296
K. Ornata
However, there is an interesting fossil specimen, which may hint that an alternative migration could have existed. It is the occipital part of a skull found in 1962
in Hijiridake Cave of Oita Prefecture, Kyushu, accompanied with obsidian blade
tools of the Upper Paleolithic type. According to the late Prof. T. Ogata, who investigated this specimen, it shows some morphological similarities to those of the
Upper Cave (Ogata 1981). Although future studies are needed to confirm this, an
alternative route other than that from south-eastern Asia to Japan, namely that
from north-eastern China to western Japan, seems not to be excluded at present, as
indicated in Fig. 6.
An important proponent of Hanihara's model is Christy Turner, who found a
dichotomy of south-eastern and north-eastern populations on the basis of a complex of dental features. He distinguishes "sundadonty" for south-eastern Asia and
"sinodonty" for north-eastern Asia. Moreover, he considers that the former is morphologically more generalized than the latter, suggesting that south-eastern Asia is
the homeland of the entire "Mongoloid" populations (Turner 1987; 1995). As for
the Japanese populations, the Hondo-Japanese show sinodonty, while the Jomonese
and Ainu both show sundadonty, supporting Hanihara's model (Turner 1995).
3 The Origins of the So-Called Mongoloid
Populations
The human populations of eastern Asia and the Pacific, as well as the Americas,
have been considered to .. ave the same descent and were referred to as "Mongoloid" for a long time. The phenotypic characters such as straight hair, yellowish
skin color and a relatively flat face with wide cheek bones are considered to be
common among these populations. Although it is well known that the northern
(e.g. Siberian) and the southern (e.g. Malay) groups of "Mongoloids" show an
extensive physical difference, the popular view in anthropology until recently was
that these groups have a monophyletic origin in south-eastern Asia. I have classified two major views concerning the origins of the "Mongoloid" (Omoto 1995).
The classic view was that the "Mongoloid" emerged in north-eastern Asia and
expanded to the south to mix with the "Australoid", a different racial group of
southern Asia and Oceania (Model 1). The second, and more popular view is that
the "Mongoloid" originated in south-eastern Asia and from there it dispersed in
northern Asia, the Americas, and Oceania (Model 2).
In order to ascertain the magnitude of genetic diversity among the "Mongoloid"
populations and to examine the views concerning their origins, I have carried out
genetic distance analyses among 18 populations from eastern Asia, the Pacific and
the Americas along with 6 popUlations from Africa and Europe (Omoto 1995). The
modified Cavalli-Sforza's distance based on the data of 20 classic genetic markers
was used to construct the NJ tree. It was found that the genetic diversities among
the Asian, Pacific and native American populations are so extensive that the classic
racial term of Mongoloid may seem genetically untenable.
K. Ornata
However, there is an interesting fossil specimen, which may hint that an alternative migration could have existed. It is the occipital part of a skull found in 1962
in Hijiridake Cave of Oita Prefecture, Kyushu, accompanied with obsidian blade
tools of the Upper Paleolithic type. According to the late Prof. T. Ogata, who investigated this specimen, it shows some morphological similarities to those of the
Upper Cave (Ogata 1981). Although future studies are needed to confirm this, an
alternative route other than that from south-eastern Asia to Japan, namely that
from north-eastern China to western Japan, seems not to be excluded at present, as
indicated in Fig. 6.
An important proponent of Hanihara's model is Christy Turner, who found a
dichotomy of south-eastern and north-eastern populations on the basis of a complex of dental features. He distinguishes "sundadonty" for south-eastern Asia and
"sinodonty" for north-eastern Asia. Moreover, he considers that the former is morphologically more generalized than the latter, suggesting that south-eastern Asia is
the homeland of the entire "Mongoloid" populations (Turner 1987; 1995). As for
the Japanese populations, the Hondo-Japanese show sinodonty, while the Jomonese
and Ainu both show sundadonty, supporting Hanihara's model (Turner 1995).
3 The Origins of the So-Called Mongoloid
Populations
The human populations of eastern Asia and the Pacific, as well as the Americas,
have been considered to .. ave the same descent and were referred to as "Mongoloid" for a long time. The phenotypic characters such as straight hair, yellowish
skin color and a relatively flat face with wide cheek bones are considered to be
common among these populations. Although it is well known that the northern
(e.g. Siberian) and the southern (e.g. Malay) groups of "Mongoloids" show an
extensive physical difference, the popular view in anthropology until recently was
that these groups have a monophyletic origin in south-eastern Asia. I have classified two major views concerning the origins of the "Mongoloid" (Omoto 1995).
The classic view was that the "Mongoloid" emerged in north-eastern Asia and
expanded to the south to mix with the "Australoid", a different racial group of
southern Asia and Oceania (Model 1). The second, and more popular view is that
the "Mongoloid" originated in south-eastern Asia and from there it dispersed in
northern Asia, the Americas, and Oceania (Model 2).
In order to ascertain the magnitude of genetic diversity among the "Mongoloid"
populations and to examine the views concerning their origins, I have carried out
genetic distance analyses among 18 populations from eastern Asia, the Pacific and
the Americas along with 6 popUlations from Africa and Europe (Omoto 1995). The
modified Cavalli-Sforza's distance based on the data of 20 classic genetic markers
was used to construct the NJ tree. It was found that the genetic diversities among
the Asian, Pacific and native American populations are so extensive that the classic
racial term of Mongoloid may seem genetically untenable.