Anthropol. Sci. 103(4), 385-401, 1995

Nonmetric Cranial Variation of Northeast Asians and

Their Population Affinities

HAJIME ISHIDA Department of Anatomy, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine, S-1, W-17, Chuo-ku, Sapporo 060, Japan

Received May 1, 1995

•ôGH•ô Abstract•ôGS•ô A comparative study of nonmetric cranial variation revealed popula tionaffinities between the Northeast and East Asians. The recent eastern Siberian

populations were basically divided into the three groups defined by Debets (1951), though the Baikal group peoples, consisting of the Amur, Evenki and Yukagir, do not cluster together. The Yukagir remain intermediate between the Baikal and Central Asian groups, while the Evenki are isolated from other Siberians, probably because of their small sample size. The Neolithic Baikalian are close to the Amur

peoples, while the Troitskoe of the Mo-ho culture from the Amur basin show some close affinities with the Central Asian group. Because the Central Asian group

peoples are more similar to the Northern Chinese than to the Neolithic Baikalian, the former two seem likely to have interacted with each other since the Neolithic age. The Hokkaido Ainu show no close affinity with the Neolithic or the later Siberian Mongoloids, nor with the Europeans.

•ôGH•ô Key Words•ôGS•ô: cranium, nonmetric cranial variation, Siberians, Ainu

INTRODUCTION

Russian anthropologists have written the most significant of the studies on the

prehistoric and historic Siberian populations. Many craniological and somatological data have been published in the Russian journals to shed light on their origins,

differentiations and migrations (e.g., Debets, 1951). American physical anthropolo

gists,especially since Ales Hrdlicka, have also been interested in the human skeletal remains from Siberia, as those would be key evidence of Asian-American connec

tions(Hrdlicka, 1942). Laughlin, Turner, Ossenberg and Haeussler investigated

cranial and dental traits of the Siberian populations, resulting in various hypotheses

on prehistoric dispersal of the Northern Mongoloids (Laughlin et al., 1976; Ossenberg,

1986; Turner, 1987; Haeussler and Turner, 1992).

The Ainu have lived in Hokkaido, one of the Japan Islands, in Sakhalin and in

the Kurile Islands, situated off the east coast of the Asian continent. The origins

and affiliation of the Ainu have long evoked interest for physical anthropologists

in Japan, Russia and other countries, due to their physical peculiarity (Koganei,

1893; Trofimova, 1932; Kiyono, 1949). It is generally agreed that the Ainu are

different in morphology from the Neolithic and later Siberian or East Asian 386 H. ISHIDA populations (Turner, 1987; Yamaguchi, 1982). The people of the prehistoric Okhotsk culture appeared in the Sakhalin, northern Hokkaido and the Kurile Islands during the 5th to 12th century A.D.(Kikuchi, 1978). They show many characteristics in common not with the Ainu, but with the Northern Mongoloids (Yamaguchi, 1974; Ishida, 1988; Kozintsev, 1992). That stirred interest in the physical anthropology of the Siberian populations. We have investigated the cranial traits of the Siberian and other popu lations(Ishida, 1990, 1993; Ishida and Kida, 1991; Ishida and Dodo, 1992, 1995). The nonmetric cranial variations of the Siberian populations were examined by Rychikov and Movsesyan (1972) and Kozintsev (1980). However, Kozintsev had doubts about the efficacy of classification by the nonmetric cranial variations used. He subsequently developed his own cranioscopic traits to investigate affinities between the Siberian and neighbor populations (Kozintsev, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1993). In Japan, Yamaguchi (1967) and Dodo (1974, 1986) have studied the nonmetric cranial variations of the circum-Pacific populations. We have reported the differentiations and affiliations of the Siberian populations using nonmetric cranial variations (Ishida and Dodo, 1992, 1995; Ishida and Kojima, n.d.). In this study, I have attempted to infer the populational affinities between the Northeast Asians, including the Siberians, through analysis of the nonmetric cranial trait data, which I have collected in many institutions up to the present.

MATERIALS AND METHODS The cranial samples collected in the former Soviet Union and the USA were the Aleut, Asian Eskimo, Chukchi, Ekven (the Iron Age), Buryat, Evenki, Yakut, Yukagir, Neolithic Baikalian, Mongolian, Tagar (the Iron age), Kazakh, Amur, Troitskoe (Mo-ho culture), Russian, and Sakhalin Ainu (Fig. 1). Those cranial collections are housed in the Institute of Ethnography-St. Petersburg Branch; the Museum of Anthropology of Moscow State University; the Institute of Ethnography and Archaeology, Novosibirsk; Irkutsk State University, Irkutsk; and the National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. The Amur sample consisted of the Ulch, Nanay, Negidal and Oroch. The cranial materials of the Hokkaido Ainu, Sakhalin Ainu and Northern Chinese (Han) are stored in the University of Tokyo, and Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan. The crania of the Hokkaido and Sakhalin Ainu were mainly collected by Koganei (1893) and Kiyono (1949), respectively. To summarize the locations of origin of the samples: The Neolithic Baikalians were excavated on both the east and west coasts of Lake Baikal. The Troitskoe site was in the Amur basin (Alekseev, 1980). The Ekven skeletal materials are from an ancient Eskimo cemetery (Debets, 1975). The Tagar culture thrived from the 7th to the 3rd century B.C. in southern Siberia and their crania show many Caucasian characteristics (Kozintsev, 1977). The cranial materials of the recent times from Nonmetric Cranial Variation of Northeast Asians 387

Fig. 1. Location of 15 Northeast Asian and other Eurasian populations.

Siberia have been reported by the Russian researchers (Debets, 1951; Alekseev, 1964a, b; Tomtosova, 1974). The cranial materials of the Northern Chinese (Han) are derived from Liaoning Province, China. The crania of the Hokkaido Ainu are from various sites in Hokkaido (Koganei, 1893; Yamaguchi, 1973). In order to eliminate interobserver error, the author alone scored all the 22 nonmetric cranial traits used in this study as present or absent for all the series consisting of 1,835 crania, following the criteria of Dodo (1974, 1986). The 22 nonmetric cranial traits are metopism, supraorbital nerve groove, supraorbital foramen, ossicle at the lambda, biasterionic suture, asterionic bone, occipito-mastoid wormians, parietal notch bone, condylar canal patent, precondylar tubercle, paracondylar process, hypoglossal canal bridging, tympanic dehiscence, ovale -spinosum confluence, foramen of Vesalius, pterygo-spinous foramen, medial palatine canal, transverse zygomatic-suture vestige, clinoid bridging, mylohyoid bridging, jugular foramen bridging and sagittal sinus groove flexes left. Our researches on Japanese and Siberian peoples have shown that this battery of nonmetric cranial traits is fairly resistant to environmental stresses (Dodo and Ishida, 1990, 1992; Ishida, 1990). 388 H. ISHIDA

In those studies we estimated the biological distances using nonmetric traits by C.A.B. Smith's mean measure of divergence (Sjovold, 1973); however, that criterion did not remove distortion by the intertrait correlations. Recently, Konigsberg (1990) invented another biological distance which extends the method of Mahalanobis' distances to cover nonmetric traits using the tetrachoric correlation matrix. The biological distances between the 22 Siberian and East Asian populations were estimated by Konigsberg's method, based on 22 nonmetric cranial traits. The computer program which was provided by Konigsberg was extended for use on a Unix operating system. Principal coodinate analysis was applied to the distance matrix to represent two - dimensional relationships between the samples (Sneath and Sokal, 1973). The neighbor-joining method (Saitou and Nei, 1987) was also carried out on the basis of the distance matrix.

RESULTS Table 1 shows the incidences of the 22 nonmetric cranial traits per capita in the 18 populations from the Siberian and East Asian regions.

Table 1. Incidencesper capita of 22 nonmetriccranial traits in the Siberianand East Asian series Nonmetric Cranial Variation of Northeast Asians 389

Table 1. (cont'd) Incidences per capita of 22 nonmetric cranial traits in the Siberian and East Asian series

Dodo and Ishida (1990) selected the following five nonmetric traits as the most efficacious for distinguishing between the Jomon-Ainu and other Japanese populations in question: the supraorbital foramen, hypoglossal canal bridging, medial palatine canal, transverse zygomatic-suture vestige and mylohyoid bridging. These are graphically compared between the six samples (Fig. 2). The frequency of the supraorbital foramen in the Hokkaido Ainu (0.283) is considerably lower than in the other four Asian samples and is comparable to that in the Russian; conversely, the frequencies of transverse zygomatic-suture vestige and medial palatine canal are higher than in the Russian and four Asians. As for hypoglossal canal bridging and mylohyoid bridging, the Amur, Mongolian and Northern Chinese have lower incidences than the Hokkaido Ainu and the Eskimo samples. The frequency of the hypoglossal canal bridging in the Russian is high as in the Ainu an Eskimo, though the frequency of the mylohyoid bridging is lower. The frequency patterns of the five traits suggest that the six ethnic samples are divided into the following four groups: the Hokkaido Ainu; the Asian Eskimo; the Amur, Mongolian and Northern Chinese; and the Russian. 390 H. ISHIDA

Table 1. (cont'd) Incidences per capita of 22 nonmetric cranial traits in the Siberian and East Asian series

The biological distances were calculated based on the 22 nonmetric cranial traits and the distance matrix is given in Table 2. The Hokkaido Ainu are most similar to the Sakhalin Ainu, whereas the other populations are fairly far from the Hokkaido Ainu. The Russian are closest to the Kazakh and Tagar, while the Siberian Mongoloids and Ainu show little affinities to the Russian. Among the Siberian peoples, the Buryat, Mongolian and Yakut, and the Amur and Neolithic Baikalian are very near each other. The Troitskoe of the Mo-ho culture are closer to the Yakut and Buryat than to the Amur. Principal coordinate analysis was applied to the distance matrix to establish two dimensional relationships, as drawn in Fig. 3. The three coordinate axes expressed 62.5 percent of the total variances. The Arctic peoples including the prehistoric Ekven are loosely lumped together to make a cluster in the second axis. The other Siberian Mongoloids and Northern Chinese tend to mass around the center, except for the relatively isolated Evenki. Among them, the Buryat, Mongolian and Northern Chinese, and the Amur and Neolithic Baikalian are lumped together to make respective clusters. The Hokkaido Ainu are isolated from others in the first and third Nonmetric Cranial Variation of Northeast Asians 391

Table 1. (cont'd) Incidences per capita of 22 nonmetric cranial traits in the Siberian and East Asian series

axes while the Sakhalin Ainu are situated intermediately between the Hokkaido Ainu and the Siberian clusters. The Russian and Tagar, while not very near each other, are also far from the Siberian Mongoloids in the first axis, and the Kazakh are located between the two European and Siberian Mongoloid populations. The neighbor-joining method was also applied to the matrix to present an unrooted tree, as drawn in Fig. 4. The result is more definitive. The Siberian Mongoloid populations are basically divided into three clusters. The first is a cluster of the Arctic people, containing the Aleut, Asian Eskimo, Chukchi and Ekven. The Amur, classified into the Baikal group by Debets (1951), and the Neolithic Baikalian are in the second cluster. The third group consists of the Buryat, Mongolian and Yakut, called the central Asian group peoples (Debets, 1951), and the Troitskoe and Evenki. The Yukagir are in the isolated position. The Northern Chinese are close to the third group, especially to the Mongolian. The Russian and Tagar are loosely lumped to make an isolated cluster. The Kazakh are located in a intermediate position between that cluster and the Northern Chinese and Central Asian group. The Hokkaido Ainu are distant from the Siberian Mongoloid branches while the Sakhalin 392 H. ISHIDA

Table 1. (cont'd) Incidences per capita of 22 nonmetric cranial traits in the Siberian and East Asian series

Ainu stand somewhat near to the cluster of the Amur and Neolithic Baikalian.

DISCUSSION Debets (1951) divided the recent Siberians into four major groups: the Arctic group (Asian Eskimo, Chukchi, Aleut), Baikal group (Ulch, Nanay, Negidal, Orok, Evenki and Yukagir, Central Asian group (Mongolian, Buryat, Yakut and south Siberian peoples) and Uralic group. Almost all of his classification is supported by other Russian researchers (Alekseev, 1979; Kozintsev, 1988) and by this nonmetric study, though the Uralic group peoples are not included here. The Baikal group peoples of the Amur, Evenki and Yukagir are not grouped in this study. The Evenki are isolated from other Siberians. Few conclusions can be reached about the Evenki, probably because of their small sample size (Ishida and Dodo, 1995). The anthropological position of the Yukagir is problematic in many studies, and their sample size is also quite small at the present time. Alekseev (1979) believed that the crania of the Yukagir measured by Debets were from an unreliable source. Nonmetric Cranial Variation of Northeast Asians 393

Table 1. (cont'd) Incidences per capita of 22 nonmetric cranial traits in the Siberian and East Asian seriesVlll

Ossenberg (1986) and Kozintsev (1992) pointed out the separation of the Yukagir from the other Baikal group based on their nonmetric cranial analyses. A separation has also been noticed in linguistics (Black, 1972). Although our cranio - metric studies have not suggested the peculiarity of the Yukagir (Ishida and Dodo, 1995), they are intermediate between the Baikal group and Central Asian group peoples in this nonmetric study. Because Kozintsev (1992) indicated that the Yukagir show an affinity with the Uralic group, it is necessary to add the Uralic group peoples into the materials of our nonmetric study in order to ascertain that affinity. Other Baikal group peoples, Amur, are joined to the Neolithic Baikalian. This grouping has been mentioned in craniological analyses both by the Russians (Alekseev, 1979; Alekseev and Gokhman, 1983) and the author (Ishida and Dodo, 1992). On the other hand, Rychikov and Movsesyan (1972) reported that the Neolithic Baikalian were affiliated with the Central Asian group peoples based on their nonmetric cranial traits. However, the traits they used considerably differ from those of our study; they extended their criteria to pathological findings, including cribra orbitalia. Turner's (1987) "Lake Baikal" population showed more affinities 394 H. ISHIDA

Fig. 2. Frequencies of the five nonmetric cranial traits, which are the most efficacious for distinguish ingbetween the Jomon-Ainu and other Japanese populations (Dodo and Ishida, 1990), in the six population samples. SOF, supraorbital foramen; HGCB, hypoglossal canal bridging; MPC, medial palatine canal; TZSV, transverse zygomatic-suture vestige; MHB, mylohyoid bridging. with the Northern Chinese and Mongolian than with the Baikal group peoples based on his dental traits. This consisted of "Lake Baikal West" and Neolithic Baikal; the Lake Baikal West contained Central Asian group peoples such as the Tuvinch in south Siberia. Therefore, the results of the Russians and ourselves that the Neolithic Baikalian continued to the Baikal group peoples is not contrary to Turner's conclusion. The Neolithic Baikalian used do not tend to be close to the Europeans in this nonmetric cranial study, though they were suggested to have a slight European admixture through the analyses of their facial skeletons and cranioscopic traits (Alekseev, 1979; Kozintsev, 1992; Ishida and Dodo, 1995). That difference is probably due to my sampling, which included materials collected from both the east and west coasts of Lake Baikal. The Mongolian, Buryat and Yakut mass together to make a Central Asian group, with whom the Troitskoe of the Mo-ho culture from the Amur River basin have affinities. In the first report by Alekseev (1980), the Troitskoe, comparing only with the peoples in the Amur region, were once thought to be among the ancestors of the recent Amur peoples. However, subsequent craniometric researches with wider comparisons have revealed that the Troitskoe are rather closer to the Bronze age crania from the Zabaikal (Alekseev and Trubnikova, 1984), to the Mongolian (Ishida, 1988) and to the Northern Chinese (Ishida and Dodo, 1995). Because the affiliation of the Troitskoe with the Central Asian peoples was found by this Nonmetric Cranial Variation of Northeast Asians 395 396 H. ISHIDA Nonmetric Cranial Variation of Northeast Asians 397 398 H. ISHIDA nonmetric study as well as by cultural matters (Derevyanko, 1978), the Troitskoe seem likely to be direct ancestors of inland populations rather than of the Amur peoples. The Central Asian group peoples have close affinities not with the Neolithic Baikalian but with the Northern Chinese, though the former two populations together inhabited almost the same area. The present evidence seems to indicate that the Chinese people have interacted with the Central Asian group peoples and have genetically influenced them since the Neolithic age (Ishida and Dodo, 1992). The recent Arctic populations used were the Aleut, Asian Eskimo and Chukchi, who show affinities not only with one another but also with the Ekven from an ancient Eskimo cemetery (Debets, 1975). The craniometry showed that the Ekven were isolated from the recent Arctic peoples or from other Siberian populations due to their hyperdolichocrany (Alekseev and Trubnikova, 1984; Ishida and Dodo, 1995). However, strong affinities between the ancient and recent Arctic peoples have been shown by nonmetric cranial analyses (Ossenberg, 1986; Ishida and Dodo, 1992; Ishida, 1993; Kozintsev, 1992). The Hokkaido Ainu are isolated from not only the Neolithic or the later Siberian Mongoloids but also the Europeans. That is concordant with the previous studies in terms of cranial and dental morphology (Yamaguchi, 1982; Ossenberg, 1986; Turner, 1987; Ishida, 1993). Although the suggestion has been made that the Ainu are affiliated with the Southeast Asian populations based on dental and craniometric traits (Turner, 1987; Hanihara, 1992), our nonmetric studies have not yet indicated any population who resembles the Ainu, other than the Jomon (Dodo, 1994). The Sakhalin Ainu are situated intermediate between the Hokkaido Ainu and the Siberian Mongoloids, thus suggesting that the Sakhalin Ainu had intermarried with the northern Mongoloids, including the Amur peoples, while the Hokkaido and Sakhalin Ainu are basically derived from the same stock (Kodama, 1970; Ishida and Kida, 1991). The result of the nonmetric cranial analysis fairly coincided with that of the craniometric study (Ishida and Dodo, 1995). However, the Northern Chinese were shown to be isolated from the Siberians by the metric study, while they showed close affinities with the Central Asian group peoples in terms of nonmetric cranial traits. In addition, the nonmetric studies showed an isolation of the Yukagir (Ossenberg, 1986; Kozintsev, 1992), which was not clear in the craniometric analyses (Ishida and Dodo, 1995). These contradictions may spring from different genetic and functional bases for craniometry and nonmetric cranial variations. Further research into relationships between morphology and genetics will be necessary for refining our understanding of the morphological variations.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS For their permission to study cranial materials under their care, I wish to thank NonmetricCranial Variation of NortheastAsians 399 the late Academician V. P. Alekseev, the Institute of Archaeology, Moscow; Dr. T.I. Alekseeva, the Moscow State University, Moscow; Drs. I.I. Gokhman and A.G. Kozintsev, the Institute of Ethnography-St. Petersburg Branch, St. Petersburg; Drs. A.P. Derevyanko and T. A. Chikisheva, the Institute of Ethnography and Archae ology,Novosibirsk; Dr. G. I. Medbedev, Irkutsk State University, Irkutsk; Drs. D. H. Ubelaker and D.R. Hunt, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C.; Drs. B. Endo and T. Akazawa, University of Tokyo; and Drs. H. Ishida and K. Katayama, Kyoto University. Dr. L.W. Konigsberg of University of the Tennessee kindly supplied the program for calculating the biological distances. I am also grateful to Drs. T. Kikuchi of Hokkaido University and Y. Mizoguchi of the National Science Museum, Tokyo for valuable suggestions. This study was supported in part by a Grant-in-aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (Nos. 06610374, 07640954), and a Japan Fellowship for Research in the Soviet Union from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

REFERENCES Alekseev,V.P. (1964a)The craniologyof the Asiatic Eskimo.Arctic Anthropol.2, 120-125. Alekseev,V.P. (1964b) The craniologyof the Oroch. Arctic Anthropol.2, 126-134. Alekseev,V.P. (1979)Anthropometry of Siberianpeoples. In TheFirst Americans:Origins, Affinities and Adaptations(Laughlin, W., and Harper,A., ed.), Gustav Fischer, New York,pp. 57-90. Alekseev,V.P. (1980) The materials for craniologyof the Mo-ho. In Paleoanthropologyof Siberia (Okladnikov,A.P., and Alekseev, V.P., ed.), Nauka, Moscow,pp. 106-130. (In Russian) Alekseev,V.P., and Gokhman, I.I.(1983) Physicalanthropology of SovietAsia. In Rassengeschichte der Menschheit9. Asien II: Sowjet-Asien(Schwidetzky, I., ed.), OldenbourgVerlag, Munchen, pp. 7-166. Alekseev, V.P., and Trubnikova,O.B. (1984) Some Problems of Taxonomyand Genealogyof the Asiatic Mongoloids(Craniometry), Nauka, Novosibirsk.(In Russian) Black, L. (1979) Notes on Yukagir linguisticsand method of text transcription.Arctic Anthropol. 16, 179-186. Debets, G.F. (1951) Anthropologicalstudies in the Kamchatkaregion. Trudy. Inst. Ethnogr. n.s. 17, 1-263. (In Russian) Debets, G.F. (1975) Paleoanthropologicalmaterials from ancient Bering Sea graves in Uelen and Ekven.In Problems of EthnologicalHistory in Bering Sea (Arutyunov,S.A., and Sergeev,A.G., ed.), Nauka, Moscow, pp. 198-240. (In Russian) Derevyanko,E.I. (1975) Mo-hoMaterials from the MiddleAmur, Nauka, Novosibirsk.(In Russian) Dodo, Y. (1974)Non-metrical cranial traits in the HokkaidoAinu and the northernJapanese of recent times. J. Anthrop. Soc. Nippon 82, 31-51. Dodo, Y. (1986) A populationstudy of the jugular foramenbridging of the human cranium.Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.69, 15-19. Dodo, Y. (1994) The origin of Japanese: A nonmetriccranial approach.J. Clin. Exptl.Med. 169, 886-888. (In Japanese) Dodo,Y., and Ishida,H. (1990)Population history of Japan as viewedfrom cranial nonmetric variation. J. Anthrop. Soc. Nippon 98, 269-287. 400 H. ISHIDA

Dodo, Y., and Ishida, H. (1992) Consistency of nonmetric cranial trait expression during the last 2,000 years in the habitants of the central islands of Japan. J. Anthrop. Soc. Nippon 100, 417-423. Haeussler, A.M., and Turner, C.G., II (1992) The dentition of Soviet Central Asians and the quest for New World ancestors. J. Hum. Ecol. 2 (Special Issue), 273-297. Hanihara, T. (1992) Dental and cranial affinities among populations of East Asia and the Pacific: The basic population in East Asia, IV. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 88, 163-182. Hrdlicka, A. (1942) Crania of Siberia. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 29, 435-481. Ishida, H. (1988) Morphological studies of Okhotsk crania from Omisaki, Hokkaido. J. Anthrop. Soc. Nippon 96, 17-45. Ishida, H. (1990) Cranial morphology of several ethnic groups from the Amur basin and Sakhalin. J. Anthrop. Soc. Nippon 98, 137-148. Ishida, H. (1993) Populational affinities of the Peruvian with Siberians and North Americans: A nonmetric cranial approach. Anthropol. Sci. 101, 47-63. Ishida, H., and Kida, M. (1991) An anthropological investigation of the Sakhalin Ainu with special reference to nonmetric cranial traits. J. Anthrop. Soc. Nippon 98, 403-409. Ishida, H., and Dodo, Y. (1992) Differentiation of the northern Mongoloid: The evidence of cranial nonmetric traits. In Japan in the World IV: Japanese as a Member of the Asian and Pacific Populations (Hanihara, K., ed.), International Research Center for Japanese Studies Press, Kyoto, pp. 79-94. Ishida, H., and Dodo, Y. (1995) Cranial morphology of the Siberians and East Asians. In Prehistoric Mongoloid Dispersals (Akazawa, T., and Szathmary, E.J.E., ed.), Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, pp. 113-124. Ishida, H., and Kojima, M. (n.d.) Cranial morphology on the Northeast Asian populations: A nonmetric cranial approach. In Proceedings of the International Symposium "The Horizons of Anthropology," Moscow. (in press) Kikuchi, T. (1978) The origin of the Okhotsk culture and its correlation with cultures on neighbour regions. Bulletin of the Institute for the Study of North Eurasian Cultures Hokkaido University 12, 39-74. (In Japanese with English summary) Kiyono, K. (1949) Japanese Ethnogeny Based on the Study of Human Skeletal Remains, Iwanami shoten,Tokyo. (In Japanese) Kodama, S. (1970) Ainu: Historical and Anthropological Studies, Hokkaido University School of Medicine, Sapporo. Koganei, Y. (1893) Beitrage zur physischen Anthropologie der Aino. I. Untersuchungen am Skelet. Mittheil, med. Fak. Univ. Tokyo 2, 1-249. Konigsberg, L.W. (1990) Analysis of prehistoric biological variation under a model of isolation by geographic and temporal distance. Hum. Biol. 62, 49-70. Kozintsev, A.G. (1977) Anthropological Component and the Origin of People of the Tagar Culture, Nauka, Leningrad. (In Russian) Kozintsev, A.G. (1980) Discrete traits on the crania of the Bronze Age from the South Siberia. In The Investigations on the Paleoanthropology and Craniology in the USSR (Gokhman I.I., ed.), Bulletin of Museum of the Anthropology and Ethnography, 36, Nauka, Leningrad, pp. 75-99. (In Russian) Kozintsev, A.G. (1988) Ethnic Cranioscopy, Nauka, Leningrad. (In Russian) Kozintsev, A.G. (1990) Ainu, Japanese, their ancestors and neighbours: Cranioscopic data. J. Anthrop. Soc. Nippon 98, 247-267. Kozintsev, A.G. (1992) Prehistoric and recent populations of Japan: Multivariate analysis of cranioscopic data. Arctic Anthropol. 29, 104-111. Nonmetric Cranial Variation of Northeast Asians 401

Kozintsev, A.G. (1993) Ethnic epigenetics: A new approach. Homo 43, 213-244. Laughlin, W.S., Okladnikov, A.P., Derevyanko, A.P., Harper, A.B., and Atseev, I.V. (1976) Early Siberians from Lake Baikal and Alaskan population affinities. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 45, 651-660. Ossenberg, N.S. (1986) Isolate conservatism and hybridization in the population history of Japan: The evidence of nonmetric cranial traits. In Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers in Japan (Akazawa, T., and Aikens, C.M., ed.), Univ. of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, pp. 199-215. Rychikov, Yu. G., and Movsesyan, A.A. (1972) A genetical-anthropological analysis on the distribution of cranial anomalies in the Mongoloids of Siberia in connection with the problem of their origin. Transactions of the Moscow Society of Naturalists 43, 114-132. (In Russian with English summary) Saitou, N., and Nei, M. (1987) The neighbor joining method: A new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 4, 406-425. Sneath, P.H.A., and Sokal, R.R. (1973) Numerical Taxonomy, W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco. Sjovold, T. (1973) The occurrence of minor non-metrical variants in the skeleton and their quantitative treatment for population comparisons. Homo 24, 204-233. Tomtosova, L.F. (1974) Craniological type of Yakuts: Comparative analysis. Vopr. Anthropol. 46, 94-101. (In Russian with English title) Trofimova, T.A. (1932) On the Ainu question. Anthropol. J. 2, 89-104. (In Russian) Turner, C.G., II (1987) Late Pleistocene and Holocene population history of East Asia based on dental variation. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 73, 305-321. Yamaguchi, B. (1967) A Comparative Osteological Study of the Ainu and the Australian Aborigines, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra. Yamaguchi, B. (1973) Facial flatness measurements of the Ainu and Japanese crania. Bull. Natn. Sci. Mus. Tokyo 16, 161-171. Yamaguchi, B. (1974) Paleoanthropology in Hokkaido. The Quaternary Research 12, 257-264. (In Japanese) Yamaguchi, B. (1982) A review of the osteological characteristics of the Jomon population in prehistoric Japan. J. Anthrop. Soc. Nippon 90 (Suppl.), 77-90.