298
K. Omoto
there were at least two sources in eastern Asia for human diffusion since the Late
Pleistocene Times, ca. 30000-50000 years BP, one in north-eastern Asia and the
other in the south-east (Fig. 7). The model is consistent with the "Out-of Africa"
model of the origin and dispersal of modern humans (Cann et al. 1987).
It is considered that when the ancestors of modern humans in eastern Asia
migrated from western Asia since about 100000 years BP, there have been at least
two geographically possible routes: north or south of the Great Himalayas. It seems
illogical to consider that only the southern route was possible, as the proponents of
Model 2 do. The occurrence of the Upper Paleolithic stone tools in north-eastern
Asia, showing affinities to western Siberia and Central Asia, seems to support Model
3 (Kimura 1993). The Upper Cave skeletal remains discussed above represent an
important clue for the presence of the Upper Paleolithic peoples in north-eastern
Asia prior to the population expansion of the Neolithic peoples who had typically
flat faces, probably due to adaptation to extreme coldness.
As mentioned above, future studies including the "DNA palaeo-anthropology"
will shed light on the whole question of the origins and dispersal of modern humans in eastern Asia, the Pacific and the Americas. Since the 1960's we have had
two distinct methods for human evolutionary studies, namely morphological and
molecular. Morphological studies of fossil material give us invaluable information
about phenotypes, or the "individuals", such as size and physical appearance, ways
of life, diseases, etc., in addition to the age and the ecological conditions of the
habitat.
However, we cannot rely upon the phenotypes conclusively for delineating our
origins and dispersal, since there are factors such as non-genetic individual variation of age and sex, effects of growth, nutrition and other habits, convergence or
adaptive parallelism, and so on. On the other hand, molecular studies of DNA are
far more decisive for phylogenetic information on origins and migrations, while
they do not tell us about the individual phenotypes. We should use both of these
methods, which are equally important and considered to be like the two wheels of
anthropology, in order to understand the problems of the origins, adaptation and
variation of humans.
Acknowledgements
During my studies I have had the invaluable cooperation of a number of colleagues.
I wish to mention here just two, namely Professor Shogo Misawa, University of
Tsukuba, who has joined most of my field work to obtain blood samples and provided me with his blood group data; and Dr. Naruya Saitou, National Institute of
Genetics, who has helped me with recent statistical analyses. I thank also Ms. Takako
Kimura and Mr. Tadahiko Fukumine for their assistance in preparing this manuscript. Most of my field and laboratory studies have been supported by Grants-inAid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and
Culture.
K. Omoto
there were at least two sources in eastern Asia for human diffusion since the Late
Pleistocene Times, ca. 30000-50000 years BP, one in north-eastern Asia and the
other in the south-east (Fig. 7). The model is consistent with the "Out-of Africa"
model of the origin and dispersal of modern humans (Cann et al. 1987).
It is considered that when the ancestors of modern humans in eastern Asia
migrated from western Asia since about 100000 years BP, there have been at least
two geographically possible routes: north or south of the Great Himalayas. It seems
illogical to consider that only the southern route was possible, as the proponents of
Model 2 do. The occurrence of the Upper Paleolithic stone tools in north-eastern
Asia, showing affinities to western Siberia and Central Asia, seems to support Model
3 (Kimura 1993). The Upper Cave skeletal remains discussed above represent an
important clue for the presence of the Upper Paleolithic peoples in north-eastern
Asia prior to the population expansion of the Neolithic peoples who had typically
flat faces, probably due to adaptation to extreme coldness.
As mentioned above, future studies including the "DNA palaeo-anthropology"
will shed light on the whole question of the origins and dispersal of modern humans in eastern Asia, the Pacific and the Americas. Since the 1960's we have had
two distinct methods for human evolutionary studies, namely morphological and
molecular. Morphological studies of fossil material give us invaluable information
about phenotypes, or the "individuals", such as size and physical appearance, ways
of life, diseases, etc., in addition to the age and the ecological conditions of the
habitat.
However, we cannot rely upon the phenotypes conclusively for delineating our
origins and dispersal, since there are factors such as non-genetic individual variation of age and sex, effects of growth, nutrition and other habits, convergence or
adaptive parallelism, and so on. On the other hand, molecular studies of DNA are
far more decisive for phylogenetic information on origins and migrations, while
they do not tell us about the individual phenotypes. We should use both of these
methods, which are equally important and considered to be like the two wheels of
anthropology, in order to understand the problems of the origins, adaptation and
variation of humans.
Acknowledgements
During my studies I have had the invaluable cooperation of a number of colleagues.
I wish to mention here just two, namely Professor Shogo Misawa, University of
Tsukuba, who has joined most of my field work to obtain blood samples and provided me with his blood group data; and Dr. Naruya Saitou, National Institute of
Genetics, who has helped me with recent statistical analyses. I thank also Ms. Takako
Kimura and Mr. Tadahiko Fukumine for their assistance in preparing this manuscript. Most of my field and laboratory studies have been supported by Grants-inAid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and
Culture.