands located north of the Okinawa Group in the central Ryukyu Islands; twenty-one specimens are from two different locations on Kume Island, an island located west of Okinawa Island: Yattchi (17) and Hiyajo (4); twenty -one specimens are from five separate islands in the Sakishima Group of the southern Ryukyu Islands: Hateruma Island (2); Miyako (4); Iriomote Island (2); Ishigaki Island (1), and Yonaguni Island (12).

Chinal E. & N.E.Asia

47. Shanghai (SHA)

50 SHA-50 The specimens are mostly from post-Qing (pre-1911) cemeteries in Shanghai.

48. Nanjing (NAJ)

49 SHA-49 The series represents near modern crania exhumed from the modern city of Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, eastern China.

49.Chengdu (CHD)

53 SHA-1O; CHE-43 A majority of these specimens date to the Ch'en Dynasty (A.D. 1644-1911) and are from Chengdu, Sichuan Province in western China. Ten crania are from Leshan, Lizhong County, Sichuan Province.

50. Hong Kong (HK)

50 HKU-50 Specimens represent individuals who died in Hong Kong between 1978-1979.

51. Taiwan (TAl)

47 TPE-47 Modern Chinese living in Taiwan who trace their immediate origins to Fujian and Guangdong Provinces on the mainland of China.

52. Hainan Island (HAl)

47 TPE-47 Near modern Chinese whose ancestors began migrating from the Canton region of China to Hainan Island around 200 B.C. (Howells, 1989:108). This material was excavated by Takeo Kanaseki in Haikou City on Hainan Island.

53. Manchuria (MAN)

50 TKO-50 Many of the specimens are from northeastern China or the region formerly referred to as "Manchuria," which today includes Heilongjiang and ,Jilin Provinces and adjacent northern Korea. A great many of these specimens are identified as soldiers, or cavalrymen, who died in battle in the late 19th century A.D.

54. Korea (KOR)

32 KYO-7; SEN-3, TKM-2; TKO -20

Specific locations in Korea are known for most of these near modern specimens.

191

Series Name (abbrev.) I

No. of Crania

56. Atayal (ATY)

36

Location2

and Number of Crania

TPE-28; TKM-7; TKO-1

Remarks

The Atayal are the second largest surviving Aboriginal tribe in Taiwan. The specimens are Atayal slain in the Wushe incident in 1930. The specimens were collected by Takeo Kanaseki in 1932 (Howells, 1989:109).

1 The numbers assigned to each cranial series correspond to the numbers given in the map in Figure 1. Permission to examine the cranial series used in the present analysis has been previously acknowledged. My thanks to Rona Ikehara-Quebral for assistance in various stages of data analysis, and to Rhea Hood, Atsuko Dillon, and Karen Kadohiro for assistance with manuscript preparation. I am extremely grateful to Dr. Michele Toomay Douglas who gave helpful advice and comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Ms. Billie Ikeda is responsible for the figures. A version of this paper was presented at the International Seminar on Southeast Asia Paleoanthropology, held in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, July 23 - 29, 2007, organized by the late ProfessorTeuku Jacob of Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

2 AIM, Auckland Institute and Museum, Auckland, New Zealand; AlA, Australian Institute of Anatomy, Canberra, Australia; AMS, The Australian Museum, Sydney, Australia; AUK, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand; BAC, Bachuc Village, Angiang Province, Vietnam; BAS, Naturhistorisches Museum, Basel, SWitzerland; BER, Museum fOr Naturkunde, Berlin, Germany; BLU, Anatomisches Institut, Universitat G6ttingen, G6ttingen, Germany; BPB, B. P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, U.S.A.; BRE, Ober-see Museum, Bremen, Germany; CAN, Canterbury Museum, Christchurch, New Zealand; CHA, Anatomisches Institut der Chairte, Humboldt Universitat, Berlin, Germany; CHB, Chiba University School of Medicine, Chiba, Japan; CHE, Dept. of Anatomy, Chengdu College of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China; DAM, Dept. of Anatomy, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; DAS, Dept. of Anatomy, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; DLlN, Dept. of Anatomy, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand; DRE, Museum fUr V61kerkunde, Dresden, Germany; FRE, Institut fOr Humangenetik und Anthropologie, Universitat Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany; GOT, Institut fur Anthropologie, Universitat G6ttingen, G6ttingen, Germany; HCM, Faculty of Medicine, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; HON, Honokahua, Maui, Hawaii, U.S.A.; HKU, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; KAN, Kanegusuku Storage Room, Board of Education Cultural Division, Kanegusuku, Okinawa, Japan; KYO, Physical Anthropology Laboratory, Faculty of Science, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan; KYU, Dept. of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan; LEp, Anatomisches Institut, Karl Marx Universitat, LeipZig, Germany; MMS, Macleay Museum, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; NMV, National Museum of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; OTM, Otago Museum and Art Gallery, Otago, New Zealand; PAR, Musee de I'Homme, Paris, France; QMB, Queensland Museum, Brisbane, Australia; RYU, University of the Ryukyus, Naha, Okinawa Island, Japan; SAM, South Australian Museum, Adelaide, Australia; SAp, Dept. of Anatomy, Sapporo Medical College, Sapporo, Japan; SEN, Dept. of Anatomy, School of Medicine, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan; SHA, Institute of Anthropology, College of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, China; SIM, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A; SIR, Dept. of Anatomy, Siriraj Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand; THM, Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, Hobart, Australia;TKM, Medical Museum, University Museum, University ofTokyo, Tokyo, Japan; TKO, University Museum, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan; TPE, Academia Sinica, Nankang, Taipei, Taiwan; TUB, Institut fUr Anthropologie u. Humangenetik, Universitat Tlibingen, Tlibingen, Germany; WAM, Western Australian Museum, Perth, Australia; WEL, National Museum of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand; ZUR, Anthropologisches Institut, Universitat Zurich, ZOrich, Germany.

3 The 27 measurements used in the present study are described in Martin and Saller (1957), and Howells (1973): Maximum cranial breadth, M-8;Biorbital breadth, H-EKB; Minimum cranial breadth, M-14; Basion-nasion length, M­5;Nasion-alveolare height, M-48; Maximum cranial length, M-1 ;Basion-bregma height, M-17; Biauricular breadth, M-11b; Basion-prosthion length, M-48; Nasal height, H-NLH; Nasio-occipitallength, M-1d; Nasal breadth, M-54; Bijugal breadth, M-45(1); Bifrontal breadth, M-43; A1veolare breadth, M-61; Cheek height, H-WMH; Mastoid height, H-MDL; Nasion-bregma chord, M-29; Orbital height left, M-52; Bimaxillary breadth, M-46; Orbital breadth left, M­51a; Bistephanic breadth, H-STB; Maximum frontal breadth, M-10; Minimum frontal breadth, M-9; Bregma-lambda chord, M-30; Biasterionic breadth, M-12; Mastoid width, H-MDB; M = Martin and Saller (1957); H = Howells (1973).

192

·MTa"IawNa V 27

Figure 1. Map showing the approximate locations of the fifty-six male cranial series used in this analysis.

The inhabitants of the eastern Lesser Sunda (Nusa Tenggara) and Moluccas Islands to the west

of New Guinea show considerable variation. However, because of the limited number of specimens

available for this region, they have been combined with specimens from the string of islands extending

east of Java from Bali to Aru to represent a Lesser Sunda series. Similarly, crania from Buru and

Seram are combined to form the Southern Moluccas series used in the present study.

Cranial Measurements

Twenty-seven standard measurements (see note 3 in Table 1) of the cranial vault and face, the

largest number of measurements comparable to all the series, are used in the present study. The

methods used to record these cranial measurements primarily follow those of Martin and Saller

(1957) and Howells (1973).

Multivariate Statistical Procedures

Stepwise discriminant function analysis (Tatsuoka, 1971) and Mahalanobis' generalized distance

statistic (Mahalanobis, 1936), are applied to the cranial measurements. These methods and the

clustering algorithm used to construct the diagram of relationships (dendrograms) are explained in

Pietrusewsky (2000).

RESULTS

Stepwise Discriminant Function Analysis

A summary of the results of applying stepwise discriminant function to 27 cranial

measurements recorded in 56 male cranial series, using the computer program, BMDP-7M

193

(Dixon, 1992; Dixon and Brown, 1979), will be restricted to interpreting the plots of the group means on

the first few canonical variates which were generated using the SYGRAPH module of SYSTAT

(Wilkinson, 1992) and the results of the jackknifed classification. Because of space restrictions, tables

reporting the details of these results are not presented.

Jackknifed classification represents a common cross-validation procedure in multiple discriminant

analysis, where cases are classified without using misclassified individuals in computing the

classification function. The 'correct' and 'incorrect' classification results provide a general guide for

assessing the homogeneity or heterogeneity of the original series (Van Vark and Schaafsma,

1992:244-255)

The classification results serve to highlight those regions that exhibit some of the greatest

heterogeneity and possibly where contact with outsiders was the most intense or long-term. It is

significant that several of the ISEA series, e.g., Lesser Sunda Islands, Sulawesi, and the Southern

Moluccas, have some of the poorest classification results. Only six of the specimens originally

assigned to the Lesser Sunda Islands are reclassified to that group. Seven of the Lesser Sunda Island

specimens are reclassified to Borneo, four to New Zealand Maori, and three each to Atayal, Java,

Sulawesi, Philippines, and Cambodia-Laos. Six each of the Southern Moluccas specimens are

reassigned to two Polynesian series, Marquesas and New Zealand Maori, and five each are

reclassified as Sepik and New Ireland.

Five of the New Zealand Maori crania are reclassified as Southern Moluccas and three each are

reassigned to the Marquesas, Tuamotu, and Loyalty Island series. Two more each are reclassified as

Chatham Island, Solomon Is., and New Ireland. The Solomon Island and New Ireland

misclassifications are mainly to other cranial series from island Melanesia that neighbor the Solomon

Island chain and the Bismarck Archipelago.

Inspection of the plot of 56 group means for the first two canonical variates (Figure 2) indicates

three separate clusters. Cranial series from Australia, New Guinea, and geographical Melanesia form

a coherent group. The cranial series representing Polynesia and Guam form a second isolated

constellation. The remaining series, from Mainland SEA and ISEA and East Asia, form a relatively

dense third major grouping in the same diagram. The cranial series from the Southern Moluccas,

Admiralty Islands, and Lesser Sunda Islands are more peripheral members of this latter grouping,

occupying an intermediate position between the Polynesian and Australo-Melanesian assemblages.

194

2

4,---r--,--..,...----,-----r----r----,

3

-3 '--_l.-_'--_l.-_l.-_l.-_'-----l

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 Canonical Variate 1

Figure 2. Plot of 56 group means on the first two canonical variates using 27 cranial measurements. [See Table 1 for explanation of group abbreviations]

When group means are plotted on the first three canonical variates (Figure 3), the patterning seen

in the previous plot becomes even more obvious. The Australian and island Melanesian series hover

on one side of this diagram. The remaining series form a dense forest opposite these. Several of the

ISEA series, such as Borneo, Lesser Sunda Islands, Southern Moluccas, and the Admiralty Islands

are centrally placed; New Zealand Maori align with these. The majority of the Polynesian series are

dispersed mainly among cranial series from Mainland SEA and ISEA. The groups closest to New

Zealand Maori include Sumatra, Borneo, Lesser Sunda Islands, Southern Moluccas, Atayal, and

Admiralty Islands. The Chinese, Japanese and other northern Asian series tend to separate from the

remaining series. The cranial series from New Guinea and island Melanesia form a separate grouping

in this diagram.

"" 1 ",,,, Sui Adm '"Ql • ShI<ii . Bor Snll Nir

.~ l'"

:> 0 <ii

c.>'c o

U

c'" .1

p,,, s"

Sol

loY.. V'"

w.

N

..,... TA

s.. j

Figure 3. Plot of 56 group means on the first three canonical variates using 27 cranial measurements. [See Table 1 for explanation of group abbreviations]

195

Mahalanobis' Generalized Distance

The dendrogram that results from applying the UPGMA clustering algorithm (Sneath and Sokal,

1973) to the distances for 56 groups is shown in Figure 4. Two major branches are evident in this

diagram one that includes all the Australian and Melanesian series and a second which, with the

exception of New Zealand and the Southern Moluccas, includes all the Polynesian, Southeast Asian

and East Asian series. The cranial series representing Australia and Tasmania are further differentiated

from cranial series representing New Guinea and island Melanesia. Likewise, subgroupings of

Polynesian (and Guam), Southeast Asian, and East Asian series are evident in the second major

division. Significantly, New Zealand Maori, Southern Moluccas, and the Admiralty Islands series form a

cluster that ultimately links with the Australian-Melanesian branch of this diagram.

Hawai; GuamTonga-Samoa~~~~~~~~~==:::::;-l

Easter Is.

Tuamolu Chalham Is. ~~~~~~~======~-~Sumatra

Borneo lesser Sundas

Jav. Sulawesi

Sulu earrbodia-laoo

Phi~r::= -,__---, ~~ ===:1------'Burmo-----------'

KanIa Toholw

~=~--..., ~r: ==}----'

~~========::::..J5=Chengdu

Hong KongAn. NewMz':t"~Manchuna~~~~~~~§~~~=:L -J

Southern Moluccas

Adm~~

Newea~ ====1-------'N~Bn,:t~ }-------, SanlaCruz-------'

N~==::J----,

:===~=~ J Ml6"'1'

-~=r---'l-------, Nor1hern Terrilory

Swarpor1.Wt!!6IerflAustralia======~==~=::J- __--.JTasmania

Figure 4. Diagram of relationship (dendrogram) based on a cluster analysis (UPGMA) of Mahalanobis' generalized distances using 27 cranial measurements recorded in 56 male groups.

Inspection of the ten smallest distances for each of the fifty-six groups (this table is not shown)

gives additional information on biological relatedness that is not readily apparent in the diagrams that

result from clustering algorithms. Using distance size as a measure of closeness, the groups closest

to the Southeast Asian series include other Southeast Asian series, most exclusively so. One major

exception, however, is the Southern Moluccas series. Based on distance size, the groups closest to

the Southern Moluccas include New Zealand (Maori), Biak Is., New Ireland, Solomon Islands,

Admiralty, and the Sepik series.

Examining the Polynesian series, eight of the ten closest distances to Tonga-Samoa series in

western Polynesia are from island and Mainland SEA. The Southern Moluccas and Lesser Sunda

Islands are found among the smallest distance for several of the Polynesian series. The

196

groups closest to New Zealand and Chatham Islands, are Southern Moluccas and Lesser Sunda

Islands and, for New Zealand, series that occupy the region extending from the Admiralty Islands and

Bismarck Archipelago through to the Solomon Islands chain.

For the cranial series located within geographical Melanesia, the Southern Moluccas and the Lesser

Sunda Islands series appear among the smallest distances in more than half of these series. The smallest

distances for the Australian and Tasmanian series are invariably Australian and Melanesian series.

DISCUSSION

Australia/Melanesia versus Southeast/East Asia and Remote Oceania As shown in previous craniometric analyses (e.g., Hanihara, 1993; Howells, 1973, 1989;

Pietrusewsky, 1990a, 1994, 2000, 2006a,b) the results of this new multivariate analysis of craniometric

data demonstrate the presence of two major divisions of modern and near modern humans inhabiting

the wider Asian-Pacific region. All cranial series from Australia, Tasmania, New Guinea, and

geographical island Melanesia, represent one of these divisions. The second major division is

represented by all the cranial series from East/North Asia, Mainland SEA and ISEA, and Remote

Oceania. The striking difference between these two divisions argues for separate origins for the

indigenous inhabitants of these two regions.

The indigenous inhabitants of Australia, Tasmania, and geographical Melanesia share a common

origin, one that is unrelated to the ultimate origin of the modern inhabitants of Southeast Asia and East

Asia. The sharp contrast between Polynesian and Australian-Melanesians series further lends support

for archaeological and linguistic models that hypothesize an earlier colonization of Australia, New

Guinea, and neighboring regions of Near Oceania and a much later colonization that led to the

peopling of previously uninhabited Remote Oceania.

Southeast Asia and North/East Asia The results of the present analysis of cranial measurements also allow an examination of some of

the current archaeological models that have been advanced to explain the population history of

Southeast Asia and East Asia. For example, Bellwood (1997, 2005) has recently argued for a population

displacement to account for the people who now inhabit the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago. Specifically,

these models maintain that the indigenous inhabitants of Southeast Asia were replaced by an immigrant group of people of a more northern origin, or, to use Bellwood's terminology, "Australoids" were

displaced by "Mongoloids". Such a scenario should, at least in theory, result in the presence of a

somewhat hybridized population living in this region. The work of Matsumura (1995, 2006) and

Matsumura and Hudson (2005) using dental and cranial traits favors a similar interpretation of

population history.

Alternative models that stress population continuity beginning in the late Pleistocene to account for

the present day inhabitants of Southeast Asia, have also been advanced. Important among these is the

work ofTurner (1990, 1992), focusing on dental non-metric traits, and the recognition of two polar dental

complexes, Sundadonty for Southeast Asia and Polynesia, and Sinodonty for the inhabitants of East

Asia. Others whose work supports continuity in the region include Bulbeck (1982), Hanihara (1993), and

Pietrusewsky (1994, 2006a).

The diagram of relationship based on Mahalanobis distances (Figure 4) shows a clear separation

between East/North Asian and Southeast Asian cranial series. Likewise, these results show a clear

connection between Mainland SEA and ISEA series.

197

Generally, the distances closest to modern (non-Ainu) Japanese series are other Japanese series

and those from Korea and Manchuria in northeast Asia. Similarly, the groups closest to modern

Chinese are other modern Chinese series and those from northeast Asia. One Southeast Asian series,

Vietnam, is relatively close to several of the modern Chinese series but there is otherwise little

evidence for a connection between North/East Asia and Southeast Asia. Matsumura's (2006) study of

earlier and later humans finds additional evidence for admixture between Northeast Asians and

Southeast Asians.

With the exception of Cambodia-Laos and the Philippines, island and a Mainland SEA series fall

into their respective branches in the dendrogram seen in Figure 4. Inspection of the smallest distances

confirms that the groups closest to the Southeast Asian series are other Southeast Asian series and

not the East Asian series. An exception is the Southern Moluccas series, which has as its closest

group, New Zealand Polynesian Maori, followed by three cranial series from Melanesia: Biak, New

Ireland, and Solomon Islands.

Inspection of the jackknifed classification results further reveals that only a few of the East and

Northeast Asian specimens reclassify as Southeast Asians. The classifications for Hainan Island are

an exception with ten of the misclassified Hainan Island crania being assigned to a Southeast Asian

series in this table.

In summary, the present craniometric results indicate a clear distinction between the inhabitants of

East/North Asia and Southeast Asia (mainland and insular), a distinction that implies long term in-situ

development within each of these regions and argues against displacement to account for the present

day inhabitants of Southeast Asia. Similar conclusions have been reached by Turner (1990, 1992)

using dental morphology and Hanihara (1993) using craniometric data.

Island Southeast Asia/Polynesian Homeland?

The results of this craniometric analysis also support an ancestral Polynesian homeland in

East/Southeast Asia and not one within geographically-adjacent Melanesia. The groups closest

(i.e. have the smallest distances) to Polynesian series include several ISEA series (e.g., Lesser

Sunda Islands, Sulawesi, and Southern Moluccas).

While the Polynesian series form a discrete and isolated cluster in the present study, one

unexpected association found is the connection between New Zealand Maori (a Polynesian series)

and the Southern Moluccas cranial series from eastern Indonesia, seen in the dendrogram of

Mahalanobis distances in Figure 4. These two groups connect with the Admiralty Islands forming an

isolated branch peripheral to a larger grouping that includes all of the remaining series from island

Melanesia and New Guinea. These affinities are confirmed by the distance and classification results.

Inspection of the smallest distances indicates that New Zealand is the group closest to Southern

Moluccas. Likewise the Southern Moluccas is the group closest to New Zealand in this table. The

classification results included reassignment of several Southern Moluccas crania to New Zealand,

Marquesas, and Hawaii, all series from Polynesia.

Recent studies that use molecular genetic data (e.g., Kayser et aI., 2000; Hill et aI., 2007; Lum and

Cann, 2000; Melton et aI., 1995; Merriwether et aI., 1999; Oppenheimer and Richards 2001; Richards

et aI., 1998; Su et aI., 2000) generally support an East Asian or Southeast Asian origin of the

Polynesians. More specifically, Oppenheimer and Richards (2001) point to a Polynesian homeland

somewhere in eastern ISEA, a view which is consistent with the results presented in this paper.

198

These results also demonstrate connections between the Southern Moluccas and coastal New

Guinea (e.g., Biak Is., Sepik, and Admiralty Is.) and cranial series from New Ireland through the

Solomon Island chain. These biological relationships suggest a shared ancestry as well as possible

admixture between eastern Indonesia and groups further to the east in New Guinea and Melanesia.

This connection lends support to archeological models that favor intrusion of new people and ideas

along with interaction between the earliest Austronesian-speakers and the indigenous peoples in a

"voyaging corridor" that stretches from eastern Indonesia to the Bismarck and Solomon Islands (Irwin,

1992). The results of the present craniometric analysis also demonstrate that the patterning within the

islands of Indonesia is c1inal in nature running west to east along this island chain.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this new multivariate analysis of craniometric data help explicate the biological

relationships of the modern and near modern inhabitants of ISEA and surrounding regions. The main

points of this new craniometric analysis are presented here:

Inhabitants of Australia, Tasmania, and Melanesia sharply contrast with the peoples of East Asia,

Southeast Asia and Remote Oceania, a division that implies separate origins for the indigenous

inhabitants of these two regions.

The marked separation of EasUNorth Asian and Southeast Asian cranial series supports models

that posit long term continuity rather than population intrusion and/or replacement.

Biological connections between ISEA and Mainland SEA cranial series are clearly evident in these

results.

The inhabitants of Remote Oceania, while part of the greater Asian division show connections with

severallSEA series supporting archaeological, linguistic, and genetic models for the peopling of

Remote Oceania.

Within ISEA, including modern-day Indonesia, geography is a good predictor of biological

relationship. The cranial series in the eastern region of ISEA, such as the Southern Moluccas,

reveal biological affinities with adjacent Melanesian as well as Polynesian series.

Finally, understanding the craniometric variability of the modern humans of the region will provide

important context for evaluating the hotly debated LB1 hominin from Liang Bua Cave on Flores

Island, Indonesia.

REFERENCES

Bellwood P. 1997. Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago. Revised edition. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Bellwood P. 2005. First farmers: the origins ofagricultural societies. Oxford/Malden (MA): Blackwell. Bellwood P and Glover I. 2004 Southeast Asia. Foundations for an archaeological history. In: Glover I,

Bellwood P, editors. Southeast Asia: From prehistory to history. London: RoutledgeCurzon. p 4-20. Bowles GT. 1977.The People ofAsia. NewYork: Charles Scribner's Sons. Buikstra JE, Frankenberg SR, and Konigsberg LW. 1990. Skeletal biological distance studies in American

physical anthropology: recent trends. Am J Phys Anthropol82: 1-7. Bulbeck D. 1982. A re-evaluation of possible evolutionary processes in Southeast Asia since the late

Pleistocene. Bulletin ofthe Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 3:1-21. Dixon WJ, editor. 1992. BMDP. Statistical software manual, vol. 1. Berkeley: University of California Press.

199

Dixon WJ, and Brown MB, editors. 1979. BMDP-79. Biomedical computer programs p-series. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Green RC. 1991. Near and Remote Oceania -disestablishing "Melanesia" in culture history. In: Pawley A, editor. Man and a half. Essays in Pacific anthropology and ethnobiology in honour of Ralph Bulmer. Auckland: The Polynesian Society. p 491-502.

Hanihara T. 1993. Population prehistory of East Asia and the Pacific as viewed from craniofacial morphology: the basic populations in East Asia, VII. Am J Phys Anthropol91: 173-187.

Hill C, Soares P, Mormina M, Macaulay V, Clarke D, Blumbach PB, Vizuete-Forster M, Forster P, Bulbecl< D, Oppenheimer S, and Richards M. 2007. A mitochondrial stratigraphy for Island Southeast Asia. Am J Hum Genet 80:29-43.

Howells WW. 1973. Cranial variation in man. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, volume 67. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University.

Howells WW. 1989. Skull shapes and the map: craniometric analyses in the dispersion of modern Homo. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, volume 79. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University.

Irwin G. 1992.The prehistoric exploration and colonisation of the Pacific. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kayser MS, Brauer S,Weiss G, Underhill PA, Roewer L, Schiefenhovel W, and Stoneking M. 2000. Melanesian origin of PolynesianY chromosomes. Curr Bioi 10: 1237-1246.

Koganei y. (1893-94) Beitrage zur physischen Anthropologie der Aino. Mittheilungen aus der Medicinischen Facultat der Kaiserlich-Japanischen Universital zu Tokyo 2:1-249, 251-404.

Kohn LA. 1991.The role ofgenetics in craniofacial morphology and growth.Annu Rev AnthropoI20:261-278. Konigsberg LW, and Ousley SD. 1995. Multivariate quantitative genetics of anthropometric traits from the

Boas data. Hum Bioi 67:481-498. Lum JK, and Cann Rl. 2000. mtDNA lineage analyses: origins and migrations of Micronesians and

Polynesians. Am ~I PhysAnthropoI113:151-168. Mahalanobis PC. 1936. On the generalized distance in statistics. Proc Natllnst Sci, Calcutta 2:49-55. Martin R, and Saller K. 1957. Lehrbuch der anthropologie. Stuttgart: Gustav FischerVerlag. Matsumura H. 1995. Dental characteristics affinities of the prehistoric to modern Japanese with the East

Asians, American natives and Australo-Melanesians. Anthropol Sci 103:235-261. Matsumura H. 2006. The population history of Southeast Asia viewed from morphometric analyses of

human skeletal and dental remains. In: Oxenham MR, Tayles N, editors. Bioarchaeology of Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p 33-58.

Matsumura H, and Hudson M. 2005. Dental perspectives on population history of Southeast Asia. Am J Phys Anthropol127: 182-209.

Melton T, Peterson R, Redd AJ, Saha N, Sofro ASM, Martinson J, and Stoneking M. 1995. Polynesian genetic affinities with Southeast Asian populations as identified by mtDNA analysis. Am J Hum Genet 57:403-414.

Merriwether DA, Friedlaender JS, Mediavilla J, Mgone C, Gentz F, and Ferrell RE. 1999. 'Mitochondrial DNA variation is an indicator of Austronesian influence in Island Melanesia'. Am J Phys Anthropol 110(3):243-270.

Oppenheimer SJ, and Richards M. 2001. Polynesian origins: slow boat to Melanesia? Nature 41 0: 166-167. Pietrusewsky M. 1990a. Craniofacial variation in Australasian and Pacific populations. Am J Phys Anthropol

82:319-340. Pietrusewsky M. 1990b. Cranial variation in New Guinea and neighboring populations of the Pacific: a

multivariate study of specimens in the Museum fUrVolkerkunde Dresden and the German Democratic Republic. Abhandlungen und Berichte des Staatlichen Museums rurVolkerkunde 45:233-257

Pietrusewsky M. 1994. Pacific-Asian relationships: a physical anthropological perspective. Oceanic Linguistics 33:407-430.

200

Pietrusewsky M. 2000. Metric analysis of skeletal remains: methods and applications. In: Katzenberg MA, Saunders SR, editors. Biological anthropology of the human skeleton. New York: Wiley-Liss. p 375­415.

Pietrusewsky M. 2006a. Chapter 3. A multivariate craniometric study of the prehistoric and modern inhabitants of Southeast Asia, East Asia, and surrounding regions: a human kaleidoscope? In: Oxenham MR, Tayles N, editors. Bioarchaeology of Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p 59-90.

Pietrusewsky M. 2006b. The initial settlement of Remote Oceania: The evidence from physical anthropology. In: Simanjuntak T, Pojoh IHE, Hisyam M, editors. Austronesian diaspora and the ethnogenesis of people in Indonesian Archipelago. Proceedings of the International Symposium. p 320-347.

Richards M, Oppenheimer S, and Sykes B. 1998. mtDNA suggests Polynesian origins in eastern Indonesia. Am J Hum Genet 63:1234-1236.

Sj0VoJd T. 1984. A report on the heritability of some cranial measurements and non-metric traits. In: Van Vark GN, Howells WW, editors. Multivariate statistics in physical anthropology. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. p 223-246.

Sneath PHA, and Sokal RR. 1973. Numerical taxonomy. San Francisco: Freeman. Speiser F. 1928. Anthropologische messungen aus dem St. Cruz-Inseln. Archiv fUr Anthropologie 19:89­

146. Su B, Jin L, Underhill P, Marthinson J, Saha N, McGarvey ST, Shriver MD, Chui J, Oefner P, Chakraborty R,

and Deka R. 2000. 'Polynesian origins: insights from the Y chromosome'. Proc Nat/ Acad Sci USA 96(15):8225-8228.

Tatsuoka MM. 1971. Multivariate analysis: techniques for educational and psychological research. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Turner CG II. 1990. Major features of sundadonty and sinodonty including suggestions about East Asian microevolution, population history, and late Pleistocene relationships with Australian Aborigines. Am J Phys Anthropol 82:295-317.

Turner CG II. 1992. Sundadonty and sinodonty in Japan: the dental basis for a dual origin hypothesis for the peopling of the Japanese Islands. In: Hanihara K, editor. Japanese as a member of the Asian and Pacific populations. Kyoto: International Research Center for Japanese Studies. p 96-112.

Van Vark GN, and Schaafsma W. 1992. Advances in the quantitative analysis of skeletal morphology. In: Katzenberg MA, Saunders SR, editors. Skeletal biology of past peoples: research methods. NewYork: Wiley-Liss.

Wilkinson L. 1992. Systat for windows, version 5. Evanston: Systat, Inc.

201